On paper “Multiculturalism” is compelling – the notion of people from all walks of life coming together to live in harmony certainly sounds idyllic, perhaps even utopian. The word invokes a colourful image of delightful customs and exotic cuisines. But is that the end of the story? Just how carefully has the concept been examined by the politicians advocating it?
In the West today there is a continuous, relentless campaign to push policies that have never been tried in history. Despite the lack of precedent, the transformation of our society proceeds at a galloping pace, with caution thrown to the wind. There appears to be no pit stop for reflection allowed on our race into the unknown.
Whether or not you believe in the objective, I would be surprised if you did not at least concede that we have already encountered problems. You may feel these are merely kinks which will duly be ironed out – or you may think they are a sign of further trouble ahead. But either way, might this not be a good time to pause for thought? Should we not at least try to evaluate which outcome we are moving towards, before it is too late to change course?
If problems encountered on the road to a multicultural society are merely incidental, and relate solely to implementation, then there is little cause for concern. But what if the very concept itself is flawed? Should we not at least make sure the fundamental theory is sound?
In this essay I will attempt to illustrate that “multiculturism” implicitly needs certain conditions to be logically consistent. I will then detail how I believe our ongoing failure to apply these conditions is resulting in a very real and steadily escalating danger to our communities and way of life.
Before going any further, it is important we agree on definitions for terms such as “culture” and “multiculturism”, otherwise we will not be able to have a conversation about them. Referring to a dictionary may seem an obvious solution – but unfortunately these offer inconsistent definitions – for example Collins states “Multiculturalism is a situation in which all the different cultural or racial groups in a society have equal rights and opportunities, and none is ignored or regarded as unimportant.”, whereas Encyclopedia Britannica asserts, “Multiculturalism: the view that cultures, races, and ethnicities, particularly those of minority groups, deserve special acknowledgement of their differences within a dominant political culture.”
But the real reason I want to go beyond dictionary definitions is because in general they tell us nothing about the practical situation on the ground in the UK and Europe; what we really want is an empirical definition that reflects the way the authorities are understanding and implementing “Multiculturalism”, in terms of real life laws, policies and actions.
So let me suggest a scheme of definitions; then we can explore whether these make sense and amend them if appropriate.
Let a distinct “culture” be a set of traditional customs, daily habits, teachings and/or beliefs (henceforth “cultural traits”) broadly held across a group of individuals (henceforth a “cultural group”) who self-identify by a common title, and whose cultural traits broadly differ from individuals who do not identify by that title.
So by this definition, the following may be regarded as cultural groups:
- Members of a certain golf club
- Computer game enthusiasts
- World War II Nazis
- The Han People of Mainland China
- British People
In some cases the number of cultural traits which differentiate one cultural group from others may be small. For example in the case of “British People”, there may be few customs or habits which uniquely identify this group, since “British People” comprises many separate (sub) cultural groups. However, there are at least some customs or habits which can be identified, for example “holding a British passport”, “watching British television”, “working at British companies”, “attending British schools” etc.
“The Han People of Mainland China” may have a larger list of identifying cultural traits, since this group is much more monolithic in nature.
Some sets of individuals might have too little in common to be able to be regarded as a distinct cultural group. For example “White People” may not have sufficiently different habits from any other race when taken globally; there are white people in many different countries whose customs and habits may align more closely with that country than any customs or habits derived from their skin colour. The same is true for many other races.
Let us define “Multiculturalism” as an ideology with the following 3 principles, which the law endeavours to protect and uphold:
The PoM (Principles of Multiculturism):
- Principle of Tolerance: all cultures are welcome; no culture should be persecuted for their cultural traits.
- Principle of Equality: all cultures should be treated as equally important; no culture should be regarded as better or worse than any other.
- Principle of Non-Interference: the cultural traits of any culture are sacred, should be respected as they are, and should not be required to change.
(Do these definitions seem a reasonable reflection of the narrative pushed by administrations of the UK and Europe? If not, what aspect(s) do you disagree with?)
The PoM work consistently whatever the circumstances, and no situations exist where their application
Testing the Null Hypothesis
One way to get a first impression on the validity of the PoM might be to try to imagine the result of throwing a variety of different cultures together. Lets imagine we take all seven cultural groups listed in our earlier example and have them coexist. Those groups again were:
- Members of a certain golf club
- Computer game enthusiasts
- World War II Nazis
- The Han People of Mainland China
- British People
What do you think would be the outcome?
It’s not hard to imagine most groups on the list being able to get on with each other; indeed, in many cases it would be perfectly possible for an individual to be a member of several different cultural groups. For example a particular individual could conceivably be described as a Liberal Catholic member of a certain golf club – and why not also be a computer game enthusiast!
But the problem with our theoretical multicultural society jumps clearly out at us when we arrive at item number 5. It would be difficult to imagine achieving social cohesion with a group of World War II Nazis in the midst. We are all familiar with how that kind of society turns out. Would it be wise to readily throw open the door for them (apply the Principle of Tolerance) and then to unquestioningly accept (apply the Principle of Non-Interference) their custom of persecuting non-Nazis? However much we may be concerned about the integration of the other groups on the list, isn’t the Nazi group a whole different ball game?
But why is this? What is it about Nazis that causes so many problems? It’s easy for us to recognise that the Nazi culture is not desirable, because we have witnessed the tragic outcome on a global scale. As a result, we are incredibly sensitive even to the mention of Nazis, to the point of shutting any white person who even displays the faintest hint of nationalism.
Where Nazis are concerned, we
- Do not tolerate them
- Regard their culture as worse than most others
- Try to stamp out their cultural traits at the earliest opportunity
We exercise the exact opposite of our principles of Multiculturalism when dealing with Nazis!
The Nazi example immediately disproves our null hypothesis. We have found an example where applying our principles actively works against social cohesion (if we tolerate Nazis then we make society worse, not better).
If one example exists of a culture that violates our null hypothesis, might there not be more? Again, what is it about Nazi culture that makes it so undesirable?
- Nazis are generally intolerant of non-Nazis. There may be certain cultural groups who receive more persecution (Jews for example) than others (white, Arian Germans for example) – but generally Nazis treat their own group far better than any other.
- Nazis believe their group to be superior to all others.
- Nazis don’t have any respect for the traits of other cultures – they will readily murder, burn books, burn down churches etc. with no regard or remorse.
So what you have right there is, once again, the exact opposite of the PoM. (Compare 1, 2 and 3 above with our PoM 1,2 and 3 respectively).
- they themselves violate the PoM within their group
- We respond by violating the PoM ourselves where they are concerned, and thereby shut them down.
We certainly do not tolerate Nazis and we do not respect their culture – and with good reason. And note how effective this policy has been. We have virtually no threat to security from “white supremacists” as a result of this attitude.
However, it appears we seem confused into believing that, just because a dangerous ideology manifested itself amongst white people last time, that it’s going to be the same the next. We are so obsessed with white supremacy that we see it in individuals that display even the slightest hint of patriotism. In fact, white people are so busy denigrating their own race that this is perhaps the one class of people being taught to regard themselves as less than equal to others.
It is indeed strange, particularly when you consider the people of the United Kingdom. It’s almost as if the German feelings of guilt over World War II have somehow also washed over the British. We seem to have forgotten that the British fought against the German Nazis. We have no reason for guilt, and no reason not to be patriotic.
The obsession with white supremacy seems to have distracted us from the more broad issue of supremacy in general. The problem with the Nazis was not that they were white, but that they regarded themselves as superior, were intolerant, disrespectful and persecuted other cultures.
- Only cultural groups with traits that comply with the PoM within their own group can be integrated into a Multicultural society in a cohesive way.
- If a cultural group violates the PoM, it is dangerous to apply the PoM to it.
In a nutshell we are concluding that we should invoke a philosophy of being “tolerant of tolerance, but intolerant of intolerance”. It sounds simple, but in practice human error can turn it into a logical swamp. Consider the following sequence of events which I will dub the “mistaken identity scenario”:
Say group A violate the PoM, but the authorities do not realise. However, Group B recognises Group A is intolerant, and duly exercises intolerance towards Group A. Now the authorities see Group B being intolerant towards group A, and conclude that group B violates the PoM. The authorities then exercise intolerance towards group B. Group B locks horns with the authorities, while the really dangerous cultural group (Group A) busily pulls society to pieces.
The message is that we need to be careful to identify the root cause of the intolerance, and crush only this. If we mistake a reaction for the root cause then we are likely to exacerbate the problem.
Comparing Islam to the PoM:
- Principle of Tolerance? Countless passages in the Quran display intolerance towards “kuffar” (non-believers). Jews once again receive particularly disdainful rhetoric, but other non-believers are also mocked and derided. At times the Quran reader is invited to murder infidels. Hidden camera footage has already revealed that this philosphy is being taught in schools and mosques inside the UK.
- Principle of Equality? It is clear from the the teachings of the Quran and the Hadith that Islam regards believers as being superior to non-believers. A multitude of passages declare that non-believers are worthless and will burn in hell.
- Principle of Non-Interference?It is unlikely that practitioners of Islam who were prepared to murder non-believers (as instructed by the Quran) would have reservations stamping on the cultural traits of non-muslims. In addition, the Quran specifically mentions (verse 2:191-193) that fighting [for Islam]may persist until “religion is for Allah” – presumably meaning until all other religions are exterminated.
Like the Nazi cultural group, the Islam cultural group fails all 3 principles. Indeed you could pretty much swap out the word “Nazis” with “Practitioners of Islam” in the comparison of Nazis with the PoM (under the heading “Observations” above) and those sentences would still be valid. Both ideologies even have special persecution reserved for Jews. Isn’t this is an indication that we should regard Islam as similarly dangerous to the Nazi ideology? Is it not in essence a Nazi ideology itself?
But what seems particularly troubling is our (deliberate?) failure to acknowledge this growing danger. Rather than trying to suppress the murderous ideology of Islam, we invite Muslims into our country, build mosques for them, and encourage them into public office. In fact, we appear to give them preferential treatment – the opposite of what our analysis indicates is the best course of action.
Why is this? I can’t help but speculate that Islam may have infiltrated the highest positions in our society, and is now giving preferential treatment to its own, on the route to an Islamic takeover of Britain. This is what this site is dedicated to exposing.
Just as the German elite acquiesced as the Nazis rose to power, so our politicians acquiesce to Islam, pretending even to themselves that there isn’t a problem. Do we really have to wait for the inevitable outcome to actually take place before we accept this is where we are heading? Can we not learn from the lessons of history?
There seem to be many blind advocates of Multiculturalism, and many individuals who denounce it as a complete failure. But a slightly deeper analysis seems to indicate both viewpoints do not quite hit the mark.
I propose that Multiculturism can be successful, provided it is conducted wisely, and – crucially – provided certain conditions are applied. Specifically we must require that all cultural groups that integrate share the values of tolerance, equality and respect for other cultures. We must reject any culture that does not.
Right now Islam stands out as a particularly intolerant and dangerous ideology. Yet the reaction to it by the UK and European authorities appears to be more like the “mistaken identity scenario” outlined earler (see the “implications” section above). The authorities are acting as if intolerance towards Islam is the problem, and thereby exacerbating the problem.
We need to get the message out that the root cause of the problem is Islam, and that shutting down a reaction to the problem is going to make the problem worse, not better.
We need to prevent this ailment before it consumes us – not try to cure it when it’s already too late.