Gad Saad's Prescription to Save Western Civilization

 

Gad Saad

Gad Saad has nine points to which he says Western civilization must assent, or face extinction.

I list them, with my comments.

1. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬. 

I’d argue that value are values. To call them “Western values” is to concede too much, and tacitly accept cultural relativism. The West must proudly and unequivocally defend values. A society or culture without values cannot function. Nor can an individual.

We have clear statements of values we can refer to: the US Bill of Rights, the US Declaration of Independence, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Magna Carta, common law, the Ten Commandments, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the Gospel. 

It should be the business of the government and the education system to promote and inculcate these values.

2. 𝐂𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝. 

If everything is relative, nothing means anything or has any genuine value. All actions are licit: there is nothing really wrong, say, with murder. Morality and truth are not culturally conditioned; that is the fascist order. A bridge designed by English engineers will not collapse because it is put up in India. Culture is a tool; it is not a god.

3. 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬. 

The concept of group rights is inherently prejudiced, discriminatory. It is incompatible with the concept of human equality and human dignity. Culture belongs to people, and to all people; people do not belong to their culture. One man is not responsible for the acts of another. We must abolish all forms of “affirmative action” -- and aboriginal status.

4. 𝐀𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥. 

A culture is a set of tools, a technology for a good life.  History or travel shows us that some cultures work better, produce a better life. This should not be surprising—just as a pneumatic drill is more efficient than a stone axe for breaking up concrete. When we find a particular tool or culture or cultural element superior to another, it is both stupid and prejudiced not to appropriate it or assimilate to it.

5. A𝐥𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬.

This would always have been obvious to anyone who had done a serious study of comparative religion. Unfortunately, our secular leaders have generally been ignorant of religions. “Western” values and “Western” culture are based on the Bible and the Christian tradition. “Western culture” ere is really a secularist euphemism for “Christendom.” Other belief systems will be more or less compatible, to the degree that they diverge from Christianity. 

This should be a consideration for immigration policy. Specifically, Islam is not compatible with liberal democracy—it is a competing ideological an governmental system. There is a reason why almost no Muslim countries are democracies.

6. 𝐍𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞. And assimilation is 𝐚 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.

Assimilation, not multiculturalism, should be promoted and funded by government. Other ethnicities have their own home countries and governments; Canada is the proper domain of Canadian culture. Canadians have nowhere else to go. It is Canadian culture that makes Canada Canada. 

Nationalities should accordingly be preferred for immigration based on their record of assimilation and their cultural similarity to Canadians.  How well and quickly will they be able to fit in?

7. 𝐈𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐡𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞, 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐳𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧-𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟𝐬 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞. No sacred cows. 𝐍𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐦𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.

Here we have a problem. Granted that we may be in a desperate situation due to reckless immigration policy in the recent past. But we cannot deport people based on their assumed beliefs. That amounts to violating Saad’s third principle, that people must be judged as individuals, not groups.

We can and should certainly deport anyone in the country illegally. And I could see it as justifiable to revoke all citizenships granted, say, in the past twenty or thirty years. These folks would then have to reapply, and could be refused if they had engaged in any criminal acts or relied on public assistance during their tenure. They could also be given a values test; although of course, they might lie on it. Future citizenships could similarly be made probationary for twenty or thirty years.

8. 𝐈𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐟𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐫 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐨𝐦𝐨𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐲. Meaning: 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐮𝐞𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

I would add to this that sane nations should prefer immigrants from cultures that have a generally favourable view of the host culture. One does not want to import enemies.

9. 𝐙𝐞𝐫𝐨 𝐭𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐬𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐟 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐬. If an ideology constitutes an existential threat to freedom, criminalization is 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐲𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐲 — 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐟-𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞.

Here I disagree. We must not police thought nor speech. Government is not competent to do this, and cannot be trusted to do this. Freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, and freedom of speech are core values.

Beliefs with which we disagree must be argued against, not silenced. And government can actively argue against them. More on this, perhaps in a future post.

Saad is pessimistic; he does not believe this can be turned around. His judgment is tutored here by his experience in his home country, Lebanon. It was flooded by Muslim immigrants, and collapsed into civil strife. Reading between the lines, it is Islam with which he is most concerned.

He may be right; but I see public opinion moving rapidly on these issues.