Why Multiculturalism is Regressive

The other night I saw a trailer on TV for the new Robo Cop movie. “Meet the Future,” said the accompanying caption. And, if the trailer is to be believed, the future will be a high-tech world where police don futuristic armor and ride futuristic motorcycles.

The idea that the future will be like nothing we’ve ever experienced before is a staple of science fiction. But here in the non-fiction world, it’s beginning to look like “meet the past” is the more likely scenario for our future.

In large swaths of the world, the past has already arrived. Take the recent interview on Egyptian TV in which a thoughtful, bespectacled white-bearded cleric explains the proper way to beat your wife. According to the cleric, who looks for all the world like a wizard from the set of The Lord of the Rings, there is a “beating etiquette”: “don’t break her teeth, don’t poke her in the eye” and “no more than ten times” (whether daily, weekly, or monthly is not specified).

Along with “proper” wife-beating, polio and pirates are also making a comeback. Polio is reappearing because the health workers in Pakistan and Nigeria who administer the vaccine are being killed off by strict constructionists of sharia who believe that vaccinations are un-Islamic (or else, an American plot to sterilize Muslim children). This is not simply a Third World problem. In Scotland last year, a very large-scale public vaccination campaign was shut down following complaints from Muslim families.

Piracy, which most of us had assumed was safely confined to Davy Jones Locker, has also resurfaced. If you live near the coast of Somalia, it’s a profitable way to make a living, or was, anyway, until the shipping companies began to institute stringent anti-piracy measures. In the heyday of Somali piracy (that is to say, about two years ago), the pirates were capturing cargo ships and oil tankers of a size which would have made Blackbeard turn green with envy.

More ominous signs of the past’s re-emergence are everywhere. According to numerous reports, the World Cup stadium in Qatar and its surrounding infrastructure is being built by what amounts to slave labor. Nine hundred migrant laborers have already died from being forced to work in the 122° heat. Meanwhile, stories of sex slavery have become a feature of the daily news. Again, this is not just a Third World phenomenon. A recent comprehensive study in the UK reveals that Muslim gangs have been sexually exploiting British children on a large scale for more than two decades. By one estimate, at least 10,000 girls, most of them between eleven and sixteen, are kept as virtual sex slaves at any one time.

Stoning for adultery? Amputation for theft? Death for apostasy? All these supposed relics of the past have arisen from their graves like Dracula at twilight. Perhaps the most disturbing intrusion of the past into the present is the revival of decapitation. After taking the city of Mosul, ISIS fighters proceeded to behead captured soldiers and policemen on a mass scale. And the Internet, the most iconic modern invention, now carries photos of Islamic warriors posing with their severed-head trophies.

What does the future look like? Unfortunately, it’s beginning to look like the distant past. The question then arises—how did we let ourselves get blindsided by the past?

The answer, paradoxically, is that the return of the worst features of the past has been made possible by so-called forward-looking people—the ones who think that every new idea is ipso facto a neat idea. These would include all those who think that relativism and multiculturalism (which is really just a variation of relativism) are advanced forms of thinking. But, in fact, these “latest” ways of viewing the world have opened the door to the return of the scary past. They guarantee the return of the primitive precisely because they disallow any distinction between the primitive and the civilized. If you take the multicultural premise to heart, then you can’t really make any judgments about the rightness or wrongness of any behavior, provided it has cultural support. Polygamy? Child brides? Honor killing? They’re just cultural variations. Besides, with our record of imperialism, slavery, and sexism, who are we to say?

The French have a proverb: “to understand all is to forgive all.” But in our attempts to understand and accept all points of view, we are in danger of forgetting all—that is, all the very good reasons for which our culture has rejected those variations. Not to put too fine a point on it, some traditions deserve to be relegated to the past.

The trouble with trying to understand other cultures is that we often try to understand them from a narrow “modern” perspective that arose in the sixties and seventies. This perspective is materialistic, ahistorical, and therapeutic in outlook. It prizes relativism, diversity, and tolerance and, although it retains a certain vague spirituality, it is essentially secular. From this viewpoint, religions are quaint traditions that are clung to for sentimental reasons, not driving cultural forces that mold and shape history.

The shortcomings of the “modern” view can be seen most clearly in regard to Islam. Islam, as you may have noticed, is the moving force behind many of the unpleasant protrusions of the past into the present. Yet our bien pensants have largely failed to understand it. Because they live mentally in a provincial secular time warp (the sixties and seventies) they are ill-equipped to understand religion—let alone a religion that is willing to wait centuries for what it wants.

Thus, we don’t take Islamists at their word when they talk about their desire to wage jihad for the sake of Allah. Nor do we take seriously their determination to conquer the world for Allah. Modern people don’t talk like that or think like that. Consequently, we tend to interpret their dissatisfaction in terms that are familiar to us. Whether it’s Boko Haram in Nigeria, al- Shabab in Somalia, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, we assume that their real motivation stems from poverty, oppression, or ignorance. Send them some foreign aid and some teachers and all will be well.

When we do listen to representatives of Islam, we only pay attention to those who are willing to confirm our pre-existing thought world. Islamic apologists who maintain that Islam is a religion of peace and justice and that violence has nothing to do with Islam are the ones who get a hearing, because what they say fits so comfortably into our established narrative.

That narrative is largely determined by fashion, not facts. It’s fashionable to think of the spirituality of Third World peoples as being somehow superior to that of Christians. It’s not fashionable to talk about Islamic supremacism, jihad, or the return of the caliphate. But, as events are now showing, these fashionable ideas are already dangerously out of date. It may have seemed funny a year or so ago to ridicule those who worried about sharia law or the reestablishment of the caliphate. It no longer seems quite so funny.

Islam is willing to wait for what it wants, but sometimes—as in the middle of the seventh century—it moves with surprising speed. This seems to be one of those times, and unless we quickly update our thinking, the times will overtake us. Because we prefer to live mentally in the near past, the worst aspects of the far past have arrived on our doorstep.

William Kilpatrick

By

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

  • Gian

    Much worse atavism was on display in the heart of Christendom in the mid-20C.

    I have always wondered whether the Wehrmacht had Catholic chaplains for the Catholic troops or not?

    • Augustus

      Your attempt to distance Islam from it’s “atavistic” characteristics mentioned in the article by comparing Christianity to Nazism is absurd. The practices of Islamic societies you call atavistic are intimately connected to it’s long-standing teachings and practices. Nazism, on the other hand, was condemned by the Church from the start. It is paganism, plain and simple. The rise of Nazism and Communism in the twentieth century disproves the cult of Progress but it does not justify multiculturalism or relativism. Quite the opposite. Multiculturalism argues that all cultures are equal and are worthy of respect. This cultural relativism, if anything, is discredited by the events of the twentieth century, just as it is shown to be false by what is happening in much of the Muslim world today. Furthermore, if you don’t know if there were Catholic chaplains in the German army then maybe you shouldn’t make charges based on ignorance. At least the German regular army didn’t cut off peoples’ heads like ISIS. (No chaplains were permitted in the pagan SS, though there were chaplains in the regular army: http://life.nationalpost.com/2011/11/06/military-chaplains-caught-between-word-of-god-and-horror-of-man/)

    • DE-173

      What you call Christendom was really an enterprise of statist idolatry.

    • fredx2

      On the contrary. Read the wikipedia article on “Hitlers Religion”. You will see that he comes closest to being a materialist. Which is very close to atheism, in his case with a dash of paganism thrown in.

      What we had during world war II was the countries that most rejected Christianity becoming monstrous. The Soviet Union – explicitly atheist. Germany – run by near atheists determined to either use or destroy Christianity. And in Japan, Shinto adherents, about as far from Christianity as you can get.

      It is true that individual Christians participated in the war for Germany. But you did not just ignore the Nazis when they came calling you up for service. If you did, you died and so did your family.

    • cestusdei

      I know about Catholics who died in the camps.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    “The past is not behind us but beneath us, and the ground we walk on is nothing more than a pit of bones, from which the grass unstinting grows.” – Olivia Laing, To the River

    • DE-173

      What you are, I was. What I am you will be.
      – Roman gravestone inscription.

      • ColdStanding

        Cast a cold eye on life, on death. Horseman, pass by.

        – W. B. Yeats

    • ColdStanding

      Here is St. Peter riffing on Isaiah:

      For all flesh is as grass; and all the glory thereof as the flower of grass. The grass is withered, and the flower thereof is fallen away.

    • newguy40

      “When we’re all gone at last then there’ll be nobody here but death and his days willbe numbered too. He’ll be out in the road there with nothing to do and nobody
      to do it to. He’ll say: where did everybody go? And that’s how it will be.
      What’s wrong with that?”
      – Cormac McCarthy, “The Road”

    • Objectivetruth

      “Very soon your life here will end; consider, then, what may be in store for you elsewhere. Today we live; tomorrow we die and are quickly forgotten. Oh, the dullness and hardness of a heart which looks only to the present instead of preparing for that which is to come!”

      – Thomas Kempis

  • Babai the Great

    Are you trying to suggest that the contemporary Judeo-Christian West is NOT guilty of afflicting the world with all manner of barbarisms? Give me a break.
    .
    The US in particular is currently the greatest purveyor of barbarous violence and exploitation on the planet – including upon the very Muslims whom you denounce in this article (most recently in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan).
    .
    The truth is that the Muslim world has very good reason to be angry at the West. This is not to say that they don’t have their own forms of barbarism. However, insofar as the West wishes to be authentically Christian, it has a cultural obligation to “take the beam out of its own eye before looking for the splinter in the Muslims’ eye.” That involves taking full responsibility for the role the West has historically played in oppressing and exploiting Muslim nations (principally over oil, secondarily over other types of selfish “national interests”).

    • asmondius

      Gee, guess what religion the people of current-day Iraq used to practice.

    • Rock St. Elvis

      When you have no argument, change the subject. Lard it up with exaggeration and outright fantasy, if you must.

    • DE-173

      “The truth is that the Muslim world has very good reason to be angry at the West.”

      Just ask Mohammed Atta, who prepared for his act of mass murder by frequenting strip clubs.

      You should migrate to the Islamic world. Soon, and I suggest you immerse yourself fully in Islamic polity. Try Pakistan or Iraq.

      • mollysdad

        Jews and Christians, and other non-Muslims, have every reason to be angry at the Muslims.

        • DE-173

          Well, I think we are in agreement.

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      The one thing that unites ALL people EVERYWHERE (including the many peoples you claim the U.S. is now “afflicting”) is their desire to come live in the U.S. Maybe their perspective on life is a little more accurate than yours.

      • droolbritannia

        Hang on, Dr Tim. I’ve taught in Poland for 22 years – college – and every year I have to go over the American notion that ‘all people everywhere desire to come and live in the US.’ This gets really puzzled looks from my students, the vast majority of whom have no particular desire to go to the US.

        Americans have your idea NOT because it’s true; NOT because they’ve actually done a survey of the billions of people on the planet and found that ALL of them EVERYWHERE want to come to the US. The reasons Americans tend to think that is because all Americans either personally came from somewhere else or they are descended from people who came from somewhere else. But even saying that, there are groups in America who did not go there willingly (they were taken as slaves, and are not necessarily so quick to assume that ALL people EVERYWHERE want to go to the US; or people whose ancestors ‘went over’ so long ago that they have no cultural memory of being anywhere else – Native Americans).

        The American perspective that ‘everyone wants to be an American’ is understandable: almost everyone you meet in the US either personally said or descends from someone who said, ‘Where I was born is not working out for me; in America, I can be/do/have/become whatever I want to be. So America is the better place to be.’

        But I’m part of a community of English-speakers in Poland, and we have members who also come from places where everyone or his ancestors said, ‘My place of birth is not working for me, and South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, or Canada is the place to be.’ And by the way, we have a family from South Africa, a family from India, and a couple who are American (wife) and Polish-raised-in-Germany (husband) all of whom have found the ‘promised land’ in Poland. I have met many people over the years from the US, England, France, Canada and Germany who have settled happily in Poland. Heck, I left the US with the idea of studying for my MA in England, did that and realized that I really feel more comfortable in a more deeply traditional, ‘monocultural’ society. I got a job in Poland, intending to stay only one year. But ‘man supposes and God disposes’ and here I am, 22 years later, with no intention or desire ever to go back to the US. I don’t reject it or have ‘issues’ with the US; I’m just very happy here. So count American expatriates among the ‘people everywhere’ who are not united in their desire to go and live in the US.

        Australians, European South Africans, New Zealanders and Canadians have just as much right to imagine that ‘All people EVERYWHERE’ desire to go and live in Australia, South Africa, New Zealand or Canada, since those are countries with a strong tradition of immigration.

        Your view is looking at the world through the wrong end of a very American telescope. Get out of the US and live in a foreign country for six months or a year and you’ll discover the BILLIONS of people who not only are perfectly happy and love their own countries and don’t want to leave them, but also plenty who think that America is a nasty, vulgar place or just ‘not their cup of tea.’

        You are quite wrong in thinking that ‘one thing that unites all people everywhere is their desire to [go] and live in the US.’ Most of the world has no interest in going to the US at all. Perhaps half a percent of my students over 22 years have wanted to live in the US (and the number declined rapidly the more Poland developed after the breakdown of the Soviet Union – it was a big dream in 1992, but virtually none of my students has any desire for more than a vacation in the US now). The reality is that most people are quite content at home, thank you very much, and have no interest in moving to any other country. The idea that ‘they all want to be Americans’ is a product of American provincialism (though it strikes foreigners as arrogance and presumption, which is why I’m at pains to explain it to my students every year: I want to help ameliorate some of the hatred of Americans and America that’s very common in Europe, though not so common in Poland).

        • guardian2samson

          Although, literally, Dr Tim exaggerates for literary effect, the fact that there is one person who wants to move to the USA for every two people already here (legally), your assertion that the “reality is that most people are quite content at home” although statistically accurate, grossly mischaracterizes the poll-tested reality that is hardly a triviality: “Gallup finds about 16% of the world’s adults would like to move to another country permanently if they had the chance”.
          See:
          “700 Million Worldwide: Desire to Migrate Permanently”
          U.S. tops desired destination countries — “165 million adults worldwide, name the United States as their desired future residence”
          http://www.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-Million-Worldwide-Desire-Migrate-Permanently.aspx

          “A revealing map of who wants to move to the U.S.”
          http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/03/22/a-revealing-map-of-who-wants-to-move-to-the-u-s/

        • guardian2samson

          Oh, and the “hatred of Americans and
          America that’s very common in Europe” is fiction (or perhaps fantasy).
          I’ve lived, worked, and travelled abroad quite extensively on several
          continents, the least of which certainly not Europe. Your regard for your own
          opinion smells of arrogance and presumption.

        • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

          Thank you, Mr. Drool, but I have lived a fair amount of time outside the US, and though my expression may contain some hyperbole, it is in fact true that of the world’s migrant population, those who can go towards the U.S. do so. And this is not simply a phenomenon among citizens of the third world. Are you aware that only 50% of the 2014 French college graduates have any chance of finding employment in France before their 30th birthday? Those who can go abroad do so in search of work, mostly in the EU where they have employment options. But anyone with an opportunity comes to America. Fortunately, most people in the world do not have the means to visit our shores, because we are already overwhelmed with immigrants from Central America, from the Middle East, from Africa… and yes, from Eastern Europe.

          • DE-173

            Our IT consultants are almost all H1B’s.

    • cestusdei

      I seem to remember that this started when they dove planes into buildings full of civilians…no wait it began when Muslims began invading their neighbors and imposing their religion which is something they still seem prone too. Oil had nothing to do with it.

    • Guest

      Blame America first club. Same old relativism.

    • Chris Cloutier

      I thought we paid for the oil we got from these nations. Didn’t our oil companies build their oil infrastructure, and then had it nationalized on them? So where is the oppression you speak of?

      • DE-173

        “So where is the oppression you speak of?”
        In every homicide bomber, honor killing and clitorectomy.

        • Chris Cloutier

          How is that oppression from us? That is what they choose to do. They choose to act like animals based on a distorted philosophy. I fail to see how that is oppression from us.

          • DE-173

            “How is that oppression from us? That is what they choose to do. They choose to act like animals based on a distorted philosophy. I fail to see how that is oppression from us.”

            Exactly.

    • mollysdad

      Isn’t there a strong probability that Western so-called “oppression” of Muslims might be God’s punishment of them for their false religion.

    • Phil Steinacker

      Statism (nazism, communism, socialism) has killed far more people than all religions lumped together.

      You are merely another pagan mangling scripture (and history) to serve your own ends.

      A troll peddling nothing but snark is a cypher.

  • Daniel P

    Mr. Kilpatrick,

    I have no idea why you attack “multiculturalism” in your essay, as opposed to “cultural relativism” or just “Islam”. Multiculturalism is not a belief, but a cluster of ways of thinking about things. Multiculturalism does not state that all value systems are equal; that’s cultural subjectivism. Multiculturalism just says that all sorts of cultures are unique in wonderful ways, and that an educated person ought to appreciate these ways. This is a very Christian view, as you can see by reading the New Testament.

    • Rock St. Elvis

      The author uses the term multiculturalism the same way that its champions do.

      • Daniel P

        What champions are you talking about? The concept of multiculturalism is most centrally discussed in the context of human rights law, which is a very complicated area of political philosophy. No human rights theorist I know of is a cultural subjectivist — indeed, the very notion of human rights denies cultural subjectivism, since human rights are universal.

        The primary question raised by multiculturalism is this: should individual cultures be protected from Western values? And the answer, obviously, is YES. For example, we are even now trying to protect Catholic culture from pervasive and immoral Western values.

        Multiculturalists, by and large, are our friends, not our enemies. Our enemies are those who say that the “Great Liberal Value System” should be imposed on all human beings.

        I long for the day when Christian authors will acquire at least enough actual knowledge about terms like “multiculturalism” to use them accurately.

        See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/multiculturalism/

        • Realist

          The libcult (multi-culti) premise is quite clear, and you non answer to you own primitive and retroactive cultural “judgments” on the west is also quite clear. To whit:

          You, as a westerner, must NOT have any opinion on the following “cultural” tenets of Is-lame or any other culture no matter how primitive or regressive-

          1) Wife Beating

          2) Slavery

          3) Child prostitution

          4) Beheadings

          5) Death for apostasy

          6) Piracy

          Ad nauseum.

          The libcultist premises and assumptions reside somewhere between the land of make-believe and heady land of malignant narcissism. The “modern” libcult central theme is that ALL cultures are equal, and therefore equally “valid” (more nonsensical blather), so any and all aspects of those cultures are worthy and acceptable. In other words, an “enlightened” westerner must worship ALL gods of all cultures in the modern libcult Pantheon, or they are committing sacrilege against libcultism, and that sacrilege is the only real evil in the modern western world.

          The unspoken (and unresolved) conflict the libcultists refuse to acknowledge is this:

          Libcultists judge western society and culture by the purely western doctrine of the libcult, and they demand that everyone in the western societies from which they originate accept (bow to) all other alien cultures and the practices of those cultures but this does NOT apply TO THEIR OWN NATIVE CULTURE! In other words, imiscible alien cultures imported into those western countries are not themselves bound by those same libcult proscriptions – Is-Lamists are not required to accept any other culture, religion or societal mores incumbent on the awful “:natives”. Why would this be the case? Any ideas?

          One of the things the libcultists will NEVER admit is the primitive and regressive nature of the imported alien cultures they demand their own western societies accept. Will Is-Lame or will Is-Lamists ever accept the native western cultures in which they find themselves after emigrating to a western country? Absolutely not. But do not expect any libcultist to ever acknowledge any of these incoherent and illogical flaws in these multi-tiered proscriptions required by their “perfect” doctrine.

          The true intent of these demanded proscriptions is POWER. The libcult narcissists have an insatiable hunger for POWER and the nonsensical libcult premises and proscriptions are designed to do one thing: Give the libcultists a plausible and deceptive rationale to aquire POWER in the name of their multi-culti “victims”. The multi-culti nonsense if but one more useful deception by libcultists in their pursuit of POWER, which for them is their raison d’etre.

          • Daniel P

            Perhaps my viewpoint is a strange one, since I work in analytic philosophy, where cultural relativism is seen as unintelligent and just awful. (And, mind you, most analytic philosophers are liberals — but they’re quite happy to impose their values on other people.) But the multiculturalists I know don’t think things like slavery or child prostitution are ever permissible. So when the author attacks “multiculturalism”, I think he’s found the wrong target.

            The right target is cultural relativism. Cultural relativism is evil.

            But of course, we can appreciate all sorts of cultures without appreciating the evils contained in them. I can celebrate the uniqueness of the French without agreeing with legalized gay marriage.

        • fredx2

          Multiculturalism, no matter what its academic definition, has become something else once it escaped into the real world.

        • Rock St. Elvis

          What fredx2 said. Whatever the original, correct definition, it has taken on a postmodern cast. Sort of like the term “social justice.” It means one thing properly understood, and quite another in the hands of statists. And the statists’ meaning is the more commonly understood one, even among Catholics, sadly.

          • Daniel P

            Perhaps. But postmodernism, you see, is very much out of fashion in the university culture. Postmoderns are like social justice Catholics — a dying breed. The really vibrant part of liberalism does not believe in cultural relativism; it believes in cultural imperialism. It believes that all these backward Christians and have their “come to Jesus” moments and accept gay marriage and the like.

            • Rock St. Elvis

              They still use the vocabulary of relativism when it suits them. By any means necessary, ya know . . .

              • Daniel P

                Yes, they do. But they’re gradually stopping using the rhetoric of multiculturalism, since this rhetoric obviously makes their case against protecting Christian (or Muslim, or Mormon, etc.) culture nonsense.

                • DE-173

                  Right. Today the multiculturalists are peddling gay rights.

                  • Daniel P

                    Some of them, sure. Some of them, however, are puzzling out how to do something like sustain the core goodness of tribal cultures while allowing these cultures to provide their citizens human “rights” like sexual freedom. One might hope they would discover that it’s impossible to do both at the same time. As we have seen in Christian culture, as soon as you pull out a cornerstone, the whole edifice falls down.

                    • DE-173

                      Some of them, sure.

                      Not some, most.

                • Rock St. Elvis

                  Because now they can. I think putative relativists were always imperialists. Now that they have the upper hand, they no longer have to hide it.

    • DE-173

      “Multiculturalism just says that all sorts of cultures are unique in wonderful ways, and that an educated person ought to appreciate these ways.”

      In other words, instead of treating people as unique individual persons who were known by God before they were born, it reduces them to fungible members of a class based on conspicuous attributes that neither add or substract from the human dignity that inheres to the person as a child of the almighty.

      Some cultures practice polygamy, some cannibalism., some ritual mutilation. What is wonderful about these “cultures”.

      I’ve seen corporate multiculturalism in action. Whatever the squishy feel-good masthead says, it results in petty tyrants telling me that something contrived by a radical professor in 1966 (Kwanzaa – do you know what “cooperative economics” is at it’s core? It’s don’t buy from whitey, how charming.) is the equivalent of the birth of my Lord and Savior, and the long celebrated Jewish holiday of Hannakkah.

      • fredx2

        At its core, Mulitculturalism seeks to elevate the minority into a state where it can act like the majority – by rejecting any moves by the majority as “offensive”.

        It is a power grab, and fundamentally anti-democratic.

        • DE-173

          I see you’ve tangled with “HR” as well.

      • Daniel P

        Sure, those things are silly, and there’s a lot of stupid people that put the word “multicultural” on their stupid idea to try to sell it. But there is a very respectable and profitable strain of multiculturalism too. Would you judge Christians based on the actions of televangelists?

        • DE-173

          Not only silly, but oppressive and ubiquitous. Marxists like to complain that the millions dead are merely collateral damage as well.

          I’d rather televangelists than multiculturalists.

    • fredx2

      Unfortunately, multiculturalism has morphed into a philosophy that basically says “The West is Bad, and can never be good” It is a strange way of telling history by telling half truths and outright lies.

      Your version of multiculturalism is long gone.

      • DE-173

        Four legs good, two legs bad.

      • Daniel P

        Huh? The West is the culture that has brought us sexual anarchy, abortion, contraception, euthanasia, etc. And you’re saying that the West is good?

        Surely we should be citizens of the city of God, and not believe that ANY merely human tradition has any special access to moral truth.

      • Daniel P

        Also, reflecting on the statement “your version of multiculturalism is long gone”, I think you’re reading the tea leaves wrong. Margaret Mead’s version of multiculturalism, which said “other cultures are always right”, is long gone. The new version of multiculturalism is an antidote to violent liberalism. Where the violent liberals say that liberal values must be imposed worldwide, the multiculturalists say that this imposition would be a bad thing. Mind you, the multiculturalists don’t speak very loud all the time, and they don’t protect groups equally (they protect Islam more than they protect Christianity), but they do oppose the imposition of liberal values.

        • Phil Steinacker

          Daniel, what you say may be true in the “pure” environment in which you ply your trade, but MC out in the world is as everyone here has described. Theory in the classroom has no connection to the experience on the political battlefield.

          You attempt to relegate to the ash heap of history this allegedly passe view of MC, but yours is practiced in an ivory tower. The overwhelming majority of so-called progressives in the trenches may be throwbacks in your mind, but the reality is they’re ignoring you and your colleagues while attempting to dismantle what’s left of our own culture.

    • Scott W.

      Multiculturalism does not state that all value systems are equal; that’s cultural subjectivism.

      Can you name a value system held by a different culture that is inferior to another?

      • Daniel P

        Of course. Cultures that accept abortion and infanticide are morally inferior — in that respect — to other cultures.

        • droolbritannia

          Just a note – Scott W asked for a VALUE SYSTEM, not ‘cultures.’

          It seems to me to be a long time since the West considered itself to be substantially Christian and ‘civilized’ and that the Christian, Civilized West (also known to many as the British Empire or the French Empire) had a moral responsibility to impose its value system on culturally backward parts of the world. In the 1800s, it was simply assumed that Western Civilization was far in advance of – say – African civilization or Indian civilization.

          (I read a book or long article about how all this changed in the first quarter of the 20th century, I think. There seems to have been one seminal book that influenced sociologists or social anthropologists, or one professor in one university who started the change in thinking of ‘no culture as superior to any other’ as a reaction against – I think – anti-Semitism or the horrors of the First World War. But I read the book/article/whatever a long time ago and I don’t remember well. Perhaps you would know, Daniel P?)

          A couple of years ago I had the opportunity to listen to an African Catholic priest preach in a church in Poland. He said something like this: ‘In the past, European Christians came to Africa and taught us that our culture was backward and primitive and had not reached as high a level of civilization as theirs. One of the things that they pointed to as a sign of being primitive was body piercing and tattooing, and these things died out in Africa. In my country, no person with self-respect defaces his body in that way. But when I come to Europe, I see that the Europeans more and more deface their bodies with tattoos and piercings. Now the Europeans are becoming the primitives in their sexual behaviour, their family structure and their relationship to their bodies.’

          If you are ever in New York and you happen to get a taxi driver from India or Pakistan or an African country, ask him what he thinks about American ‘family values’ and the way Americans raise kids and how kids relate to their parents. I’ll be willing to bet you’ll hear that he thinks our culture is far worse than his own when it comes to the crucial building-block of culture – the family. It’s interesting that people from ‘backward’ or ‘third-world’ cultures freely acknowledge as an obvious fact that some cultures are superior to others (maybe the US is superior materially, but not morally or socially), while we in ‘the west’ are ashamed of that assumption and would not accept such a judgement. Listening to African Catholics from Nigeria and Ghana talk about their joyful, vibrant, exultant Sunday worship – how the whole of Sunday seems like a slice of heaven and is celebrated with robust, evangelical joy – made a whole table of proud Polish Catholics fall silent at how weak and watery Polish expressions of piety seemed in comparison. And Polish expressions of piety are robust compared to American Catholic piety.

          If we really do listen to people from what we consider the ‘Third World’ and ‘primitive’ countries, we could get a sobering view of just how backward and primitive and uncivilized our ‘western’ societies have become, especially thanks to the sexual revolution.

          • Daniel P

            Thanks for the correction. In answer to the quiz, then, I would say that Japanese culture seems pretty clearly morally inferior to Mormon culture.

  • Anyone finding umbrage with this article needs to move to Syria. The “Third Reich” is alive and growing per Adolf’s intent. For those who believe the nonsense narrative that it ended in 1945 they haven’t read Mein Kampf. The First Reich ended with Moses introducing the Ten Commandments. The Third Reich is a return to the first, a repeal of the second and as Mr Kilpatrick writes, “it’s beginning to look like “meet the past” is the more likely scenario for our future.” The next crescendo series will seriously exciting.

  • cestusdei

    So if I claim that imperialism is part of my culture then multiculturalists will say it’s okay. That’s the absurdity of multiculturalism.

  • la catholic state

    Multi-culturalism just means one thing….let’s get rid of Christendom and Christian civilisation. Notice nobody in non-Christian lands is subject to multiculturalism.

    • R. K. Ich

      The parallels of Satan and the “Progressive” left are astounding – the willingness to self-destruct all in the name of erasing any signs of the Trinity in this world. Well, with history’s largest and most monstrous holocaust on our hands (Nazi Germany can’t hold a candle to us), it’s only just we sink like the Titanic. Kyrie, eleison. Christe, eleison.

      • DE-173

        Hey R.K., where ya’ been?

        • R. K. Ich

          Trying to find peace with mother Rome, but still wrestling with my deep Anglican convictions. Crisis Magazine always refreshes me and gives me hope I am creeping toward the right direction.

          • Catholic and loving it

            Anglicanism was founded by a misogynist, wife-killing/divorcing Catholic-murdering Irish-hating power-hungry corrupt King Henry VIII. (In addition, he destroyed many Catholic convents & monasteries as well as giving us Catholic martyrs like St. Thomas More, St. John Fisher, etc.) The Anglican Communion (even though it lacks Apostolic Succession) “ordains” women to be “priests”/”bishops”, accepts birth control, lacks in having the full Seven Holy Sacraments, officially promotes Homosexuality (especially in the American version), & is literally shrinking at the fastest rate (due to its heterodoxy & secularism). The Holy Catholic Church (under the leadership of Pope Benedict) instituted the way for Anglicans & their traditions to come into to fullness with the Holy Bride of Christ (aka Catholic Church). What is there to “wrestle” with & find peace about? The time is now. Don’t be left behind (pun).

            • DE-173

              Hey, most of us are on board with that assessment, but give the guy a break. We’re asking him to take a leap and he needs encouragement and support.

              There’s times to wield a sledgehammer and times to throw a flotation device. Grab the lifesaver.

              • R. K. Ich

                Exactly. During my training for the priesthood, while getting my BA, I was the only guy in class defending the Roman Church against all kinds of Protestant misunderstandings and slanders. I’m no enemy of Rome, not even a little. I sometimes feel like a frustrated son in exile. I desperately want to close the intellectual gap so I can be done with this existential struggle.

                • Catholic and loving it

                  One little correction: it’s just the Catholic Church. The Roman or Latin church is just one- although the biggest one- within the one Holy Catholic Church. She is also composed of many Eastern Catholic churches (like the Maronites or the Byzantine Catholics or Melkites). One Catholic Church- composed of many churches- in communion with the Patriarch of Rome. R. K., I encourage you in your journey of faith. I will pray for you, brother. Let me just give you a resource that you might not be aware of: “Coming Home with Marcus Grodi” (TV show & support network on EWTN & online). May God bless & keep you & your family on your spiritual pilgrimage here on Earth.

                • DE-173

                  “I desperately want to close the intellectual gap ”

                  Just remember, Christ asked you to believe, not to understand.

                  And I second the idea that you watch “The Journey Home” with Marcus Grodi. Although a cradle Catholic, I learned to appreciate just how difficult it is for the seperated brethren to leave the familiar and habituated (in other words, your great temporal wealth).

                  • Objectivetruth

                    “Just remember, Christ asked you to believe, not to understand.”

                    Ok, DE, I’m stealing that one…..good one!

                    • DE-173

                      Except it’s not mine, I picked it up somewhere along the way and unfortunately, proper attribution is lost.

                  • bdlaacmm

                    “Just remember, Christ asked you to believe, not to understand.”

                    When did He say ever such a thing? Because He most certainly said, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND.” (Matthew 22:37, my emphasis)

                    Sounds to me like a call for understanding.

                    • DE-173

                      John 11:25
                      John 14:1
                      John 12:44

                      ….

                    • bdlaacmm

                      John 14:1 says “Let not your hearts [NOT your minds] be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me.” This verse says absolutely nothing about not needing to understand, but rather to not be troubled. Apples and oranges.

                      John 12:44 says “He who believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me” Love that verse, but what does that have to do with not understanding?

                      John 11:25-26, one of the most beautiful saying of Jesus ever, says “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in me, though he die, yet shall he live, and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. Do you believe this?” Again, where is Jesus telling Martha to not understand?

                    • DE-173

                      The reason those verses say nothing about understanding is because finite creatures cannot understand the infinite creator.

                      John 20:29

                      29 Jesus saith to him: Because thou hast seen me, Thomas, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed.

                      So do you think you can understand something you haven’t even seen?

                      Matthew 19:14

                      But Jesus said to them: Suffer the little children, and forbid them not to come to me: for the kingdom of heaven is for such.

                      There are hundreds of verses stressing the necessity of belief.

                    • Phil Steinacker

                      Not likely. Intead it is a call for a decision to surrender to Him despite the objections which tend to come up in one’s mind. Elsewhere He makes our limitations to understand quite clear (Isaiah 55:8-9).

                  • musicacre

                    I felt like I was converting-so did my husband- when we left Modernism behind.

                    • DE-173

                      You lost me.

                    • WSquared

                      You were converting.

                      And conversion is an ongoing thing, and not a once-off deal.

                    • musicacre

                      Yes, I always tell my children that…but I mean a major change when, your are opened suddenly to realizing what orthodoxy is and how one can be on the watered- down garden path without realizing it. It`s a jolt. You don`t get those those ever day. It changes your entire course. And that`s what I meant; not the daily mini-conversion of self-denial, etc.

            • R. K. Ich

              I’m not part of any Anglican communion that ordains women, or supports same sex unions or abortion. In the late 70’s a significant Anglo-Catholic contingent of traditionalists broke away from the Episcopal Church in light of the heretical changes. I’m a high church Anglo-Catholic whose theology is a hair’s breadth different from Rome’s. My only remaining struggles are papal infallibility and the theology of Vatican II as popularly explained. SSPX and SSPV are attractive but I don’t know, they seem too conspiracy-centric (at least as an outsider). And finally, I think the old Book of Common Prayer is perhaps the most ingenious prayer book for the English tongue, and our Anglo-Catholic missal closely models the old Tridentine missal. So leaving that liturgical richness would be very difficult to abandon. The Anglican Ordinariate is about the only logical first choice for me and my family.

              But you are right, over all the Anglican Communion has suffered a great decay over the past 50 years. The Episcopal Church and the Church of England has largely succumbed to the devil’s attack on the authority of Sacred Scripture and holy Tradition.

              I don’t find the argument against Anglican Orders persuasive, even in the light of the 19th century bull issued by Pope Leo XIII declaring Anglican orders null and void (I’ve read it thoroughly and the Anglican response a number of times). My coming to Rome would have nothing to do with my uncertainty about the apostolicity of Anglican bishops.

              That said, my Roman Catholic friends have been always patient and supportive. I admire the faithful Catholics in the Roman Communion — I’ve always told people my heart is already there, it’s my intellect that’s lagging.

              • Jude

                How about the FSSP? We still use the 1962 Missal.

                • R. K. Ich

                  Great service to the Church! I have attended Mass under FSSP priests a few times.

            • musicacre

              Be nice….I know a young priest who is celebrating his second anniversary today. Formerly he was a high Anglican minister. He is a devout Catholic but still has an affectionate tie to his English past. Which I think is normal and harmless.

            • John Byde

              Come on, man. Say what you REALLY think, won’t you?

          • DE-173

            We have another occasional poster on here, attends St. Thomas More in Scranton, PA, part of the Angican Ordinariate.

            Johnny B, there’s a call for it your call.

  • mollysdad

    If we took Islamists at their word when they talk about their desire to wage jihad for the sake of Allah and to wage it against Jews and Christians, we might find ourselves re-evaluating the precedent established by Blessed Pope Urban II in 1095 that Christ Himself commands that a holy war be waged against the Islamists.

    Interestingly, Urban found a material similarity between the Seljuk Turks and the ancient enemy of Amalek, the only human enemy whom God is at war from generation to generation (Exodus 17). That finding of fact enabled him rightly to pronounce that Christ called the leaders of His people to war. To this day, the Jews are commanded by their Law to remember what Amalek did to them as they came out of Egypt and to blot out the memory of Amalek under heaven.

    What is law for the Jews is a valid principle of action for Christians, which guarantees the correctness of Pope Urban’s decision and establishes its reason as Christian case law.

  • >>Islam is willing to wait for what it wants, but sometimes—as in the
    middle of the seventh century—it moves with surprising speed. This seems
    to be one of those times, and unless we quickly update our thinking,
    the times will overtake us. Because we prefer to live mentally in the
    near past, the worst aspects of the far past have arrived on our
    doorstep.<<

    Replace "ISLAM" by "OBAMA", "HILLARY" and the "PROGRESSIVES" and explain to me why the idiotic voters chose TYRANNY.

    But there is no explanation because you can't explain STUPIDITY.

    IDIOCY is incurable.

  • Derek Schramm

    But the past few Presidents have said Islam is a peaceful religion. Would things be different today if Turkey’s Ottoman Empire would have not have been defeated and if the House of Saud did not take over Arabia?

    • cpsho

      The past 5 Popes have said Islam is a wonderful religion. And the “newly mint Saint” JP2 was so in love he kissed the Islamic “holy book”.
      Now explain to the ordinary catholic what is exactly going on in the world and in the Catholic Church?

      • Derek Schramm

        It was either JPII or BeneXVI that didn’t object to a Mosque in Rome in hopes that the Saudi’s might one permit a church in Arabia. I wonder how that’s going. 2-3 Bishops in Iraq,Lebanon, or Syria have been kidnapped and murdered, as have some priests, nuns, and parishioners. When a western newspaper runs a cartoon critical of Islam, Pakistani’s take it out on Christians in their country.

      • John Byde

        Careful, cpsho, these guys are infallible remember!

        • cpsho

          Here is the prayer of Pope Leo XIII :
          [Most Sweet Jesus]Be Thou King of all those who are still involved in the DARKNESS OF IDOLATRY or OF ISLAMISM, and refuse not to draw them into the light and kingdom of God. Turn Thine eyes of mercy towards the children of the race, once Thy chosen people: of old they called down upon themselves the Blood of the Savior; may it now descend upon them a laver of redemption and of life.
          (Prayer of Consecration of the whole world to the Sacred Heart of Jesus (composed in 1899)
          .
          So when did Islam become a wonderful religion?
          .
          BTW if you want to know what is coming up in the Rome of anything-goes, check:
          http://popeleo13.com/pope/2014/07/12/category-archive-harvest-of-plagues/

  • Paul Primavera

    Like it or not, folks, both liberal progressive democracy (two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner) and Islam have to be stopped, and at the Parousia Jesus Christ will throw both into hell. Those are not politically palatable words. But there is only one Truth, only one King of kings, and only one Lord of lords.

  • Don Campbell

    The West has been in the process of committing cultural suicide. The entire Judeo-Christian foundation of Western Civilization is being washed away. Christianity, which was the “glue” of Western Civilization since from at least the fourth century, has been abandoned in favor of secularism, combined with a self-loathing hatred of our own past. This has had two devastating effects.
    First, we have come to see our own past as the world’s greatest evil. We have concluded that it was wrong – evil – to believe that Christianity was “true” and that we therefore had a moral obligation to bring it to the world. We loathe our own history. Second, as we have abandoned traditional Christianity, we actually have become evil. We now promote the opposite of Christian morality around the world and seek to impose it — in a new form of imperialism. We are confused and conflicted by strange mix of secularist imperialism (demanding that all peoples of the world accept our secular values) and cultural relativism (which declares that the “old” Christian truths are to be rejected and are seen as no better – and possibly worse – than supposed truths of other cultures).
    The culture we now arrogantly promote (and seek to impose) around the world is hyper-sexualized, materialistic and crass. The world loathes us, and in many ways, they are right to do so. This bizzare, conflicted mix of secularist imperialism and cultural relativism cannot prevail against the great evil of Islam. Our only hope is to turn back to traditional Christianity, and to regain confidence that it is “true” and therefore the ultimate good. I fear that will not happen. At least until after the inevitable calamity that secularism and cultural relativism will bring down upon us.

  • Vinnie

    Mr. Kilpatrick, you nailed Obama’s foreign policy – “…their real motivation stems from poverty, oppression, or ignorance. Send them some foreign aid and some teachers and all will be well.”

  • Bob

    I tire of the “coexist” bumper stickers whenever I see a Prius or a Subaru. Sorry Muslims, but, your religion is a lie, a fraud. Jesus Christ is Lord. The conversation (and conversion) starts there.

    • Scott W.

      Google the bumper-sticker that says: “Contradict: They can’t all be true.”

      • Catholic and loving it

        I also like the bumper sticker that says “coexist” & has a picture of an unborn human baby (on google also).

    • DE-173

      That drivel will NEVER be on my Subaru, or my wife’s.
      A Prius is public sanctimony.
      A Subaru is the Equivalent of a 1950’s EMD GP9, a most useful engine.

  • Maria Gabriela Salvarrey Rodri

    Christianity was the salvation from all sorts of errors and horrors in the past. (abortion and euthanasia, homosexuality, promiscuity, slavery were all common in ancient “civilized” cultures like Roman, Greek, Persian. They are far from modern inventions.) In the mesure that we turn away from christianity we are revisited by our own base instincts and also by all the errors and horrors of past. Islam is a formidable enemy but it is more so because of the enemy within that is making us weak and currupt. If we are to fight the enemy of Islam we must begin by eliminating the enemy within that is making us sick and weak.

  • John

    Yes. let’s scapegoat Islam and the Semitic races, and say nothing of the West’s satanic crimes against them in the hoax, false-flag, genocidal War on Terror. This writer is a disgrace. Good willed Muslims, and there are millions of them, and Christians must bind together to defeat the neo-con/Zionist/Anglo-american empire, but Kilpatrick does everything he can to divide in his hatred for Muslims.

    • Guest

      Try medication.

    • Catholic and loving it

      I don’t like Neo-Conservatism & American Imperialism; in fact, they make me sick. But your claims are silly. So Jews are not a Semitic people now? All violence is the West’s fault? Islam is not a threat & danger? You’re living in conspiracy land. Since Muhammad, Islam has been a political religion of violence. From the get-go, it has caused & continues to cause much violent conflict & suffering. Christianity was a religion founded on Christ Crucified (& resurrected) & for its first three centuries it was a persecuted faith of many followers embracing matyrdom. Then it was legalized in the early 300s, & Christendom used violence for defensive reasons. There were some abuses of power but it developed the Just War Theory & several measures in order to limit defensive violence. Love your enemies, our Lord Jesus commanded numerously. Where in the Quran (that denies the Crucifixion of Christ) will you find such command? Since its very beginning, Islam (which ironically supports crucifixion as a death penalty in its sharia) promotes violence. It was a religion of Empire. They took over Christian Spain, took over Ancient Christian lands in the Middle East, & formed caliphates in order to wage wars against the West & other “unbelievers”. Quit your propaganda. The Islamic threat, attacks, push & dangers are far greater than any “Zionist” threats, which are largely limited.

  • John

    Here are some of the ways Iran differs from Kilpatrick’s hate-filled distortions of Islamic countries:

    MYTH: Iran is sneakily trying to build nuclear weapons. REALITY: Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, whose word is law for all 77 million Iranians, has repeatedly and officially declared that nuclear weapons and all other WMD are haram, meaning absolutely forbidden. The CIA affirmed in 2006 and again in 2012 that there is no evidence of any covert Iranian nuclear weapons program. In his new book Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare, Gareth Porter exposes the Zionist-driven hoax that has bamboozled the world.

    MYTH: But as Israeli historian Martin Von Crevald says, Iran would have to be crazy NOT to want nuclear weapons! REALITY: The Iranian leadership doesn’t see it that way. First, the Qur’an clearly bans indiscriminate warfare and the destruction of civilians, women, children, property, animals, crops, trees and so on. Islamic scholars who are not beholden to realpolitik-minded politicians agree that WMD is absolutely forbidden. (Independent Christian scholars agree.) And Iran is the only country on earth in which the religious scholars, rather than the politicians, have the last word.

    Some “court muftis” in places like Pakistan, like the “court Christians” of America, have argued that it’s OK to stockpile WMD for deterrence, as long as you don’t use it. But Grand Ayatollah Makarem points out that if you have it, you eventually might have to use it. Developing and stockpiling such weapons entails the possibility of using them, and is therefore forbidden. The Supreme Leader’s fatwas against WMD are absolute, irreversible, and eternal.

    The Iranian strategic leadership accepts this ruling. They point out that contrary to Von Crevald’s opinion, nuclear weapons would not really serve Iran’s strategic needs. Even if Iran were to decide to violate the Qur’an and build WMD (God forbid) it could never produce more than a small fraction of the stockpiles held by its enemies. Since using WMD would be both religiously forbidden AND suicidal, stockpiling such weapons would not be a realistic deterrent. By refusing to develop WMD (while insisting on its right to peaceful nuclear energy) Iran is creating amoral deterrent against the potential first use of WMD against it. Additionally, Iran has a wide array of non-WMD options available to deter conflict with potential aggressors: It can shut down the Persian Gulf, rain non-nuclear hellfire on Tel Aviv and/or US bases in the region, and (according to an elaborate war-gaming study published in the Atlantic Monthly) almost certainly win any conventional conflict with the US and/or Israel. Developing nuclear weapons would detract from Iran’s strategic advantage by inviting aggressors to escalate to the nuclear level.

    MYTH: But this is all just talk. How do we know their actions will correspond to their words? Reality: We know it from awful experience. During Saddam’s “imposed war” on Iran during the 1980s, Rumsfeld and other Western leaders gave Saddam chemical weapons and urged him to use them against Iran. Saddam complied, raining down horrific substances on Iran that are still ravaging a significant segment of the population. Iran, led by Imam Khomeini, refused to retaliate in kind – though it could have deterred further Iraqi chemical attacks, and even achieved a huge strategic advantage. (Iran had the capacity to out-produce Iraq in chemical weapons had it wanted to). Imam Khomeini’s fatwa against WMD, which has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the current Supreme Leader, is absolute – it even applies when Iran is itself under attack by WMD. History supplies the proof.

    MYTH: Iran wants to “wipe Israel off the map.” REALITY: Another hoax. The actual quote from ex-president Ahmadinejad was: “The Imam (Khomeini) said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the pages of time.” This Khomeini quote cited by Ahmadinejad could be interpreted as a call for an end to the Israeli occupation of Jerusalem – a position supported by the entire world through a series of UN resolutions. Or it could be a broader call for an end to the occupation of Palestine and the Zionist apartheid that comes with it. Either way, Khomeini’s quote is not a military threat, but a call for regime change. This quote accurately represents the consensus position of the people of the Middle East. Show me a single non-Zionist in the Middle East who claims to disagree, and I’ll show you a liar, hypocrite, or dissembler.

    MYTH: Women are oppressed second-class citizens in Iran. REALITY: Women are about as well-represented in the political, intellectual and cultural leadership of Iran as in the USA; they have certainly made massive gains since the Islamic revolution of 1979. Today, more than two-thirds of Iran’s university students are women. Women were well-represented at the conferences I attended. They are a strong presence in Iranian journalism, as Press TV fans know. The contrast between Iran and US ally/puppet Saudi Arabia, where women are not even allowed to drive, could not be more stark.

    MYTH: The Iranian government is a totalitarian theocracy. REALITY: Theocracy, yes; totalitarian, no. All Muslims are in agreement that God is the only sovereign. Therefore any country with a strong Muslim majority must either be a theocracy or a colony of the non-Muslim imperialists. Unlike most Muslim countries, which are under de facto non-Muslim occupation, Iran has managed to integrate the Islamic tradition with participatory democratic institutions. That makes it a “participatory theocracy.” In many ways Iran is far more democratic than the USA. Current President Rouhani, for example, was elected fairly, using hand-counted paper ballots, despite the fact that he is at least as far outside Iran’s ruling consensus as, say, Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader is outside the USA’s ruling consensus. Such people could not be elected in the USA. But Iran’s people, unlike America’s, actually have a significant choice when they go to the polls. And there are many competing power centers in Iran, both inside and outside of the clerical establishment, creating a working system of checks and balances.

    MYTH: Iran’s Shi’ites are crazy religious fundamentalists. REALITY: The word “fundamentalist” applies to Christian Protestants. There is no real Islamic equivalent. But if what you really mean is “bonehead literalist obscurantists” then you’re talking about Iran’s wahhabi-takfiri enemies, not the Iranians. The wahhabis and takfiris insist on literal, simplistic, sometimes grossly misleading interpretations of scripture. They are the ones who (like al-Zawahiri) claim that WMD is licit. Iran’s Shi’as (like many traditional Sunni Muslims) are led by sophisticated scholars who include allegorical and mystical readings of scripture, which they read thoughtfully with an eye to both the letter and the spirit, the “zahir” and the “batin.” Imam Khomeini, for example, was a devoted scholar and fan of the great Sufi theosophist Ibn ‘Arabi, the bane of all boneheaded literalists.

    MYTH: Iranians hate Americans; they call the US the Great Satan and scream “Death to America!” Reality: Iranians love Americans. But they also love justice and hate oppression. It’s part of their Shi’a tradition. Since the US government has acted as an unjust oppressor to Iran at least since the CIA coup of 1953 – and is a global oppressor in the large scheme of things – Iranians have indeed been peeved at the US government…but not the American people.

    Last year I was in the middle of a demonstration of millions in Tehran celebrating the anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Many were carrying signs or chanting “Death to America!” When they found out I was American, the people carrying “Death to America” signs gave me big smiles, expressed affection for Americans in general and me in particular, and told me how happy they were that I was joining them in their celebration. Real Iranians, even at pro-revolution demonstrations, are the exact opposite of the snarling, murderous Hollywood Iranians of Argo.

    Ben Affleck’s Argo, like the film-within-a-film of the same name, was a covert operation disguised as a movie. It used coercion, the world’s most powerful brainwashing technology short of datura, to subconsciously implant anti-Iran hostility in its audience. In his book Coercion Douglas Rushkoff explains: “In whatever milieu coercion is practiced, the routine follows the same basic steps: Generate disorientation, induce regression, and then become the target’s transferred parent figure.” Hard-sell car salesmen, CIA interrogators and psychwar ops, and cult leaders have long used this technique…(For example) The salesman then takes the mark on a test drive and, at the right moment, asks “Is this the type of vehicle you would like to own?” Rushoff quotes a car-salesman-turned-whistleblower: “And anyone will tell you this, the vacuum cleaner salesman, the car salesman—the customer has a split-second of insanity. The mind goes blank, the body paralyzes, the eyes get glassy, dilated. And you’d be surprised how many people have an accident at just that moment! Ask any car dealer. We always joke about it.” The car salesman’s question, like the well-timed words of a good hypnotist, triggers a sudden intensification of the customer’s dissociated, suggestible state. Rushkoff explains: “The customer is already in a vehicle, being asked to imagine himself owning the same type of vehicle. It’s the same as if I asked you if this is the kind of book you can imagine yourself reading. Your current situation is reframed in fantasy. It creates a momentary confusion, or dissociation, from the activity you’re involved in. That’s why so many drivers crash.”

    Argo does the same thing by featuring a film-within-the-film also named Argo. The fake Argo inside Argo asks the viewer: “Is this the kind of (fake) film you could imagine yourself watching?” Suddenly the viewer is disoriented and dissociated. The imaginary Argo within Argo convinces the viewer that the real Argo he is watching is REAL. It destroys the reality-framing process. The viewer becomes just as fearful and confused as the poor Americans held hostage in Tehran. Under coercion, the viewer is regressed to a powerless infantile state as he identifies with those powerless hostages. He surrenders to the filmmaker (Affleck) and the CIA rescuer (played by Affleck) who has become the substitute parent figure and who implant subconscious images of evil, bearded, screaming, angry, murderous Iranians deep in the mind of the viewer…who will emerge from the theater innoculated with Iranophobia without the slightest idea of what has been done to him.

    MYTH: Iran is a very dangerous place. REALITY: If you’re a top-notch Iranian scientist, maybe so. I met students at Iran’s leading technical schools who told me that every graduate is assigned a team of professional bodyguards to stop Israeli assassins. Other than that – and occasional terrorist outrages from the lunatic ultra-communists of the MEK – the only thing dangerous about Iran is the Tehran traffic. In terms of crime, Americans (and Iranians) are far safer in Tehran than in any big American city. Outside of Tehran, it’s even safer. With its various safety nets, including family solidarity, alms, ultra-cheap medical care, and other traditional means of taking care of the weak and indigent, there are no starving people, and virtually no homeless people, in Iran. And Iran’s religious culture also puts a damper on crime. Unfortunately, these things may change if the Western cultural invasion via satellite TV continues its assault on Iran’s traditional religious values.

    MYTH: Iran is one of the world’s top human rights abusers. FACT: Nothing in Iran remotely compares to the institutionalized torture of at least 2.3 million victims of America’s prison-industrial complex; the mass murder of roughly 55 million people by the US government since World War II; the ongoing destruction of human liberty by all of America’s major institutions including the NSA and Hollywood (see my discussion of Argo above) ; and a long list of other American abuses well known to the audience of my radio shows and the rest of the independent media. Anyone who lives in America, yet worries about human rights in Iran, is clinically insane.

    In fact, Iran has a different view of human rights from that of the mainstream US media and the Western-dominated foundation-funded human rights NGOs. The “rights” to defame religion, undermine the religiously-grounded social order, engage in the display of public sexuality, and promulgate pornography and other degrading materials do not exist in Iran. In the Islamic Republic, the right of people to be free from such soul-killing assaults trumps the rights of the soul-killers. You may not agree with these values…in which case you might be better off living somewhere on the 99% of the earth’s surface that more closely reflects your worldview, rather than on the 1% known as the Islamic Republic of Iran.

    MYTH: Iran persecutes religious minorities, including Jews and Bahais. REALITY: Jews and other traditional religions, no. Bahais, yes. Regarding Jews, it is well known that despite the utmost efforts of Israel and its agents, the Iranian Jewish community is proudly Iranian and has no intention of relocating to Occupied Palestine. There are Jewish representatives in the Iranian government, and the Jewish community of Tehran is thriving.

    Some claim Iran persecutes Sunni Muslims. In fact, the US and Israel have sponsored Takfiri-Wahhabi terrorist groups that randomly kill Shi’a Muslims (and other “religious deviants”) as a matter of policy. Iran defends itself against these assaults; it is likely that some innocent people get caught up in the dragnet. But apart from this, Sunni Muslims, and members of other traditional religious groups, are doing fine in Iran. In fact, as a Sunni Muslim, I can tell you that there is no other country on earth where genuine Sunni Muslims ought to feel more comfortable.

    As for the Bahai, Iranian leaders view their “persecution” of that group as a form of necessary self-defense. The Bahai faith – or cult, as most Muslims would have it – appears to have been, like Wahhabism, invented by freemasonic imperialist forces as a weapon against Islam. (If it wasn’t, it might as well have been.) Bahaism is just massively-watered-down pseudo-Islam designed to turn Muslims into Western-style secularists. It begins with the blasphemous (to Muslims) assertion that new prophets known as The Bab, Baha’u’llah, etc. have come to release Muslims from their religious obligations. Since Islam conceives of itself as the Final Revelation, the idea of a “new prophet” of any kind is the most destructively subversive idea imaginable – a notion that no Muslim society could ever possibly tolerate. On top of all that, the fact that Bahai headquarters is in the genocidal “state” of Rothschild-occupied Palestine spits in the face of the world’s Muslims. So if you are Bahai (may God forgive you) you obviously should make your home somewhere on that vast portion of the earth’s surface where the social order is non-Islamic.

    MYTH: The Islamic Republic is a failure, and regime change is just around the corner. FACT: Politically, economically, and technologically, Iran is by far the most successful country in the Middle East. The only economically comparable Middle Eastern country, Turkey, has no technological breakthroughs comparable to Iran’s space program and nuclear energy program – much less the ability to hijack US drones – and is still struggling to free itself from its NATO overlords. Despite the crushing effect of Western sanctions, Iran has soldiered on and learned to be self-reliant in manufacturing, R&D, technology, and so on. Iran looks live a thriving, booming country, not a basket case. It seems like just about everyone has a car (for better or worse). There is a huge construction boom, with construction cranes and tall buildings rising against the skyline. Compared to Iran, Morocco – the Muslim country I am most familiar with – is a poverty-stricken backwater, despite (or because of) its economy receiving vast sums of Western investment.

    As for the notion that most Iranians want to get rid of their Islamic Republic, this is a ridiculous propaganda meme, spread by psychological warfare operatives, that bears no relation to discernible reality. Yes, a minority of Iranians, almost all concentrated in the privileged classes of places like North Tehran, is drunk on Westoxicants and yearning for the “freedom” to be New World Order consumer-culture mind-control slaves. Sorry, it ain’t gonna happen. For a detailed and convincing explanation of why the Islamic Republic is here to stay, and why the West had better get used to it, read Flynt and Hillary Leverett’s Going to Tehran.

    • Guest

      Propaganda. You can sell it to your brain washed pals not to thinkers.

    • Catholic and loving

      Look, buddy. I don’t agree with every action & policy of the modern State of Israel, but after what they’ve been through in WWII, Jews have a right to a homeland. The tiny land that currently occupies the State of Israel is so insignificantly small compared to those vast lands occupied by Islam. Leave them alone. I’ll take the State of Israel (with all its flaws) over Iran & its Ayatollahs any day. Islam is a dangerous, heretical, expansionist & imperialist religion of Violence. Stop with your propaganda.

      • Micha Elyi

        Never mind WWII, after what Jews in the Middle East have been through, they have a right to a homeland. The reports of Arab pogroms against them in the late 1800s and early 1900s are horrifying. Then there’s the newsreel footage from the 1930s.

    • DE-173

      “that nuclear weapons and all other WMD are haram, ”

      http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-G-N/Iran/

    • Art Deco

      During Saddam’s “imposed war” on Iran during the 1980s, Rumsfeld and
      other Western leaders gave Saddam chemical weapons and urged him to use
      them against Iran.

      Donald Rumsfeld held a temporary ad hoc diplomatic post in 1982-83 as well as a some slots on federal advisory committees (which typically meet about 3x a year and might be compensated with a per diem). He actually held no consequential public office whatsoever over the period running from 1977 to 2001.

      I do not imagine the rest of your rant is any more accurate than this tidbit.

    • Phil Steinacker

      John, did you stay up all night creating these shibboleths, or did you glean them from the notes you took at islamic brainwashing school?

  • Nicholas Escalona

    Regarding the wife-beating. I have heard that in some societies, both men and women fairly universally consider it an essential part of relations between husband and wife, and the women say if their husband does not beat them, they wonder if he sees them as a woman.

    Does anyone know where I could read more about this, to really understand this view, where it is prominent, and perhaps where it can be found in the past (perhaps even the European past?)

  • Pingback: Why Multiculturalism is Regressive « THE BLACK KETTLE()

  • Pingback: Hidden Treasure for Catholic Business - BigPulpit.com()

  • musicacre

    Nailed it.

  • Kericjang

    Good morning, Mr Kilpatrick, surfing through the web I read some of your points about multiculturalism, relativistic philosophies, Islamisation of western societies… On this side of the ocean ( I’m watching the italian situation ) the presence of Mr Bergoglio could bee seen as strong deterrent of spreading muslim influence. Instead the opposite is happening, the first islamic university will open it’s arcades within two years. In the meantime the spreading of mosques and islamic centers will still multiply, like the thousants of fresh immigrants from muslim countries crossing the Mediterranean. Mr Bergoglio is convinced that dialogue is the best way to deal with Islam, praying in Istanbul’s mosque and blessing from Lampedusa the newcomers and the italian navy. The last one is providing all assistance to the migrants during their crossing the dangerous see. The government is helping in housing, food, money. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Italy, and the secret dream of their followers is to hoist their banner on St Peter.

MENU