The West confronts the reality of unconditional tolerance

The key contentions Zanny levelled at Elon included her view that he had exaggerated the problems faced by Europe, such as rising crime, government overreach, out-of-control migration, and the threat of foreign cultures replacing European culture and heritage. She admonished Elon for claiming that Europe was a hellhole and that a civil war was imminent.

Elon didn’t respond by jumping to his own defence or apologising for what he said. Instead, he highlighted her mischaracterisations and pointed to his opposition to specific issues, as opposed to his condemnation of certain ethnic groups, cultures, or ideologies.

He then pointed out that Zanny was representative of the class of people who lived a cloistered existence, unaware of the problems facing the society and heritage she came from. He showed the flaws governments, media, and institutions committed as they sought to paint an illusion of a cohesive society.

Despite the two engaging in a tense exchange of words that became personal, even overstepping the boundaries of a polite debate, the interview ended with Elon and Zanny accepting that they agreed on many core principles.

This interview is memorable for reasons beyond what they talked about and how the exchange ended. Given what is unfolding across Europe, it could be a defining historical moment that will earn its place in history.

Is Elon right and Zanny wrong?

Over the past week, you may have seen endless coverage of fiery protests, riots, looting, and widespread destruction across France. As President Emmanuel Macron and the French law enforcement failed to rein in the chaos, it has started to spread to Italy. Other countries are on edge as the dissent threatens to become viral.

Readers familiar with my work would know that I’m going to go beyond writing about how Elon is vindicated and Zanny got served a major omelette on her face. That’s because who’s right or wrong is of secondary importance. It’s not going to undo or reverse the chaos we’re seeing now.

I believe our collective understanding of what’s happening now and how we got to this is necessary if we want to prevent this trainwreck from getting worse.

Is the West falling because of 
its civility and tolerance?

In the past two decades, much of the Western world has begun to rapidly transform itself culturally and politically. Even before then, the people have gradually detached themselves from their traditional heritage, rooted in a combination of Christian morality and traditions and Greco-Roman philosophy and political structure. It’s accelerated in recent years to the point that many Western nations are largely secular, whether in their laws, governance structures, social norms, or individual lifestyles.

As the West became more secular, it began to lose its boundaries. It gradually  accepted a wider range of alternatives on all levels, both collectively and individually. People believe they could regulate themselves beyond a spiritual authority. Similarly, people can live how they like without needing to conform to values they don’t identify with. This brought forth pluralism.

As certain countries in the West prospered over time, many people from other nations and cultures sought to migrate there for a better life and gain more opportunities.

The initial waves of immigration came from more compatible societies and cultures, meaning integration was smooth. However, subsequent waves included countries and cultures that were less similar, which created friction between the local population and the newcomers.

In the past, when the West had a more established set of values, ensuring that immigrants respected and adopted the incumbent norms was a given. I arrived in Australia in 1989 and knew quite clearly that our family should respect the local culture. Where the population supported this and made it clear publicly and in their social circles, we have a smoothly functioning society.

This has changed substantially nowadays as many Western countries no longer embrace their traditions as they did. Moreover, pluralism gave way to an acceptance of alternative cultures and values, even to the point of allowing them to replace one’s own. This is often the case if a particularly strong foreign culture comprises a significant proportion of the population. These people may impose their values, sometimes overriding local laws and customs.

We’ve seen that happen with the UK, Germany, France, Sweden, and many other countries. Beyond allowing the growth of ethnic enclaves, governments and law enforcement have sometimes adopted ineffective or outright absurd measures when responding to criminal or unwelcome behaviour.

We can name a few:

• The UK Crown Prosecution Service dealt leniently with gangs of South Asian and Middle Eastern men who had kidnapped and sexually assaulted women and young girls for over a decade. After the release of documents showing how the police, prosecutors and local authorities acted in relation to these cases, there was widespread public outrage about their impotence and inability to uphold the rule of law.
• Governments distributing pamphlets to migrants entering their country explaining what constitutes harassment and unwanted touching in public places. A recent example is the BBC reporting of the UK Home Office publishing a nine-page online booklet covering different types of unwanted behaviour.
• The enactment of hate-speech laws by governments and institutions, aided by the media that self-censors, to appease cultures and ethnicities that have made little effort to integrate into society. The terms ‘racist’, ‘bigot’, ‘Islamophobe’, and ‘far-right’ are weaponised as labels aimed at ostracising and isolating people who speak up. Academic institutions and banks have also sought to join in, as they believed this would protect their social standing.

Rethinking the West’s virtues

What began as the West acting civilly to receive and respect the cultures and norms of other nations and ethnicities has slowly turned into an acquiescence for fear of seeming intolerant and losing one’s livelihood.

The West has distinguished itself for its tolerance and openness to differences. It can perceive these as virtues. However, it is worth reflecting on whether it has retained its judgment about what it can and cannot accept.

Does the West need to drop its own history because of its supposed sins against other cultures and nations in the past?

Does the West need to adopt food, clothing, and lifestyle norms to not offend those who come to live among them, when they do not reciprocate?

Does the West need to suppress any dissent from its locals because of the threat of violence and retaliation?

At what point does a virtue become a vice when its exercise ignores the risks it creates for others?

We’re watching today as France is currently up in flames. While one can argue that this disruption began with university and school students protesting a lack of funding and poor service, there were groups that joined later that engaged in looting, arson and clashes with police. Authorities have identified radical left-wing activists and opportunists for the violence, looting and destruction.

This is an example of how a country wishing to appear cohesive while refusing to address the growing resentment among its people can lead to such an outcome. Meanwhile, the French government speaks strong words, but its actions have fallen so short that many feel that they are hollow as they have seen the outcome for many years.

France is merely a powder keg fuelled by its longstanding history of taking tolerance to increasingly extreme and unreasonable ends. Other Western countries are facing similar reckonings. There’s an undercurrent of resentment among both locals and migrants living under a system that seeks to accommodate something that can’t coexist.

Wishing for a harmonious coexistence of different cultures and values isn’t wrong. I would argue that many people of all nations and ethnicities prefer to migrate to the West because this was one of the reasons for its greatness. However, when a society and its people can’t distinguish between tolerating and surrendering to certain values, the result is that the people who don’t share these values will gradually dominate.

Whether it’s France, Europe, or the West, we need to consider what we stand for and who can help us reclaim what our forefathers built. The West was strong when it recognised its core values and built a common civic foundation around them. Institutions and individuals defended these, civilly where possible, and with force only when threatened.

It underwent cycles of change and refinement. We are now responsible for guarding and caring for it… so our future generations can live and thrive in it.

I hope you find this article both confronting and thought-provoking. I’m not advocating for direct confrontation or rash actions. Rather, I want us to reflect on how we got here, what is going on, so we can identify ways to respond from here.

Have a good weekend ahead.