The fraud of unrestricted multiculturalism

In following recent on-line discussion over multiculturalism, I'm surprised by how few conservatives reference Russell Kirk's "The Fraud of Multiculturalism". In this essay Kirk identifies the poisoned roots of multiculturalism, and how this ideology destroys the society that embraces it:

Multiculturalism is animated by envy and hatred. Some innocent persons have assumed that a multicultural program in schools would consist of discussing the latest number of The National Geographic Magazine in a classroom. That is not at all what the multiculturalists intend. Detesting the achievements of Anglo-American culture, they propose to substitute for real history and real literature--and even for real natural science--an invented myth that all things good came out of Africa and Asia (chiefly Africa).

Intellectually, multiculturalism is puny--and anti-cultural. Such power as the multicultural ideologues possess is derived from political manipulation: that is, claiming to speak for America's militant "minorities" (chiefly those of African descent). The ideologues take advantage of the sentimentality of American liberals, eager to placate such "minorities" by granting them what they demand. But what fanatic ideologues demand commonly is bad for the class of persons they claim to represent, as it is bad, too, for everybody else. To deny "minorities" the benefits of America's established culture would work their ruin.

Of course most multiculturalists would denounce Kirk as a racist. So would many of today's "Official Conservatives" who place party before principle. Too bad. Kirk recognized that multiculturalism was impossible outside of an established culture.

Nor does multiculturalism work when subjected to any established culture. The 20th Century is full of bloodshed and genocide caused by one established culture in some part of the world asserting its dominance over another culture. Rwanda comes to mind as one egregious example; however, one could also look at Nazi Germany or Communist China.

That being said, I can think of two established cultures where multiculturalism actually works. The first is Christendom. Here multiculturalism works because everyone shares the same religious values, but simply expresses them differently. Additionally, the Roman Pontiff provides a powerful mediator when cultural disputes arise between nations.

The second is Anglo-American culture, which recognizes the rights of the individual over those of specific identity groups. Everyone is an individual first, possessing the rights and freedoms that come from being an individual. Only once individual rights and freedoms are recognized is one free to follow the customs of one's ancestors - provided these customs don't infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. Hence "minorities" thrive under Anglo-American culture in a way that they do not in any other parts of the world. When individual rights and freedoms are society's guiding principles, a person is given equal opportunity to thrive - regardless of background or ethnicity.

And this last point reveals where unrestricted multiculturalism has become fraudulent in recent decades. In the name of unrestricted multiculturalism and white liberal guilt, society now undermines the very Anglo-American culture that makes it possible for individuals to thrive unmolested by the state - including minorities. This cannot bode well in the long-term - either for minorities or for the majority. After all, once group rights replace individual rights as the basis for social peace, society reverts to managing minorities rather than give every individual equal opportunity to prosper.