Donald Trump

Is American Multiculturalism a Failure?

Ignore Trump; all signs point to 'no.'

|

Donald Trump
Robert E. Daemmrich/Polaris/Newscom

Has the great American experiment in diversity ended in failure? That's the impression you might get from an array of recent developments—Black Lives Matter protests, anti-Muslim sentiment, resentment of undocumented immigrants and, last but not least, Donald Trump. We seem to be loudly fracturing and separating, not coming together. We're all pluribus and no unum.

Trump's embracing of the alt-right movement, which was condemned at length by Hillary Clinton in a recent speech, highlights our apparent racial and religious polarization. His new campaign CEO is also head of Breitbart News, which regularly fans white fears and denounces "multiculturalism."

A characteristic Breitbart story began mournfully, "Four centuries after white Christians landed in Jamestown and settled what would later become America, a report reveals that white Christians are now a minority in the nation their forebearers settled." (They were also a minority then, by the way.)

More mainstream conservatives also fret about the perils of diversity. "Multicultural societies," warned Victor Davis Hanson, a scholar at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, "usually end up mired in nihilistic and endemic violence."

It's clear from Trump's capture of the Republican nomination that many whites regard demographic diversity as an evil, not a blessing. When he vows to "make America great again," he harks back to a time when the country was more homogeneous.

But the Trump phenomenon is a symptom of growing desperation, not growing strength, among a shrinking faction whose conception of America is obsolete. These people are in a frenzy because they are beginning to realize the battle is lost. Most Americans have come to embrace the inclusion of every race, ethnicity and religion in our society.

That wasn't always the case. In 1994, reports the Pew Research Center, 63 percent of Americans said immigrants were a burden. Today 59 percent regard them as an asset. The shift is even more pronounced among young people, 76 percent of whom have a positive view of immigrants.

For many people, racial and ethnic lines are increasingly irrelevant. In 2010, 15 percent of new marriages occurred between partners of different races or ethnicities—more than double the rate in 1980. "Among all newlyweds in 2010, 9 percent of whites, 17 percent of blacks, 26 percent of Hispanics and 28 percent of Asians married out," reports Pew.

One reason white Christians are a declining share of the population is that more whites are abandoning Christianity. Since 2007, the share of whites with no religious affiliation has risen from 16 percent to 24 percent.

Islamophobia is rife among Trump supporters. Two-thirds of them express negative attitudes toward Muslims. But only one-third of all Americans feel that way. Islamic terrorism has obviously fueled worries and suspicions. Even so, in 2011, 82 percent of American Muslims said they were satisfied with their lives—which suggests they don't find prejudice to be a major problem.

The biggest source of racial tension is also the oldest one—the divide between whites and blacks, manifested in economic disparities and broadly different views of law enforcement. Most whites express confidence in police, but only 30 percent of African-Americans share that trust. Though blacks continue to feel they face discrimination, most whites believe they don't.

Other groups, though, have integrated themselves into American society more fully than could have been expected. Asian-Americans, who once faced intense prejudice, are likelier than any other group to intermarry and to live in racially mixed neighborhoods. Their households also have a higher median income than white households.

In a society dominated by racial animosity, you'd see different groups segregating themselves, or being segregated, from others. That's not what is happening.

Scholars John Logan of Brown University and Wenquan Zhang of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater found that compared with 1980, in the 20 most diverse metropolitan areas, people of every race are likelier to live in "global neighborhoods" inhabited by whites, blacks, Hispanics and Asian-Americans. In these cities, half of whites now live in such areas.

If multicultural societies were prone to intergroup violence, a growing immigrant population would generate more disorder. In fact, Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson has documented, the rise in immigration has produced a sharp decline in crime rates. "The transformed vitality of cities was most visible in the places that had seen the greatest increases in immigration," he wrote in The American Prospect.

Achieving vitality through diversity? In America, that's not a naive dream. It's a solid reality.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Donald Trump's Mexico Day Trip and Immigration Policy Nightmare

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The “multiculturalism leads to chaos and destruction” trope is neo-darwinist manifesto dogma to justify war and genocide. Why? Because people are scared of the future and are looking for excuses to burn it all down. Fortunately they will fail. Trump’s impending implosion is a vindication of the Constitution, which is holding strong despite challenges on all fronts. The key is to elect a conservative congress to counteract Hillary’s socialist agenda. And beyond that, paying back the 20T national debt. We’ll be fine. I’m scared for the rest of the world, though.

    Jill Stein approves this message.

    1. How’s “multiculturalism” working out for Western Europe?

      People aren’t “scared of the future” because there’s more brown people. They resent the marginalization of the culture that they grew up with in the name of social justice.

      There’s a difference between “tolerance” and “you will be made to care”. Today’s Libertarians are apparently not self-aware enough to notice the difference.

      1. Aw, was your culture marginalized? Poor baby. Maybe write a manifesto about it, I’m sure people will snap it up.

        1. Fuck off slaver.

        2. Sorry that the greatest, wealthiest, fairest, most welcoming, and most charitable society to exist in the history of mankind isn’t good enough for you.

          Maybe you should shop around for one more to your liking?

          1. “Americans are too generous and fair and allow the brown people to take advantage of them. That’s why we must kick them all out now!” Go ahead, you can do it:

        3. Boy, the socialist useful idiots are really at it today. They just continue to label values that prize our constitution as racist and bad for America.

          Luckily, Hitlery will lose and we will allow Americans to find their way again with Liberty, freedom and free market.

      2. “They resent the marginalization of the culture that they grew up with in the name of social justice.”

        At least they have the pleasure of wallowing in victimhood.

      3. To the dominant culture, any move toward equality looks like oppression. Imagine being in a nondominant culture. Notice how they don’t cry about it nearly as much as you do?

        1. Notice how they don’t cry about it nearly as much as you do?

          Spoken like someone who’s isolated from other cultures and knows nothing about them. But please continue lecturing people about things you don’t know about, as isolated whites are known to do.

          1. This thread is a travesty. Libertarianism is going nowhere, you realize that?

            1. Yes yes, boring non sequitur. You’re very predictable.

            2. Going nowhere, like socialism… Oh wait, socialism is dead.

              Libertarianism has been around for a long time as classic liberalism and is finding itself again after People have realized how bad socialism was for the masses.

        2. Notice how they don’t cry about it nearly as much as you do?

          They cry about oppression constantly, in the most tolerant and inclusive society the world has ever known. And I have a duty to move as many of them into my neighborhood as possible because I must atone for my oppression or something.

          1. They cry about oppression constantly

            Actually, with first generation immigrants that’s unlikely. It’s the second or third or long standing cultural grievance groups that tend to act like that.

            But that’s not to say first generation immigrants don’t complain about the culture they’re in. Almost uniformly everyone I know from Angola, Cameroon and Nigeria complain that this country isn’t Christian enough. Qatar or Egypt? Sexual deviancy and overexposed women. Chinese, Vietnamese? It tends to be family-related respect issues and business law.

            This also avoids the fact that many of immigrants will actively comment favourably on aspects of Western culture and contrast them to the inefficiencies or outright corruption back home. They are specifically praising their host culture and criticizing their home one. And people on both sides of the immigration issue should not ignore that when arguing about ‘multiculturalism’.

            1. That was certainly more true in the past. Unlike the previous waves of migration where there was no welfare state to soften the blow, the state artificially induces those to stay who would not otherwise stay or could not otherwise prosper in the economy. The grievance class is made unnaturally large. It’s a whole system of perverse incentives that leads to counter-intuitive results.

              1. Does it not bother you that every single one of your pathetic excuses for harboring white supremacist tendencies is absolute fact-free bullshit?

                Immigrants are net payers-in to the welfare state (which you pretend to care so much about).

                1. Immigrants are net payers-in to the welfare state (which you pretend to care so much about).

                  No. Illegal immigrants tend to be low-skill immigrants, they are much more dependent on the welfare state than both native households and low-skill immigrant groups in the past. High skill immigrants are another story.

                  Welfare should be abolished but the point is that welfare bastardizes the otherwise positive incentive structure found in a low-barrier immigration policy.

                2. Ah….still a pretentious and tedious sloganeer after all these years!

                  Keep being you!

                  1. Sorry that was for Oklahoma Kneepads.

        3. Your equality is at the force of gun, so no thanks. Take your slaver Nanny state and beat it.

    2. Because people are scared of the future and are looking for excuses to burn it all down.

      The future that has been assigned to them for which they have a moral duty to go silently into the night until that future arrives. How could any right thinking/self-loathing person think otherwise? Go figure.

      1. Cool manifesto, bro. Flesh it out a bit:

        1. It must be easy to sit back and say that immigration is pretty much always a good thing. You don’t have to stop to consider any circumstances where the real value of immigration might be undermined by a vicious cycle of statist policies and political objectives.

          1. So immigration is cool as long as they believe what you believe? Or are Mexicans genetically incapable somehow of appreciating the intellectual virtues of libertarianism?

  2. A Progressive viewpoint for a Progressive website.

    1. It’s Chapman.

  3. “For many people, racial and ethnic lines are increasingly irrelevant.”

    Mainly whites. Everyone else is identity-politicking like crazy.

    1. NONWHITE CULTURE HAS BEEN OPPRESSED AND SHOULD BE CELEBRATED BUT NOT APPROPRIATED!

      /progderp

    2. Almost exclusively whites. They’re the only racial group that doesn’t camp with the vast majority of their tribe on the left side of the isle.

      1. Actual diversity = #stuffwhitepeoplelike

        For example, none of the Chinese people around me seem to give a fuck about any concept of “race” except “Chinese” or “not Chinese.”

  4. Telling people that because they have a different “race” or “ethnicity”, they ought to have a different culture is the essence of what passes for “multiculturalism” in the US today. That’s, of course, the typical racist assumption of progressives that Chapman is echoing. That assumption goes so deep that progressives are encouraging different “racial groups” to manufacture their own cultures (viz Ebonics, Kwanza, Native American “culture”) instead of assimilating. American “multiculturalism” isn’t the embracing and acceptance of existing diversity, it is the creation of artificial divisions between people based on artificial concepts of race and identity for political purposes.

    Of course, multiculturalism has historically been associated with wealthy and powerful empires. tWhy? Because such empires happen to subjugate and integrate many cultures. And the better empires tolerated such multiculturalism because they realized that forceful assimilation doesn’t work. But this is confusing cause and effect. Multiculturalism doesn’t cause prosperity, prosperity causes multiculturalism because wealth and power attract people from all over the world.

    1. Native American “culture” is right: they don’t have any culture, just casinos. In fact, Native Americans aren’t even real – they were made up by the Jews – those people running the casinos are secretly Asians.

      1. Ah, I see, you’re a progressive troll making a feeble attempt at sarcasm…

        In fact, Native Americans aren’t even real – they were made up by the Jews

        Well, as a progressive, you, of course, like blaming everything on “the Jews”.

        In fact, it is progressives that “made up” the idea of a “Native American culture”, as if the Americas were inhabited by a single, unified civilization.

    2. Telling people that because they have a different “race” or “ethnicity”, they ought to have a different culture is the essence of what passes for “multiculturalism” in the US today.

      That sounds more like racism. If you are of race A, you are expect to know your place, to behave and believe the way you’re supposed to.

  5. “In fact, Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson has documented, the rise in immigration has produced a sharp decline in crime rates. “The transformed vitality of cities was most visible in the places that had seen the greatest increases in immigration,” he wrote in The American Prospect.

    In fact, crime rates have decreased all over the world, independent of immigration. And the “transformed vitality” of cities like San Francisco and New York is one of extreme inequality, of very rich folks (wealthy immigrant and native-born Americans) employing or hiring a large underclass of low-wage service providers, often legal or illegal (im)migrants.

    The bullshit and racism is strong with Chapman today. Why does Reason continue to reproduce his drivel?

    1. extreme inequality

      NYC is more than Manhattan. In fact, about 7 million more.

      1. NYC is more than Manhattan. In fact, about 7 million more.

        Yes, the glittering palace is surrounded by cheap housing for the servants. What’s your point?

    2. Harvard sociologist Robert Sampson has documented, the rise in immigration has produced a sharp decline in crime rates

      I’d be interested to see the causation that he proved (“has produced” means “caused”, not merely “is correlated with”).

      Nobody think that legal immigration is associated with higher crime, you know. Its the illegal immigration that people are concerned about, and periodically someone who didn’t get the memo accidentally documents that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by illegal immigrants.

      1. I’d be interested to see the causation that he proved (“has produced” means “caused”, not merely “is correlated with”).

        He hasn’t “proved” anything. Chapman is citing a bullshit article from American Prospect where Sampson throws out random guesses.

        Nobody think that legal immigration is associated with higher crime, you know. Its the illegal immigration that people are concerned about

        Well, and Trump and other Republicans favor skilled immigration. Democrats, on the other hand, favor illegal migrants while generally opposing skilled immigration because it would mean more competition for their major constituencies.

  6. Multiculturalism is the progressive/Marxist attack on Americas traditional and extremely effective melting pot. It is an abject failure at building a better society precisely because its intent is to destroy capitalist society.

    Chapman is yet again a complete fucking idiot.

    1. ^^^THIS^^^

    2. Yup, heard the melting pot is racist trope numerous times while in college back in the mid-90s. So that particular concept was finished, at least in academia years ago. And if it was finished there it certainly means it has bled over into policy. E pluribus unum is dead as an idea, now it seems to be out of the many . . . many.

      In the late 90s I worked with a group attempting to intervene with at-risk kids in Florida schools. The program, being what it was, was a magnet for progs and bleeding hearts and of course the mandatory classes on multicultural bollocks. During one of these mind warping sessions, when I was about to lose my cool because of all the young white folks attempting to one-up each other on who cared the most, a guy who had just migrated from Nigeria spoke up and said this was all wrong headed. He said that one reason his country is always in conflict is there are dozens of ethnic groups and languages and that it breeds distrust and animosity. He and I hit it off right away. Why is that concept so difficult.

      1. Would you acquiesce to learning Spanish and assimilating yourself into Latino culture if they become more numerous?

        Or is it only white culture that everyone is required to adopt?

        1. If you moved to China, who do you expect to adapt? You or the Chinese?

          1. Me, but China is not an extremely diverse nation of immigrants, nor is it a free country. How about people here get to do what the fuck they want to do with their own bodies and minds?

            Are the freedom lovers on some other thread?

            1. Me, but China is not an extremely diverse nation of immigrants,

              Which is precisely why Americans would like to make illegal Mexican migrants go back and place restrictions on who can and cannot immigrate.

              How about people here get to do what the fuck they want to do with their own bodies and minds?

              How about we give people who legally immigrate the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens, and deport people who violated immigration law?

              1. Because that would be a massively costly and injurious policy with no real upside?

                1. Because that would be a massively costly and injurious policy with no real upside?.

                  Not at all: about half of legal and illegal immigrants are receiving welfare, an average of about $6200/year. We can start with deporting immigrants (legal or illegal) who ask for government assistance, that pays for itself.

              2. “How about we give people who legally immigrate the same rights and responsibilities as other citizens, and deport people who violated immigration law?”

                How about we create a massive bureaucracy and give it enough busy work to keep it ticking along for decades? — said the Reason reading Libertarian.

                1. No additional bureaucracy needed: people can be identified when they come in contact with the government: applying for driver’s licenses, applying for welfare, etc.

            2. China is not an extremely diverse nation of immigrants

              Does a Nepalese count as an “immigrant” in China?

        2. I hate to point this out to you Tony but learning Spanish is an incredibly wise business move and plenty of these so-called ‘southern white racists’ actually do speak Spanish because if they didn’t they would be missing out on a ton of business. (Go figure, capitalism makes people integrate faster)

          That being said, your example is facile since the entire ‘melting pot’ theory, as RickC points out above, has been disproven in academia for decades.

          If you want everyone to speak nine languages, and think that’s going to fix anything, why not look at Europe and see how well fragmented linguistics have worked there since the 1900’s. Or is a real world example ‘too real’ for your world view?

          1. I’m not seeing the evidence of the great collapse of society in the Netherlands as a result of its people being multilingual. The only thing it seems to be serving as evidence for is the pitiful laziness and paranoia of certain white Americans.

            What is wrong with diversity in America that wasn’t initially caused by white people trying to maintain dominance?

            1. Netherlands has one official language. Meanwhile next door in Belgium land of three official languages language based enmity has effectively crippled Belgian politics. Have you ever left your home town Tony? Honest question because when your talk about the rest of the world you are almost invariable entirely wrong and ill informed. Do you read books? You just don’t seem very curious or cultured.

              I mean I kind of feel bad for you here you- here I am a stupid redneck from Houston. And even I have lived in Europe for four years managed to be bilingual with an Ivy League education. And little status anxiety addled Tony seems very farm town/ state school in terms of sophistication. It’s almost like you are over compensate for a pretty insular background.

              1. I think that among your insults and Ivy League dropping you forgot to make a point. Much of the world speaks at least two languages, one being English, and it doesn’t seem to result in the collapse of civilizations. Are you seriously interpreting my comment as claiming that ethnic strife doesn’t or can’t exist? Obviously it does. I propose that it’s not inevitable, the US being a pretty good example, despite its flaws (most of which were caused by white people resisting cultural change).

                But I want to get at the core point: what is the upshot here? What is to be done about the problem you claim exists? Try to be specific as possible. Maybe they taught that skill in some of those books you’ve read.

            2. You’re retarded. Minority communities self-select to be apart from the majority, especially during the early 19th century. Ironically this was party because of the language barrier. You see the exact same thing today, even among families and groups that have lived in the U.S. for decades or even generations. (Go visit the Barrio sometime, or a Jewish ghetto, or MLK street in any Urban center.)

              I find it interesting that the group of people that think they’re the wise rulers of the world refer to ‘white’ as if it was a cultural demographic when it absolutely isn’t. Using ‘white’ as some mono-catch-all cultural group is disingenuous but it builds the farcical edifice of some ‘white world order’ that’s keeping their mish-mash of cultural minority groups together, voting against some ‘other’ that’s trying to keep them down. Meanwhile, they leverage that group into taking from other groups to give to their own under the banner of ‘equality’.

              Meanwhile, those who believe people should be judged by the content of their character over the color of their skin or their religion are left out in the cold, judged as racists.

              It’s top-to-bottom bullshit Tony.

              1. Ah yes ghettos result from the free choice of members of the minority. Of course. And here you whites were the whole time attempting to welcome them into the mainstream with open arms.

                Your point about there being no such thing as a single white culture is false. In this country, whether descended from Catholics or Protestants, Irish or German–distinctions that used to matter–you get all of the goodies that come with being white. From the perspective of a minority, there very much is a single unified white culture. It’s people with fair skin who get all the automatic privileges of this society.

                1. From the perspective of a minority, there very much is a single unified white culture. It’s people with fair skin who get all the automatic privileges of this society.

                  That’s utter bullshit. If you adopt the culture, language, and habits of mainstream society (“white society”), you will succeed, no matter your color. If you reject mainstream society, you’ll be economically and socially marginalized. It’s as simple as that, and it works the same way in most European societies as well.

                  1. That’s simply not what the science says on the subject. Extensive research clearly shows that, all things being equal, merely being black (or female) disadvantages people in all major spheres of society.

                    That’s putting aside the condescending dictatorial nature of requiring people to adopt your culture because theirs makes you uncomfortable. Would you say the same of religion? Christianity dominates in this country. Should people be required to become Christians before they are afforded the all rights and privileges of this society?

                    1. Yet, non-white people become republicans and libertarians every day. Hmm… Must have something to do with them realizing that Nanny staters are the oppressors and free market is the proven way to better themselves.

                    2. That’s simply not what the science says on the subject. Extensive research clearly shows that, all things being equal, merely being black

                      What is the average confidence interval of all this “science”?

                      Were the studies repeatable? Were they repeated?

                    3. That’s simply not what the science says on the subject. Extensive research clearly shows that, all things being equal, merely being black (or female) disadvantages people in all major spheres of society.

                      There is a difference between being “disadvantaged” and “failing to succeed”.

                      That’s putting aside the condescending dictatorial nature of requiring people to adopt your culture because theirs makes you uncomfortable.

                      Who is “requiring” anybody to do anything? You make your choice whether you live according to mainstream culture or some other culture, and others make their choice whether they want to interact with you, work with you, etc.

                      Should people be required to become Christians before they are afforded the all rights and privileges of this society?

                      The “rights and privileges” of this society doesn’t include financial or professional success. If you’re a Satanist or have a face tattoo or wear sagging pants or don’t speak standard American English, you still will enjoy the “rights and privileges of this society”, but you’ll also have a hard time finding a job.

                2. They are a free choice of members of the minority Tony. Do you have absolutely a single shred of proof that it’s otherwise? Is your implication that white people are forcing people into certain communities? How are they doing that, exactly?

            3. I’m not seeing the evidence of the great collapse of society in the Netherlands as a result of its people being multilingual.

              Nothing is wrong with it. To the contrary: Dutch multiligualism is great–and voluntary.

              If we adopted Dutch (or more generally, European) standards in the US, government business would be conducted in English only, there would be a much stricter English language requirement for immigration, and there would be a much stricter immigration test.

              What is wrong with diversity in America that wasn’t initially caused by white people trying to maintain dominance?

              There is nothing wrong with actual diversity. There is plenty wrong with the kind of fake diversity you advocate.

              1. I wasn’t aware I was advocating anything.

                1. There are many things you do that you are probably not aware of.

                2. The fact you aren’t aware of it is not surprising, but it’s also tremendously sad.

                3. You advocate slavery by using nanny state oppression on more and more of people’s lives and business.

          2. I’ve made it a prerequisite for the “Dad college scholarship,” my sons have gotten for them to be fluent in Spanish.
            One of them took it further and became fluent in Mandarin to boot.

        3. Spanish culture IS ‘white’ culture, Tony. Spain is in Europe. ‘Latino’ culture is American Spanish culture.

          1. Well I’m white and I only eat Spanish food or speak the Spanish language on special occasions.

        4. Would you acquiesce to learning Spanish and assimilating yourself into Latino culture if they become more numerous?

          I learned English and assimilated myself into US culture when I immigrated.

          And, no, I would not acquiesce to the US becoming dominated by “Latino culture”; if I wanted to live in “Latino culture”, I would have emigrated to a country where that culture is prevalent.

          1. But this is a uniquely free country where the dominant culture is whatever it happens to be at a given time. As whites become a minority, what gives them the right to continue to dictate the contours of American culture?

            1. As whites become a minority, what gives them the right to continue to dictate the contours of American culture?

              I don’t see “whites” trying to “dictate the contours of American culture”. How could anybody “dictate” culture anyway? In fact, US culture has assimilated a lot of elements of many cultures and people. That is what makes American culture so vibrant. I can tell you coming from a continent that actually has “white culture” that the US is nothing like it. And, in fact, when American mainstream culture assimilates aspects of other cultures, progressives scream bloody murder.

              America has a mainstream culture that is a majority consensus among a hugely diverse group of people. America also has a bunch of fringe groups that try to distinguish themselves from mainstream culture and reap the rewards: economic failure and social isolation. It is your racist thinking, not reality, that maps American mainstream culture onto “white” culture and those fringe groups onto “oppressed minorities”.

              1. when American mainstream culture assimilates aspects of other cultures, progressives scream bloody murder.

                What?

                America has a mainstream culture that is a majority consensus among a hugely diverse group of people.

                That’s what I’ve been trying to say. Are you seriously missing, like, every single other post on this thread that is advocating for kicking out Mexicans because they are tainting our pure white culture, in so many words?

                1. Are you seriously missing, like, every single other post on this thread that is advocating for kicking out Mexicans because they are tainting our pure white culture, in so many words?

                  I’m advocating stopping government benefits for people who are here illegally, and kicking them out if they have contact with the government. That has nothing to do with whether someone is Mexican or not.

                  I also think choosing English as the single, official language for the US is perfectly fine.

              2. All excellent points Rational, thanks for being…well…rational.

            2. As whites become a minority, what gives them the right to continue to dictate the contours of American culture?

              Has pop music been primarily defined by African-American culture for like two decades in the United States on whatever planet you inhabit? Because it has on mine.

  7. I guess wrong which byline “Reason Staff” was hiding.

    I should have realized the headline was more Chapmans schtick.

    Why does reason keep buying his drek?

  8. racial and ethnic lines are increasingly irrelevant

    to arguments about “multiculturalism”.

  9. Fuck.

    Chapman again.

    This wouldn’t have happened with Postrel in charge.

      1. I’m not Greek, that would be cultural appropriation.

  10. Maybe some people just resent having multiculturalism / diversity shoved down their throats – it happens at work, at school, and popular entertainment,

    As an “enemy” – white & male – it gets tiring being the “cause” of all the problems of the world.

    1. Thank you. It’s a sad state of affairs that when majorities of other racial groups regard me, my family, my culture and my civilization as their sworn enemy, that I’m not enthused about more of them moving into my neighborhood to vote in my electorate.

      1. Ever consider the possibility that your attitude that you get to decide who owns property that doesn’t belong to you and that your politics should dominate just because you say so might be part of a large array of entitlements that minorities might view as threatening to them? In other words, that the fact that minorities don’t share your politics might be your fucking fault and not theirs?

        1. Ever consider the possibility that your attitude that you get to decide who owns property that doesn’t belong to you

          I never said anything about owning property, and for you as a tax loving boot licking sycophant of state power to tell me that people have a right to own property, is the epitome of projection.

          In other words, that the fact that minorities don’t share your politics might be your fucking fault and not theirs?

          I’m sure you would love it if every libertarian on the planet moved into your city and your state and utterly stripped the state down of it’s generous handouts and powers.

          1. I wouldn’t love it, but they’d have every right, this being a free country where people can live where they choose.

            They’d have the further right to inevitably ignore the disastrous consequences of their policies and blame it all on progtards and Mexicans.

            Being that I live in the buckle of the Bible Belt, I’m accustomed to being democratically outnumbered.

            1. I wouldn’t love it, but they’d have every right, this being a free country where people can live where they choose.

              So everyone on the planet has a right to move to your tiny bible belt town? And when it’s all filled up with people (because they all have a right to live there) are the people in the town violating the rights of all of humanity that is outside the town who physically can’t get in? The logical conclusion of the “right of free movement” is absurd. Your rights to movement stem from your right to property, not from your desires.

              1. If you want to assert a collective right to put a cap on the number of people in a community, be my guest, just don’t turn around and tell me you’re a freedom-loving libertarian. One must assume that overcrowding is a potential consequence of a free world.

                There’s sort of a putrid smell to all these exceptions to freedom that libertarians conveniently find acceptable.

                1. If you want to assert a collective right to put a cap on the number of people in a community, be my guest, just don’t turn around and tell me you’re a freedom-loving libertarian.

                  It’s got nothing to do with a cap. You said that everyone in the world has a right to live wherever they want, as it happens “wherever they want” is a pretty broad category of places, that include your city, your street, your yard or even your bathroom. At some point, it becomes impossible to assert that everyone has some kind of right to go somewhere. Your right to move somewhere is conditional upon property rights and consent of those who own said property.

                  One must assume that overcrowding is a potential consequence of a free world.

                  When it’s voluntary. When you claim that person’s X, Y and Z have a right to the property of others you get results that are not conducive to human well being.

                  There’s sort of a putrid smell to all these exceptions to freedom that libertarians conveniently find acceptable.

                  It’s completely consistent. No exception needs to be made to promote a natural right that can’t possibly be valid.

    2. Could you define precisely what you mean by “shoved down their throats”?

      1. Some examples:

        1) The whole Oscars So White episode.
        2) Diversity training in school and at work.
        3) The spate of articles in my local newsite about how tech companies are predominantly white and Asian with the implication being that this is some kind of problem.
        4) Black History Month, Asian History Month, etc.

        Back in my youth, shortly after the earth cooled, there was a PSA on TV that went something along the lines of “How should I treat someone of a different color? You should treat them the way you treat anyone else”. It was good, sound advice. Now with all the talk of diversity it seems we are supposed to treat people differently based on their background, and in my opinion that is a step backward.

        1. You learned the wrong lesson from your diversity class then. I’ve never been to any such thing, nor do I know anyone who has, so I can’t comment on their merit. Obviously the only correct way to treat people is politely–and being bigoted is the worst form of rudeness.

          But most of your complaint is not an imposition on you, but other people merely talking about race. Obviously it’s never going to sink in that not having to think about race is essential white privilege. But at least perhaps you can get behind the concept of turning off the TV if you don’t like the programming?

          1. It’s not just people talking about race. It’s talking about race with the underlying assumption that whites are bad.

      2. Here’s another example:
        http://www.forbes.com/sites/ge…..6ddc541a6d

        In summary, in case I SF the link, the SEC is trying to force companies to diversify their boards.

  11. This article is total nonsense.

    Multiculturalism as defined by prog retards and traditional American diversity are totally different. The former is a political invention intended to Balkanize a society for easier control, and the latter is based on the idea economic opportunity and personal freedom in a society being appealing to humans everywhere. Be yourself, and be an American!

    Prog multiculturalism has no problem calling everything “culture” and using the state’s mailed fist to dickpunch anybody who resists declaring their love for, say, the “culture” of people who like to fuck goats, in the form of wanting nothing to do with them. No, says the prog, not loving people who fuck goats is hating them.

    Not loving something is hating it. Not giving to someone is stealing from him. Not baking me a cake means you hate my “culture.”

    Chapman is a reliable prog retard and I swear to God you lose readers every time you publish his bullshit. I hate dignifying it with a comment, but FUCK this stupid article.

    1. If you don’t celebrate goat-fucking then you are intolerant, and tolerant people do not tolerate intolerance.

    2. I couldn’t agree more. I think most people are perfectly happy to live in a multi-ethnic society, in which people of different ethnic origins think of themselves as individual persons first, Americans second and of some particular ethnic background a distant third, if at all. The problem – and it’s a huge problem – is proggie notions of group identity, in which people are members of an ethnic group first and last. The proggie notion of multiculturalism is that people are DEFINED by their group identity, and nothing else. That’s a bad and wrong value.

  12. The alt right will call you names and such! Fear them! FEAR THEM!

  13. Trump’s embracing of the alt-right movement,

    Really? I doubt Trump even knows what the alt-right movement even is.

  14. “”””In a society dominated by racial animosity, you’d see different groups segregating themselves, or being segregated, from others. That’s not what is happening.”””

    Ignoring of course that in the US we have had over 50 years of government at all levels making it a criminal and or civil crime to segregate yourself.

    If its so great why do they need laws to force people to do it?

  15. Diversity does not make a country better. There and many countries that do quite well that are not diverse.. Individual effort is what makes country’s successful . Skin color. does not matter. This country has a large mix of people who have done well due to freedoms here .

    1. That is exactly right. “Diversity” is not a value. “Diversity” is not our strength. To say that it is is to say that largely homogeneous countries (both ethnically and culturally) like Norway, Sweden, Finland, Poland, Japan, South Korea, etc. – the list is long – are “bad” countries. That’s stupid.

  16. While I’d agree with Chapman that there’s nothing wrong with demographic diversity, it strikes me that he makes a huge unsupported leap from there to declaring multi-culturalism a success. One can have a demographically diverse population with a common culture. That was the premise of the American “melting pot”. The trend for the last forty years has been away from that and toward a multi-cultural model.

    But, even Chapman’s own evidence suggests that those demographics that have assimilated into the larger culture have enjoyed more success.

  17. What’s new? The 1750s version of Ben Franklin warned that the colonies were being over-run with moronic German immigrants (simply because he couldn’t understand what they were saying.)

    1. And he was absolutely correct up all the way until WW1 German immigrants were an insular community that largely refused assimilation even to the point of not learning English. He didn’t claim they were moronic he just correctly pointed out that their values and the values of English settlers were very different.

      1. He was partly right, the German immigrants that assimilated and became “American” embraced freedom, free markets and Liberty. The other Germans that supported the Kaiser’s socialism and volunteered to be volksdeutsche in WWII, keep thinking socialism is the way to go.

        Doesn’t matter what creed you are, following socialist ideals is just proven stupidity.

  18. Diversity aside, you have to be a real fool to think of current day United States as “vital”/

    1. I thought so too. Vital is not the word I’d describe a country deeply involved in this brain-dead election cycle.

  19. So now any ideas that are remotely espoused by the alt-right are exclusively theirs, even if there are intelligent arguments for them put forth by people who have no part of the movement whatsoever?

    1. For example, Thomas Sowell has long been critical of multiculturalism, so I guess he must be one of the founding members of the alt-right. That racist yokel.

    2. “Alt right” is now going to be the collective catch-all for hack writers to complain or criticize concepts. In the same way that realists get called neocons, ‘alt right’ will be used without any knowledge of the actual positions of the alt right. For example, Chapman is stupid enough to argue that ‘multiculturalism’ is proving the alt-right’s ‘view of culture’ wrong. But he doesn’t actually understand the alt-right’s view on culture and race. The multiculturalism that Chapman is praising is used as evidence by the alt-right of how racial groups fail to integrate into white societies.

      1. Alt-Right. It’s the new Tea Bagger.

        1. …which was the new ‘Neo-Con’.

        2. I thought you were going to say that socialism=progressivism.

  20. Ignore Trump; all signs point to ‘no.’

    Nah, as Robert Putnman reluctantly showed people who live in multi-ethnic neighborhoods have lower levels of trust. So there’s *at least* one sign pointing to yes.

    “A characteristic Breitbart story began mournfully, “Four centuries after white Christians landed in Jamestown and settled what would later become America, a report reveals that white Christians are now a minority in the nation their forebearers settled.” (They were also a minority then, by the way.)”

    They didn’t join the Cherokee Nation.

  21. What a joke this place is. What is the upshot of all the pearl clutching going on in this thread? Who are we kicking out of the country, and where are we sending them?

    1. Says the guy who was excited about the deaths of millions of people because they might be Republicans yesterday.

      1. I just asked a simple question about the practicalities of the ethnic cleansing that most people here are implying is necessary for this country.

        1. My goodness. Deporting illegal immigrants is now “ethnic cleansing”. I think I know who’s clutching their pearls, Tony.

          Next up: virtual genocide.

          1. Since there is no problem to be solved by deporting ten million people, one would be forgiven for thinking this entire crusade is about something other than economics.

            1. Nice false dichotomy you got there.

            2. We all know your type is so scared the DemoRats will be losing 10 million illegal voters.

            3. this entire crusade is about something other than economics.

              Maybe it’s about this thing called “citizenship” in a “state” and enforcing the “borders”?

  22. “Multiculturalism” much like the “Melting Pot” theory doesn’t hold any water. America does assimilate cultures, but at an incredibly slow pace that takes generations, if even then.

    The idea that two cultures with entirely opposite ideals could ever coexist on the same land is farcical at best unless they are both somehow rabid pacifists. Human history is literally full of examples of this never working, so what do people believe has changed since last year?

    Obviously, if two cultures have compatible ideals they can indeed coexist but there will always be tensions great or small. Are we to ignore the last 4,000 year’s of human history that says this idea hasn’t really ever worked? Even Rome fell, and they ‘integrated’ most cultures through the sword or fear of the sword.

  23. That’s the impression you might get from an array of recent developments — Black Lives Matter protests, anti-Muslim sentiment, resentment of undocumented immigrants and, last but not least, Donald Trump.

    A very partial (in every sense of the word) list. If “cultural diversity” is taking a hit from the public at large these days, its because the public at large correctly perceives “cultural diversity” as a pretext for attacking them. There are many more fronts to this culture war than are mentioned above, and on nearly all fronts the aggressors are proggy/lefties, often picking up misguided a few misguided libertarians as useful idiot allies.

    Here’s a clue: are the people preaching cultural diversity arguing for co-existence of other cultures with the dominant culture, or are they arguing that the dominant culture should be torn down and replaced? If its the latter (and it often is), then those people aren’t really arguing for diversity. They are arguing for the elimination/marginalization of a culture they don’t like.

    Don’t be shocked when that gets blowback.

    1. The problem is the more girly reactionary pissy-pants members of the dominant culture take any move toward equality for a minority as an assault on their very precious existence. They can’t seem to tell the difference between “tolerating the existence of other types of people and deigning to permit them legal and social equality” and “our great thousand-year white tradition of drinking beer in garages and fucking cousins is being torn asunder!”

      Why don’t you idiots just take a vacation and let the white people who aren’t such babies handle this matter?

      1. If by ‘equality’ you mean ‘redistribution of wealth’ and ‘mandatory quotas’ it isn’t going to go over well with anyone yet that is continually the prescription by the political elite.

        1. Well, the redistribution won’t be culture-based, and “mandatory quotas” is both a straw-man and not even legal.

          Would it make you feel better if I promised you that there won’t be any time in your life in which white males aren’t the unquestioned dominant demographic in this country? Or would you need a lollipop and a bedtime story as well?

          1. So, in your view a college being required by law to admit ‘x’ units of a minority culture regardless of their merit is not, in fact, a mandatory quota.

            I already know your worldview is warped and that you don’t believe minorities or other cultures can survive on their own merits, but please stop using white racism as your strawman to justify actual system based racism by the U.S. Federal Government.

            The U.S. Constitution was already amended to give everyone of every creed recourse under the law. What more do you want, exactly? Forced integration? Good luck with that, you fascist.

            1. There’s one thing I want right now. It’s not much. All I want is for you personally to acknowledge that you wear girls’ panties. Not because you have a fetish–that would be one thing–but because you actually are a little baby girl.

              Once you do that I would stop thinking of you as a pathetic paranoid piece of human refuse, because then you’d have an excuse for being so pathetic and so paranoid. Little baby girls are entitled to that.

              Once you do that we can have a little discussion about how you hypothetically missing out on an admission to some university doesn’t quite compare to the issues that come with having four centuries of your ancestors be slaves.

              Pull yourself up from your bootstraps little girl. Life isn’t fair.

              1. And there it is, your bald faced support for a program that is literally systemic racism. Thanks, I think we’re done here.

                1. Systemic racism, a problem you never cared about until you perceived it to victimize white people. Am I wrong?

                  1. You are wrong, but at least you agree that it is in fact systemic racism. I find the pandering baby kid gloves the left uses to handle minority communities massively insulting and the xenophobic rhetoric from the right disqualifying. They are human beings, not babies or carte blanche criminals; capable of all the same feats of greatness as any other person.

                    Give a man a fish, he eats for a day; teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime.

                    Both sides of the aisle are massively wrong, and both refuse to get the hell out of the way which is all that’s really required.

                    Social engineering is, plainly put, not the job of the U.S. Federal Government but respecting the Bill of Rights most definitely is. If you don’t see how everyone is protected at the base level by their Civil Rights, without things like Affirmative Action, you’re missing what is actually meant by ‘systemic racism’ in that it can cut both ways and is inherently dehumanizing and racist by any measure.

                    Redundant laws are bad laws, if you’re the TL:DR sort.

                    1. If you don’t understand that affirmative action is not a symptom of so-called systemic racism, then you’re the one struggling with definitions. I’m not necessarily a big proponent of AA. Neither am I living in the 1990s when this was actually a hot topic of controversy. You’ll just have to forgive me for suspecting the motives of people who rant about AA as if it’s some major social oppression in this day and age. Here in the present century we’re talking about people getting shot in the back for being the wrong color. College admittance programs are kind of beside the point right now.

                    2. You’ll just have to forgive me for suspecting the motives of people who rant about AA as if it’s some major social oppression in this day and age.

                      Imagine that Affirmative Action worked to promote the hiring of whites at the expense of X, Y and Z minority groups. You’d be outraged. Then I could tell you that “I suspect your motives” when you rant about the injustice of it.

                    3. That would be because whites are born with a default set of relative privileges. Forget college; being born white in this country is the ultimate credential in the marketplace. It’s worth a million bucks.

                    4. That would be because whites are born with a default set of relative privileges.

                      That would be because you don’t understand justice and judging by your utter inability to sniff out logical inconsistencies in thought, you wouldn’t know equality if you saw it.

                      being born white in this country is the ultimate credential in the marketplace.

                      And being born Nigerian in Nigeria is a good credential. What if I’m white and living in Harlem? Will the simple folk you speak of revere me as a god? White devil seems more likely.

                      It’s worth a million bucks.

                      It’s literally not worth a million bucks.

                    5. You seriously believe that white people are the most oppressed race in this country, don’t you?

                    6. My privileged is worth 10-20 million, which shows how little you know.

                      I joined the military to gain skills and experience. I went to college without telling the school what race I was and paid for it by working. I worked my way through a series of jobs with promotions each time.

                      I am now is a very successful entrepreneur.

                      Did I mention that I am a member of the Cherokee nation? Because it doesn’t matter because I am a constitution loving American.

                    7. Affirmative Action is an example of systemic racism, period. It is a literal racial quota at face value. You can argue that we need to implement systemic racism to somehow offset systemic racism but you’re going to need to square that logical fallacy yourself. I note you haven’t even tried, which says to me that you haven’t put any amount of serious thought into the subject.

                    8. This John Roberts colorblind definition of racism doesn’t account for the nuance that white people as a whole do not ever actually suffer from racism, even if individual white people do on some rare occasion like during college admissions time.

                      Whining about affirmative action is just rich coming from people who tell everyone else about how life isn’t fair and how they aren’t entitled to anything–let alone a spot at a particular university.

                      I don’t think quotas are defensible. Taking race into account among a host of other factors, however, surely is. The Supreme Court has recently affirmed the right of universities to consider racial diversity as a worthy goal in support of their mission. Why not?

                      The thing is your corner of the political spectrum didn’t once pipe up in the many centuries that society offered de facto affirmative action to white guys in every sphere of life. Only once you perceive the merest hint of nonwhite racial preference under very strict conditions do you decide it’s time to protest racism in society. It’s just a little sad.

                    9. Racism will always exist, but if you believe in civil rights and equality before the law you’re going to need to take your thumb off the scale or admit you don’t actually believe in equality.

                      You believe in an enforced inequality, however justified, that is going to cause more problems than it claims to solve; and know that it will topple, just as it always has before.

                    10. The thing is your corner of the political spectrum didn’t once pipe up in the many centuries that society offered de facto affirmative action to white guys in every sphere of life.

                      Will other countries be joining us in this? For example will China be inviting a bunch of non-Chinese into China and apologizing to them for having offered de facto affirmative action to Chinese guys in every sphere of life?

      2. The problem is the more girly reactionary pissy-pants members of the dominant culture take any move toward equality for a minority as an assault on their very precious existence.

        Bullshit. Point me to one these pissy-pants members who is advocating apartheid or official discrimination against minorities.

        I’m sure there are a few, lurking in one of the danker corners of the internet, but I doubt you’ve ever seen one.

        The problem, of course, is the eternal struggle between “equality of opportunity” and “equality of outcome.” Nobody outside of a very tiny fringe advocates inequality of opportunity. Its the equality of outcome, which is accomplished by using the State to attack the dominant culture, that people get pissed about. And rightly so.

        1. “Equality of outcome” is an absurd strawman nobody advocates.

          1. That’s exactly what positive rights put forward, positive rights being things like “right to free birth control” right to other people’s property et cetera, that the left is constantly agitating for.

  24. Article on the alt-right from someone who half-way gets it….

    http://www.vanityfair.com/news…..ty-of-hate

    1. To the extent that the alt-right is about heightened white self-awareness, its fortunes depend in no small part on the left. The spike in recent years of white self-disparagement, the latest fashion in status signaling, doesn’t help reduce racial consciousness, and it undoubtedly drives many in the opposite direction. One hopes this will pass.

      My thought as well.

      1. I liked the part about how Free the Nipple has 11 times the online following as the alt-right.

      2. white self-disparagement, the latest fashion in status signaling, doesn’t help reduce racial consciousness

        How could it? White self-disparagement is an exercise in racial consciousness, be definition.

  25. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998! ????? http://www.jobsea3.com

  26. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..
    ???????>>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  27. How Immigration and Multiculturalism Destroyed Detroit

    Today, you hear Muslim calls to worship over the city like a new American Baghdad with hundreds of Islamic mosques in Michigan, paid for by Saudi Arabia oil money. High school flunk out rates reached 76 percent last June according to NBC’s Brian Williams. Classrooms resemble more foreign countries than America. English? Few speak it! The city features a 50 percent illiteracy rate and growing. Unemployment hit 28.9 percent in 2009 as the auto industry vacated the city.
    http://www.newswithviews.com/W…..sty506.htm

  28. The problem today is there is no melting pot. There are different pots who want to keep their pot separate from the other pots. The diversity they tout of college. Just look at campuses. Separate dorms wanted by minority’s.They hang out in separate areas no whites allowed. Want separate meeting rooms just for their race. This is not the way of a congenial society, and this time it can’t be blamed on whites.

    1. “The problem today is there is no melting pot. ”

      There never was a melting pot.

  29. The dead at Ft Hook, San Bernadino, and Orlando evidently weren’t available for comment.

    I don’t have a problem with a multi-RACIAL society but I’m pretty sure that eventually we’re going to feel the effects daily of a multi-cultural society.

    Europe is there now.

    What makes Chapman think it will be different in the US?

  30. “Europe is there now.”

    Used to be a decent place until those multi-cultures came along and spoiled it.

  31. Yes, of course multiculturalism is a failure, primarily, because it’s replaced pluralism tempered with toleration. The liberal fantasy of multiculturalism always degenerates into tribalism like Black Lives Matter or The Aryan Nation. If you do not believe that truth spend a little time in Arabia or sub-Saharan Africa or southeast Asia or Chicago or Baltimore or Detroit. In time, as diverse cultures become more and more alienated from one another the nation will collapse.

  32. The truth is multiculturalism is NOT inherently good. Anyone who thinks it is is full of shit. The reality is that a single homogeneous society is always going to have less friction and fewer problems. It’s hard wired into us to a certain degree.

    That said, multiculturalism is NOT inherently bad either. I think it can work a hell of a lot better than it is in the US right now, and I don’t think it has to be much worse under optimum conditions than a totally homogeneous society.

    I kind of like what one guy above said, multi-racial is fine, “multicultural” is not. I somewhat agree. A society needs to have a rough set of rules and values everybody agrees on. If you don’t, shit is gonna hit the fan.

    In America we need to work on assimilating some of these subcultures better into being the “hardworking middle class” type people that make everything hum. As mentioned in the article Asian immigrants are all about it. Ever wonder why you don’t see them bitching about stuff? Ever wonder why nobody is fuming mad about Asians? Because they work hard and don’t cause problems. If other groups would assimilate in more, and not keep themselves as separate everything would be great. I grew up in California, and my best friend was of Mexican heritage. He was a couple generations deep, and couldn’t even properly speak Spanish. He was a total generic American. That’s how it needs to be.

    1. The problem is that multiculturalism is taken to be a synonym for demographic multi-ethnicity, and it is not synonymous. Demographic multi-ethnicity, per se, is meaningless. Multiculturalism, the regressive “progressive” policy and doctrine that elevate group identity over individual identity and seek to pit minority groups against eeeeeeeevil white “oppressors”, is toxic and ought to be strenuously opposed by all rational liberty-loving persons. Multiculturalism destroys individual liberty.

  33. Well… let’s just see what “Multiculturalism” is in context, shall we? To Progressives Multiculturalism means illegal immigration, it means not adopting the language, laws and moires of America. This Republic has always been a melting pot, and that’s a good thing. But our laws are our laws and our language is our language. We are a Judaea-Christian nation, deal with it. If you don’t like either one, leave. Leave Now. Don’t make me show you the door. If you don’t like our language, laws, moires and religious beliefs why the frick did you come to America for, an ETB card?! To cause trouble?

  34. I and most white people I know DO NOT object to immigration or immigrants. What we object to is the use of immigration as a political tool by regressive “progressives” in support of their agenda of promoting group identity and cultural factionalization. I have no problem with the USA being a multi-ethnic society. I have a major problem with multiculturalism. Multiculturalism IS bad. As Robert Putnam found, greater diversity in a locale means less participation in politics, less volunteerism, less overall civic engagement, and less social trust – both within and outside of ethnic groups. However, that isn’t because people don’t trust individual persons of other ethnicities. It’s because people don’t trust people who have more group identity than individual identity, and the group is motivated to see society in terms of “us against them.”

    It’s the multiculturalism, stupid, not the multi-ethnicity that’s the problem. We need to demolish multiculturalism as a social value.

  35. Contrast and compare cultures.
    Not immigration, cultures.

    How is the cultural influx brought into Europe working out?
    All the welfare provided has not changed the culture that those who must not be named have brought with them.
    And it won’t in the U.S. either.

    Bataclan, Bali, San Bernadino, Orlando, Ft. Hood.

  36. Is this column a joke? Trump supporters are Islamaphobic? Care to back that up with any kind or actual research? On the other hand, Trump supporters support rule of law and minimal government. How is that racist? How is that “White”? If conservatism is white, than Hillary is a conservative.

    The writer seems to rejoice that many whites are becoming less Christian (how about blacks?). Does he hope that Muslims become less Islamic? Does he hope for Jews to become less Jewish. Does he hope for Hispanics to become less Catholic?

    I have a real sore spot for bigots who can find bigotry everywhere but in their own heart and mind.

    1. I’m going to say the mean thing and say that it IS white. Sure, you can find roots in various cultures, but in the modern era, it was whites who made what we today consider justice, rule of law, natural rights, and limited government. I don’t care about one’s skin color, but when we hear about the need to tolerate “black” culture and “Mexican” culture and “Muslim” culture, but no mention of “white” culture, the one that actually works, it really makes me mad too. The entire world would still be ravaged by routine plagues and a fraction it’s current population if white culture didn’t come around, but we could disappear all the other cultures on earth and nothing much would be lost, just esoteric knowledge and aesthetic enjoyment.

  37. I tell you what, Tony. (Nice to see you again after the long absence.) As soon as you agree to abolish the welfare state, abolish all forms of socialized medicine, abolish anti-discrimination laws that violate the freedom of association, abolish government education, limit voting rights to people who have proven their responsibility in some way, and summarily deport any immigrant who commits a felony, we’ll agree to open the borders.

    Deal?

    I’m not going to stand by while you use our own principles to attack us. It works both ways, pal.

  38. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>> http://www.Sky.Jobss1.com

  39. Well, nice to see Reason just being straight-up in their accusations that the alt-right and/or all Trump supporters are just racist whites. I mean, why bother addressing the concerns people have when you can just label them all racist? Never mind that the alt-right doesn’t care a whit about one’s race, and in fact has members of every color and creed. The term is “multiculturalism”, not “multiracial”; the problem is that the civilization of the entire planet owes it’s existence to western values and what is necessary is to cultivate that and export it, not water it down and destroy it with immigration of people who do not share, or outright oppose, those values. There’s certainly some exaggeration in the immigration debate, I agree, and no doubt many legitimate racists support Trump, but simply dismissing the argument with insults is basically anti-libertarian, considering the party and movement was founded not to actually win political power but precisely to open up dialogue about unpopular ideas and to meet our ideological opponents in lively debate. Murray Rothbard was dogmatic as one can get but also congenial and friendly to all people and would happily discuss ideas with them in a rational manner; he would be quite upset to see what he helped create today, resorting to petty character assassination via baseless accusations.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.