Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - The Lie at the Heart of Multiculturalism

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 7, 2025 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

09:48

The Lie at the Heart of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is a false doctrine.

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	We are told repeatedly that we are a multicultural society and that this is supposed to be able to work, but it's in fact a dangerous illusion that will cause the inevitable balkanisation of our countries into separate warring tribes.
	The problem is the lie at the heart of the concept of multiculturalism which prevents any such thing from actually coming into being, and that is the idea that different and conflicting cultures can live harmoniously side by side and maintain their own cultural distinctiveness, traditions, and most importantly, sense of justice, in the face of an ethnically neutral leviathan, which rules over them all.
	The liberal international order labours under the delusion that its rules are neutral, universal, and compatible with every culture.
	However, this is clearly not the case.
	Liberalism itself is, as Michael Oakshot observed, merely the abridgment of the English political tradition, abstracted into a doctrine which then becomes a self-justifying ideology that can be applied in any place and at any time.
	Any ideology is a set of ontological statements from which propositional political demands can be derived, and these are rooted in the values of the people from which the ideology originates.
	When an ideology is repeated back to the people from which it originated, it acts as a kind of reflecting mirror, showing them the best of what they already believe to be true.
	They already possess the necessary beliefs and institutions to fulfil the demands of the ideology.
	However, when it is applied to foreign people, it shows them idealized versions of things which are not true about themselves, and demands that they ought to be.
	This is often devastating and causes utter chaos and great bloodshed as the established classes and institutions of the foreign society are rendered immoral and then liquidated by revolutionaries, chasing the vision of what the reflecting mirror showed them.
	As with all ideology, liberalism's ethnically particular origins are masked by its abstract nature and its claims to universality and neutrality are in fact particular and value-laden with a series of presuppositions that we, the English-speaking world, fail to interrogate because we live within the political tradition that is being reflected back at us.
	The ideology tells us that we are indeed the fairest in the land, and what we take for granted we then assume to be characteristic of the entire human race, and this is simply not true.
	The liberal multiculturalist assumes that there is a set of values, coincidentally their own values, by which the entire human race could consent to live, and therefore sees no contradiction in bringing all of the peoples of the world to live under the liberal leviathan and assumes that they will do so in peace.
	However, as we have seen, this doesn't seem to be the case, and even some of the most arch-liberal proponents of multiculturalism have admitted that the project has failed.
	We can look at the concept of multiculturalism as a form of extreme cultural vanity, in which a people have become so possessed of their own moral righteousness that they delude themselves into thinking that their way of life is the only way of life, and even just the mere exposure of it to foreign peoples will persuade them to become like us, instead of persisting in the false consciousness of their old ways.
	Again, we can now see the folly of such self-aggrandizement.
	I think the issue stems fundamentally from the concept of justice.
	There are of course many competing conceptions of justice which I'm not going to explore here, but for the purpose of this video, I'm going to use Aristotle's definition, which can be broadly summarised as people getting what they are due.
	Justice to Aristotle is when a person's deserts morally align with the character of their actions, and this is, in my opinion, the best definition of justice, and how we can measure a just society.
	Moreover, I think it's the definition most people assume when they consider what justice actually is or is not.
	But we can already see how this presupposes a shared moral framework to come to the conclusion that people are receiving the consequences that they ought, and therefore we conclude that our society itself is just.
	If a group of people hold different moral foundations, which leads them inevitably to moral conclusions which differ from our own, then they can come to feel that the society in which they live is not just unpleasant, but instead morally abominable to an extreme degree.
	And I think this is the fundamental root of terrorism, and explains why, for example, Islamic extremists who hold to a strict Quranic reading suddenly decide that they have to strike out at Western society and with such brutality.
	Not only is the society there surrounded by un-Islamic, but it is monstrous according to the moral code in which they believe and they are duty bound to try and destroy it.
	And so we come to the crux of the lie of multiculturalism, in that an assumed set of liberal universal values can be applied to all people revolving around the fulcrum of human rights.
	This is a Western prejudice.
	We have seen that many other groups simply do not believe in the liberal ontology regarding the individual and in fact derive a separate and contradictory set of assumptions from entirely alien traditions which leads them to very different moral conclusions.
	So what can the multicultural state do?
	What must they do?
	If the Leviathan is to be non-particular about the people from which it has emerged and is composed of, then it must begin with its conceit of universality and attempt not to play favourites, but in doing so it is compelled to reinforce the original doctrine that itself is the source of the problem, and this itself undermines the premise upon which multiculturalism rests.
	The liberal multiculturalist has no choice but to assert their universal doctrine of human rights in the face of these competing moral frameworks and impose them upon the apparently equal groups in the multicultural society and they have to use the power of the Leviathan to do it and they have to do it against the doctrines of the group from which the values conflict has arisen.
	However, in doing so, they confess that their project can never really be multicultural at all.
	It is not possible to allow conflicting moral systems to persist without issue in the same polity, which is why they have to impose their ideology on the foreign groups, making them not equals, but subject peoples to an ideology which itself springs from the dominant ethnic group.
	One culture must dominate over the others and impose its will in a classic imperial fashion, or the entire project ends in ruin, which itself destroys the fundamental conceit of multiculturalism.
	The only possible multicultural state is an empire.
	It is also not unreasonable to think that the minority communities, which are the prized jewels of our multicultural project, and used by its advocates against the majority ethnic community, will feel that they are not only in danger from the majority community, but are also wards of a state that is currently constraining it.
	They are told that they may live lives authentic to the traditions from which they came, whilst at the same time being hemmed in by the very same power that is encouraging them to be traditional.
	This contradiction naturally leads to ethnic separatism, in which they correctly realize that self-governance would be preferable because at least it would be on their own terms.
	Only by having people from their own community and bursting the bonds of the liberal leviathan can, from their perspective, the promise of multiculturalism be fulfilled, which destroys the unitary multicultural state and creates ethnic insurrections against the host country.
	Anything else is, from their perspective, a state of injustice, which may be temporarily tolerated at best and openly revolted against at worst, and dealing with ethnic revolts against the hegemonic power of the overgroup, is historically just part and parcel of running an empire.
	The liberal state, which intends to practice multiculturalism, is forced to admit that its own origin and theory is in fact parochial and committed to an ethnic ideological framework, which is just the reflected vanity of the moral righteousness of the people from whom it originated.
	There is no such thing as human rights.

▲