Nations are not compatible with multiculturalism | Zak Mudie
The modern concept of nationhood is a waning mix of various traditions all being eroded by competing factions whose interactions supersede nationhood. It is truly worrying that, at an alarming rate, nationality is becoming a word on a passport, rather than a substance of meaning.
Nationality is much more than a term. It is a metaphysical formation which exists as a foundation for modern government.
The reduction of the nation is a vicious cycle initiated by unregulated immigration, resulting in the watering down of native populations and native culture, which in turn promotes more immigration.
The British Isles are no stranger to this cycle, having been on many occasions the target of mass immigration which has settled and ruled.
However, what can be said of these historical happenings was that they were drastically unsuccessful in upending centuries’ worth of traditions, and local cultures which had been planted deep in the roots of this island.
The newcomers needed to assimilate and learn how to hybridise cultures - after all, there is a reason as to why we mainly worship the Christian God in this country, instead of the pagan Norse Pantheons, or speak English instead of French.
The change that has occurred, however, is in the presence of liberalism, which weakens cultural defences.
This is why it must be stated firmly that nations are incompatible with multiculturalism.
It is this statement which should serve as the argument for this piece and will be explained in the critical detail required to understand both nationhood and multiculturalism and why they cannot coexist.
What is a nation? This is a crucial definition in opposing the advances of multiculturalism.
A nation is an a-political entity, comprised of loyalty by a people to an ideal that links with their territorial land and culture.
Sir Roger Scruton, the conservative philosopher and writer, states that nations are a “tried and familiar” system which provides the backbone of any government.
Furthermore, Scruton elaborates that nations are fundamentally territorial, linked with population, and in turn their culture.
Nations are also intrinsically communal, as nations exist only out of the communities which share a loyalty to that nation. Building on the nation, a government can exist in a capacity relating to the national culture and history.
These concepts are all interlinked naturally by the passing of time, and the state of things beyond a liberal, supernational construction.
Nations are by all accounts, naturally occurring phenomena, which are the only effective way of countering the issues of government; a factor Scruton made palpably clear in his arguments on nationhood.
Through small and incremental change, the issues facing a nation are removed in such a manner as to not alter the balance of social order.
Clear examples of failed nations are those built on nationalism, such as the Nazi Regimes which Scruton described as being “pathological” in their national loyalty, he further equates this example to the phrase, the “nation’s gone mad”.
The arguments made by Scruton, and his analysis of the nation, do not extend beyond accepted tradition.
I admire Scruton’s openness on the simple yet oxymoronically nuanced understanding of a nation.
A nation is simple in its definition yet nuanced by the levels which form that definition.
Furthermore, I would argue that nations are inherently a conservative phenomenon, whereby the practice of national loyalty results in small and incremental change, surrounding the similar practice of national loyalties across communities up and down the territorial limitations of a nation.
Culture is one of these loyalties.
Culture and nationhood are intertwined, as each supports the other; culture is built by a people, attributed to a place, and a nation is built by a people as well as attributed to a place. In some sense, nations and cultures are one and the same thing.
We can define this both by people and territory, yet they are separate in the sense that nations are the result of cultures.
Nations and cultures are thus symbiotic in their relationship - a culture provides the content, and a nation defines that content by territorial boundary.
People exist within a culture, acting within it and because of it; therefore, they connect their cultural community to the practice of national loyalty.
Such cannot be said of the alternative: multi-culturalism.
Multi-culturalism stems from a worldview, which can be attributed to the rise of a globalist liberal agenda.
Here, instead of the enrichment of cultures in their attributed national boundaries, all territories are encouraged to encompass and promote all cultures as equally valuable entities.
This is often seen synonymous with ethnic pluralism, which is a primary component of the aforementioned vicious circle we face at present.
Multi-culturalism takes an artificial approach to the natural formations of nations and argues for the uprooting of such traditions, and establishment of supernational organisations, which through the plurality of ideas and traditions should, in theory, remove obstacles to a larger egalitarian society (as understood by sociology professor Tariq Modood).
Scruton makes reference to these multicultural organisations, highlighting their clear efforts to create common laws, financial systems, monetary systems and language.
Multiculturalism is artificial and that is a point I must make clear; it does not exist naturally and has not succeeded artificially, either.
If nations can be understood in the way which I have presented we can make the following assessments of multiculturalism within the structure of nations:
Nations are naturally occurring, symbiotic formations of culture and community in a set territorial boundary.
Multiculturalism is the artificial attempt of nation building in a globalised world, whereby through migration, and displacement, native cultures are uprooted for the arrival of cultures from other territorial boundaries.
As these artificially multicultural nations are not built on naturally occurring symbiotic relationships, they cannot be stable or prosperous. The territorial boundaries of culture and nations allow for mutual coexistence in a defined and respected space; however, multiculturalism removes these boundaries, upending the order of natural formations which have existed for thousands of years.
The results are extreme nationalism, political violence, economic instability, unstable communities, disordered national boundaries (leading to global hostilities), and the entrenchment of unnecessary disdain and paranoia toward others.
Multiculturalism is inherently arrogant, as it artificially presumes upon organic cultures which occupy the space it seeks to takeover.
What is ironic about the present situation is the proponents of globalisation and multiculturalism are those who would criticise the efforts of nation-building and colonialism in the Middle East, and claim resulting instability and war is a direct result of that, while not recognising that the region serves as a hallmark of both artificial nation building and multiculturalism.
Instead of respecting the natural formations of nations in these regions, European administrators incorrectly established territories in formats which have led to the violence we see today.
We must learn from this lesson and not allow the same thing to happen in our own nation.
If you liked this article and want to help our organisation expand, please consider donating.
