Home » Uncategorized » A Value? (updated)

A Value? (updated)

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 80 other followers

“Diversity is a value,” or, “We need to be multicultural,” or “Our differences make us strong,” are just a few statements today that are put in advance of a certain philosophical worldview, but to also try and assert some sort of moral superiority (implying that if you disagree, you lack values).  In contrast, one who holds that having a common faith, language, artistic heritage, history, manners, etc… as positive and necessary are labeled, “ethnocentric,” “xenophobic,” or the most common term put out by the less educated, “racist.”  But are these statements true? It seems clear that with a working knowledge of history and culture, that they are not.

First, let me state that actual racism, that is discrimination and assertion of worth based solely on one’s shade of melanin, is wrong.  As one who holds to a Christian worldview, passages such as Acts 17:26 and Genesis 1-11, state that there is only one race, that being human.  Scientific discoveries also confirm this view.  For example, a European may have a closer tissue match for organ donation with an Asian, an Aborigine with an Arab etc… However, most today that scream “racism” or “diversity is a value” are advancing something that is more accurately called cultural pluralism, and this is often tied together with moral relativistic thought.  In other words, it doesn’t matter what you believe, speak, practice, teach, and the like, as long as you don’t “push it on others.”  Not only is this idea impossible to practice, but actually undermines the society/nation/community that practices it.

It does not take one long to realize that this argument is self-refuting and creates tension.  For example, to assert that the only value is to “not push it on others,” is inherently a moral statement, and is pushing a certain type of morality.  Also, to argue that a cultural concept such as “diversity” is valuable, lacks any foundation.  Why is it valuable? To argue that it is inherently valuable has no logical basis. To assert that “all cultures are equal” is also ludicrous.  Are we to believe that a culture of nature-worshiping cannibals is equal to the culture of 17th century England?  Are we to believe that the culture of the 19th century American mid-west is equal to Sharia law in Saudi Arabia?  For someone who is not interested in advancing some sort of pluralistic, secular humanist utopia, the answer should be obvious.  Some cultures are morally, artistically, and yes, culturally superior to others.

Think about it. If a child is raised believing there are over one million “gods,” that there are certain tiers in society one cannot break out of, that there is an endless cycle of reincarnation, and that our goal is to become one with all, how does that compare to the historical and cultural heritage of the west?  These worldviews are incompatible, and will eventually be in conflict with each other.  It is easy to realize that this scenario is multiplied hundreds of times over in the west now, and we are just starting to see the beginnings of future conflicts (For example, the Swiss recently banned minarets, the French have had to ban Islamic garb in schools, Turkey is wanting into the EU, and this is just the short list…).  To state that some sort of political ideology that promotes “individual rights” will overcome these differences is the height of absurdity,  especially since these “rights” come out of the European Enlightenment and to some extent, the Judeo-Christian value system.

Does this mean that a culture is perfect? Of course not.  Does this mean we should invade other countries and force them to practice “democracy?” Of course not. Does this excuse violence against the “strangers among us?” No. Does this mean it is morally acceptable to oppose mass immigration from Islamic, Hindu, etc… countries? Yes.  Does this mean it is a morally acceptable policy to expect people to integrate into a community? Yes.  Does this mean it is acceptable to promote the Judeo-Christian history of the west, its cultural heritage, common history, and western languages? Yes, and not only acceptable, but absolutely necessary if it is to survive. I am more then willing to admit that the west has deteriorated, and entered a period of “decadence.” However, I believe it can be saved, restored, and made healthy. Any ideas or thoughts for a cultural reformation/restoration?

Update: I do hold that God is the “first cause” of all culture, in the act of creating man. Perhaps a good way to state this is that certain cultures have been better “stewards” of this creative ability then others. I should also make clear that I do find parts of other cultures to be valuable, and respect the ability to learn from this good.


  1. link says:

    ok how is this supposed to mean?

  2. I’m not sure what your question is in this regard. I’m fairly certain the article is clear enough. “Diversity” as popularly understood is an unhealthy ideology used in defense of a pluralistic, post-modern worldview, and should not be embraced by the traditional west.

  3. […] This also relates to a question I asked in a post quite awhile ago, relating to whether or not America is even a nation anymore, or a variety of nations held together by geographic accident and state control. If a nation or people is defined as those who share a common faith, heroes, history, holidays, festivals, language, the arts and the like, the U.S. and many countries of the West have ceased being nations long ago. Instead they are supposedly bound together by some sort of romantic, “progressive,” idealistic idea of egalitarian democracy as a sort of savior (based on an ever-increasing list of rights that come from “natural” sources).  While there may be pockets of what one might call consensus cultures, most large cities on the coasts and the states they reside in have abandoned any semblance of cultural unity for the sake of “diversity” as some sort of inherent value. […]

  4. J says:

    Your assertion, (which didn’t seem that confidently put), that race race does not exist is false.

    The scientific evidence now (as it always did) points to their being distinctive races of man, each easily portioned by modern statistical techniques like cluster analysis and principal component analysis.

    Two random Swedes are genetically closer than one random Swede is to a random Korean. (This fact was shown by Neil Risch).

    Many say (and rightly so) that their is more diversity within a race than between races. One may come to the conclusion that this fact negates what I previously asserted, though they would be mistaken.

    When Lewontin made this claim, he did so by analyzing random and non-random loci, then he averaged the variation found at these loci. However this approach misses the correlation in the structure of loci that exists.

    This under promoted fact, though widely known to statisticians and geneticists, was first put as a response to Lewontin by Milton in the 1970s, but it went unheeded. Edwards made more ground when he published his piece ‘the Lewontin fallacy’ ,which stated the same thing that MIlton argued.

    It is now widely accepted by statisticians and geneticists and many studies have easily and accurately portioned the subjects that correlate with self-identified race and geographical continents.

    You speak of defending the wets, but you would let the white race fall? Think about that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: