Recently some people have become emboldened to say they think multiculturalism hasn’t worked and that it was a bad idea in the first place. They don’t however claim that multiculturalism is the same as multi-racialism. The former it now turns out is bad while the latter is still good. You can be against multiculturalism with a clear conscience because multiculturalism prevents people from really integrating and makes it more difficult for the ‘melting pot’ to be brought about. Yet only racists are against multi-racialism. The fact that in practice multiculturalism and multi-racialism are pretty much the same is glossed over.
I’m not sure how I feel about this. If someone shares my conservative views on crime, punishment, education, manners and so on then I don’t care where they come from. At the same time I don’t want so many people from other races and ethnic groups coming to my country that they swamp my own native group. I don’t think it’s fair for any native population to be subjected to invasion from other peoples. It happened in the past and it that’s a shame but what’s done is done. And realistically, primitive cultures who live in relatively small settlements can’t hope to keep whole continents to themselves forever.
If the Native Americans or Australian Aborigines could have kept Europeans at arms length then they would have done, but they couldn’t. We on the other hand are more than capable of keeping the relatively primitive cultures of the teeming Third World at bay yet we have chosen not to do so. Or rather, our leaders have chosen not to.
But just to reiterate, I would much rather live in a street populated almost wholly by Hindus, Sikhs and anyone else that shares my views than have to share the same space as Russell Brand, halo-polishing Guardian-readers or British thugs like the wazzocks below:
Social scientists tell us that the more diverse a society becomes, the less social capital it has. I don’t know if this means diversity of cultures, diversity of race, or both. Maybe it’s the case that all diversity, including a diversity of political orientation, leads to less social capital, in which case even diversity of opinion is not the unqualified good it is often made out to be.
While probably not as rancorous as the divide between blacks and whites in America or between Sunni and Shia in the Middle East or between Muslims and Jews, the divide between the progressive left and conservatives is poisonous enough. I have to say I believe this comes in large measure from leftists portraying conservatives as not only misguided but malicious. Conservatives generally think leftists are guilty only of thinking with their hearts rather than their heads. The vituperation tends to be all in one direction, from left to right. So while some people bang on about the benefits of being exposed to different points of view and I agree with it in theory, in practice I remain unconvinced that living alongside people you radically disagree with is beneficial for you. I suspect it makes you an angry person, especially when you are forced to live by the other’s rules.
If it is bad for conservatives to have to live under a progressive liberal leader and vice versa then it might be better for these two factions to live separately. Then leftists could have their Obamas and Clintons and conservatives could have their Reagans and Trumps and everyone would be happy. This would mean splitting America along political lines, roughly those represented by the red and blue states shown in the picture above. People would move to the half that suited them best. One half would be filled with white and Jewish liberals, as well as most blacks, Hispanics and any other group that enjoys generous welfare programs and transfers of wealth to make society more equal (though not necessarily more fair). This half of America could open its borders to all-comers and have as many welfare and Affirmative Action programs as it liked.
The other half of America would be filled with hateful conservative whites, some Asians and a few high achieving blacks and Hispanics who don’t share the psychology of victimhood of their fellow blacks and Hispanics. Most of these people are sick to the back teeth of the dysfunctional families and high crime rate that liberal policies encourage, especially among poor blacks. They are sick of supporting endless welfare programs and of being passed over for jobs and university places in favour of ethnic groups on Affirmative Action programs.
Both halves of the USA could do away with voting since the two countries would always be run by the same party: by the Democrats in the blue states and the Republicans in the red. Any citizen who had a political change of heart would be allowed to move to the country next door, providing the receiving country agreed. There would be no obligation to take anyone with a criminal record. Every 25 years or so the borders could be redrawn to accommodate the numbers of people flowing from one country to the other.
I realise, of course, that none of this is practical. People simply can’t move house, change jobs and move away from their family and friends because of their political views. A more workable alternative would be to let people stay in their present houses and give them more individual choice. For example, everyone could fill in a questionnaire with questions like:
Would you like to financially support single mothers?
a) Yes please.
b) No thanks.
Those ticking ‘Yes please’ would pay more tax.
Would you like an open borders immigration policy?
Immigrants would be housed next door to those ticking, ‘Yes please’.
Would you be willing to give up your child’s place at college to an ethnic student with lower grades, thereby helping to close the gap in racial inequality?
People ticking ‘Yes please’ would thereby sacrifice their child’s place at college, and so on.