Multiculturalism leads to moral relativism, where we are all relatively equal. In order, to love one’s self, one must have a belief that one’s culture is good; when all is morally relative there is no self-identity to love. With moral relativism, one cannot rationally say that liberal democracies are better than monarchies or tribal governments. Basically, one must love oneself, to defend oneself. And in order to defend the US, a citizen needs to love America. And besides irrational tongue-twisting definitions of how criticizing America is in reality loving America, there is no way that a liberal (indoctrinated into moral relativism) can ever love his/her nation much as a conservative.

Not only that, moral relativism is simple minded. While a leftist hates McDonald because of their elitist feelings (everything corporate is bad), some on the right will defend McDonalds without much thought (everything American is good). However, it is the mentally-complex, fiscal conservative who can see that under certain circumstances McDonalds provide a damn fine meal along with being a job-providing, economy-expanding business. To the left, American businesses are owl destroying oppressors, where to a patriot; businessmen are to be respected for the good they produce.

Patriots love successful productive Americans; lefties love sharks first, and then Marxist sanctioned victims.

If people allow banks to control their money, banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless in the country of their fathers.

@ Ralph7:

So what America needs is:

One culture.

One value system.

One definition of nation.

One definition of patriotism.

An allegiance to corporatism.

And let's top it off with contempt for the weak and a celebration of the powerful.

Wow! I have never read a better prescription for fascism.

The terms "multiculturalism" and "diversity," pushed by supporters of the Politically Correct Agenda, have been sold to the far left and gullible youth as noble goals and positive achievements. But what do these terms actually mean?

The true PC meaning of the term "multiculturalism" is that traditional white/American culture is racist, worthless, and fraudulent, and that whites are not capable of creating or possessing a worthwhile culture. It demands that white/American culture must be replaced by the combined inclusion of and any all foreign cultures (but not white foreign cultures!) Multiculturalism demands that traditional white/American culture be denounced, vilified, and rejected, and after sufficient time has passed, its very existence shall be denied (we're almost there now.)

The true PC meaning of the term "diversity" is that whites, without the inclusion of other races, are illegitimate, undesirable, and racist. Diversity mandates that whites not be allowed to congregate without the inclusion of sufficient numbers of approved non-white races. A group of all whites should be regarded as suspect, degenerate, and accused of racism by default. Diversity does not apply to other races, a group of all blacks or all latinos shall be regarded as righteous, noble, commendable, and any efforts to impose whites amongst their ranks are verboten!

Multiculturalism and diversity suck.

No, your own strawman definitions of multiculturalism and diversity suck. The pseudo-intellectual deconstructionist fad you incorrectly call "PC" swept through some segments of academia in the 70s and 80's. Aside from providing a convenient whipping boy for conservatives, deconstructionism had a negligible impact on our broader culture.

But, by all means, keep whipping that dead horse. The central theme of this campaign season will be that conservatives are out-of-touch and stuck in the 20th century. As is nicely illustrated by Ralph7's rants against Marxism.

Pwoxby,

Take a stab at learning what fascism is. (I'll give you a hint: it's not simply everything you dislike.)

I dislike turnips but I have never confused fascism with turnips. If you have an intelligent response to my chacterization of fascism, I'd like to hear it.

Consider this gem from Ralph7: "In order, to love one’s self, one must have a belief that one’s culture is good; when all is morally relative there is no self-identity to love."

If a person's sense of identity in a multicultural society is tied to the idea that the person's subculture is good and, by implication, that the other subcultures are bad that leads to blind intolerance. If the cultural majority embraces the twin concepts of cultural superiority and intolerance of diversity, that leads to fascism. It happened in Germany and Japan.

Note that I am not endorsing moral relativism. Some cultures are bad on objective grounds. But the fact that you or I or Ralph7 don't identify with a different culture does not make that culture bad. And that's exactly what Ralph7 is saying with his asinine title: "Multiculturalism leads to moral relativism".

I’m arguing for “accepting diversity” and for “opposing the correction of Marxist inequality.” I support Laissez-faire, where all people have the same constitutionally guaranteed individual rights and unalienable private property rights. Multiculturalism is a collectivist philosophy that sanctions “victims” while punishing the white “oppressors.” Multiculturalism is a redistributive Marxist philosophy.

Moral relativism leads to all things being morally equivalent. For example, a moral relativist can justify Hitler’s murders saying, “Hitler was only trying to create the perfect race.”

Moreover, moral relativists are simple-minded excuse makers who say “everything is relative” thereby, creating anarchy where nothing matters. While some ideas are grey, others are black and white, right and wrong. Ideas have moral implications.

For example, to justify a mass murdering ideology, communists wish to avoid culpability for their ideology’s consequences, by avoiding judgment. The cowardice communists’ exhibit when confronted with the truth, only confirms the immorality of Marxism. We cognitively understand Marx’s wish to avoid God’s judgment by proclaiming communists to be atheist; likewise, many of the progressive ilk advocate for moral relativity because their ideas factually murder hundreds of millions of people

Most rational thinkers concur with the notion that the socialism was the underlying reason behind Germany’s collective crimes. “Fascism” and “racism” are words leftists use to cover-up socialist crimes. For example, the Austrian School of Economics has concluded that Hitler’s crimes were socialist crimes. In fact, Friedrich Hayek, writing in 1944, “whatever may have been his reasons, Hitler thought it expedient to declare in one of his public speeches as late as February 1941 that ‘basically National Socialism and Marxism are the same.’ ”

(Did you notice that the collectivist Japanese were also not big supporters of individual rights, until they we conquered, accepted capitalism and became wealthy?)

The National Socialist party of Germany was socialists in the truest, purest sense. Marx was a German, and all of Germany was under his influence since the turn of the century. In fact 97% of all Germans at the time of the Holocaust were invested into the socialism through Redistribution. Individuals do no commit collective crimes, collective socialists do. In fact it was the economic hated of the economically viable (richer Jews) that was used by your collective brethren to justify another socialist cause mass murder.

Nazi publications and speeches included anti-capitalist (especially anti-finance capitalist) rhetoric. Hitler attacked what he called “pluto-democracy,” which he claimed to be a Jewish conspiracy to favor democratic parties in order to keep capitalism intact. The “corporation” was attacked by orthodox Nazis as being the leading instrument of finance capitalism, with the role of Jews emphasized.

Hitler said in 1927, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance.”.

In a 1931 interview, Hitler said, “I want everyone to keep what he has earned subject to the principle that the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State"

The National Socialist party described itself as socialist. “The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.” Party spokesman Joseph Goebbels claimed in 1932 that the Nazi Party was a “workers’ party” and “on the side of labor and against finance”.

But just to be fair, I oppose both fascism and socialism, though I oppose socialism more because it is the most destructive. Those who call themselves socialists are the world’s most horrendous mass murderers. I also oppose dictators, like Stalin. Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao, who call themselves socialists to justify mass murder: No one portending to support the ideas of Adam Smith has ever become a mass murderer.

Basically, an American Patriot would support capitalism, because it is the philosophy that created America’s prosperity. Multiculturalism is the tool progressives use to undermine our successes; it’s the tool lefties use to convince schoolchildren that our system is bad; thereby, facilitating the Marxist revolution.

Hitler was Marxist in his rhetoric but only because that suited his agenda to win over the German working class. The full name of Hitler's party was the National Socialist German Worker's Party. This crude propaganda device, among well-known others, fooled enough Germans to give Hitler a plurality in the 1932 Reichstag. But once in power Hitler was profoundly anti-Marxist in his actions.

Marx may have been German but he was also Jewish and Hitler would not accept the beliefs of any Jew (most notably Jesus of Nazareth). Hitler hated socialists and socialism. He hated communists and communism even more. German socialists and communists vigorously opposed Hitler's rise to power and it was only divisions within the German left that allowed the Nazis to rise to power. Before 1933 the Nazis violently intimidated Germany's socialists into silence and after 1933 German socialists and communists filled Germany's jails until the concentration camps were built.

Again, despite his Marxist rhetoric, Hitler quickly and naturally made an accommodation with Germany's capitalists. They clearly saw his Marxist rhetoric as the sham it was and they supported his rise to power as a useful bulwark against the threat to them posed by German socialists and communists. Hitler reciprocated by crushing the German trade union movement while leaving German corporations unscathed. This belied any claim Hitler ever made to be a socialist.

Finally, the elephant in the room that you conveniently ignore, is that Hitler's blind hatred of communism as a Marxist and Jewish conspiracy led him inexorably to war with the Soviet Union. Exterminating Jews, Marxists, communism, and enslaving the Slavic peoples were the centerpiece of Hitler's agenda of promoting one people (Aryan) and one culture (German) united under one state-sponsored value system (fascist).

The fascist dream of promoting one people and one culture united under one state-sponsored value system dies hard. When Ann Coulter spoke of forcibly converting the world's billion Muslims to Christianity, she earned the right to be called an American fascist. To deflect attention from this wing-nut agenda, the polemicist Jonah Goldberg tried to pin the fascist tail on the leftist donkey with his book "Liberal Fascism".

Now, I'll credit Goldberg with being too smart to be taken in by Hitler's words but Goldberg didn't extend that courtesy to his readers. As for your own tendency to take Hitler's and Goebbels words at face value, well, a lot of Germans made that mistake exactly as Hitler and his propaganda minister intended.