Progressing Toward the Edge of a Cliff: Understanding Multiculturalism

We are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven. That which we are, we are. One equal temper of heroic hearts made weak by time and fate. [Lord Alfred Tennyson, Ulysses]

––––––––

So by slow degrees the Britons were seduced by pleasant pastimes . . . till finally the gullible natives came to call their slavery ‘culture’. [Derek Williams, Romans and Barbarians]

––––––––

"That England, that was wont to conquer others, hath made a shameful conquest of itself. [William Shakespeare, Richard II. Act 2. Scene 1.]

––––––––

The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. [US President Donald Trump in a speech to the people of Poland, 7th July 2017]

Contents

Part 1: What Do the Words Mean?

1. Hate Speech

2. Multiculturalism

3. Diversity

4. Equality

5. Social Justice

6. Racism

7. Islamophobia

8. Fascism

9. The Politics of Name-Calling

––––––––

Part 2: Understanding Multiculturalism

1. Multiculturalists have never understood Multiculturalism

2. Multiculturalism is Extremist, Not Moderate

3. Multiculturalism is Anti-Nationalist

4. Multiculturalism is Multi-Sectarianism

5. The Issue is Not Immigration, the Issue is Mass Immigration

6. Unprecedented Mass Immigration

7. Intentions and the Road to Hell

8. Multiculturalism Destroys the Ethnic Culture that it Replaces

9. Multiculti Racism

10. Fallacious White Guilt

11. Engineering the New Society

––––––––

Part 3: The Death of Englishness

1. Effacing the English

2. A Nation of Immigrants?

3. No Such Thing as Englishness?

4. Multiethnicity is Not and Cannot Be the New Englishness

5. English History in Education

6. Food and Other Supposed Trivialities

7. The Crucial Hypothetical

8. The Bogie Man and the Rivers of Blood

9. Multiculturalism is 21st century Colonialism

––––––––

Part 4: Islamic Imperialism

1. What is Imperialism?

2. The Lesson of History

3. Acts of War and the Conquest of Territory

4. Islamosycophant Propaganda

5. Not All Muslims

6. What is a Moderate Muslim?

7. Today the Prisons, Tomorrow the Streets

––––––––

Part 5: The Powers-That-Be

1. The New Religion and the New Inquisition

2. Ideological Correctness Given Priority Over Truth

3. They Demand Tolerance but Practice Intolerance

4. The Infallibility of Political Correctness

5. Pacification by Feminisation

––––––––

Part 6: We Need a New Political Vocabulary

1. Left-Wing and Right-Wing are Out of Date

2. Whose Identity, Which Identity?

3. Reactionaries Then and Reactionaries Now

4. The Split in the Establishment

5. Shut Up, You Have Freedom of Speech, So Shut Up

6. Conservatives, Liberals, and Communitarians

7. Progressing Blindly Toward the Edge of a Cliff

8. Onward Multiculti Soldiers, Marching as to War

9. The Fools of History

Part 1

What Do the Words Mean?

––––––––

One of the battlegrounds of postmodern politics is the conflict fought over the definition of words. Those who wield political power frequently seek to defeat their opponents simply by redefining words, or inventing new phrases to subvert the meanings of words, which will then make the powers-that-be correct by definition.

For example, when the European migrant crisis intensified the important distinction between a refugee and an economic migrant, the political establishment insisted that the ordinary populations of European countries must view the migrants as refugees. Yet they found this policy unsuccessful with many of the people they were trying to convince because, not only was this view of the migrants false, it was obviously false. Critics pointed out that the vast majority of the migrants were healthy single young men, and frequently they were aggressive young men who did not petition the Europeans for help but instead demanded that the Europeans supply them with whatever they wanted.

[Here are a couple of examples. There were many more. Sunday Express, 19th December 2016, Give us more money or we will kill you Migrants kidnap refugee centre workers in Italy http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/744373/Italy-migrant-crisis-refugees-threaten-aid-workers-Potenza-italy Mail Online, 22nd December 2015, Migrants dump rubbish in the streets in protest over the fact the free Italian villa they have been given does not have a cleaner and wi-fi http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3370532/Migrants-dump-rubbish-streets-protest-fact-free-Italian-villa-given-does-not-CLEANER-Wi-fi.html ]

These migrants were not the impoverished old folk and bedraggled starving children that might normally be associated with the word refugee. Rapidly the war of words began to favour the view that this was indeed a migrant crisis not a refugee crisis.

But the establishment intelligentsia are not so easily defeated. Postmodernism allows the intellectually dishonest to get around this inconvenient distinction between refugees and migrants. They began using phrases like refugees escaping economic hardship and economic refugees. This sort of phrase magically transforms economic migrants into refugees by making economic adversity a justification for refugee status. It creates a new definition of the word refugee which now includes economic migrants as refugees.

This is a standard tactic of the current political establishment. They did exactly the same thing when they redefined illegal immigrants as undocumented persons. Someone who is in a country illegally should, of course, be deported. They have no right to be there and are resident without the necessary permission. But an undocumented person sounds like someone who has merely misplaced their paperwork. They had the requisite form but they lost it. Maybe their dog ate their application for residential status. It doesn’t sound like they’ve done anything wrong, anything illegal, they’re just lacking a few documents. In this way a person who has committed a crime, an illegal immigrant, is transformed into a person who is having a temporary problem with bureaucratic red tape, an undocumented person.

The postmodern establishment doesn’t try to win the political argument by proving their case, they simply change the narrative. Their tactic is to change people’s perception of reality by the manipulation of language.

The advocates of Political Correctness who are currently in power assume that they are entitled to define or redefine words in keeping with their own ideological agenda. They do this because taking command of the meaning of words is an immensely powerful political weapon. By defining the vocabulary used in society, by dictating the meaning of words, the political establishment can determine how people understand (or, rather, how they are made to misunderstand) the things which those words describe.

If dissident opinion is misrepresented as hate speech, then ordinary people will reject the dissidents who have been portrayed as mere hatemongers. If opposition to misandry is misrepresented as an attack upon women, then people will support misandry because they mistakenly believe themselves to be defending women. If opposition to open borders is misrepresented as racism, then people will support open borders in the mistaken belief that they are fighting against racism.

As a political strategy it is crude but devastatingly effective. It’s the method used by totalitarian governments everywhere. It’s as easy as A B C:

(A) They use the levers of power (the education system, the establishment media, the legislature, etc.) to control the meaning of words. For example, for the last half-century feminism has had total domination of all mainstream discussion about gender relations. It has used that dominance to impose its own ideological vocabulary upon the debate.

(B) By controlling the meaning of words, they control what can and can’t be said. For example, feminism has restricted the use of the word sexism to issues of misogyny only. Patriarchy theory defined men as the oppressors and women as the oppressed, and sexism has therefore been (mis)understood as acts committed by men against women.

(C) By controlling what can and can’t be said, they control what can and can’t be thought. For example, by teaching people that sexism is solely about misogyny, feminism has ensured that misandry was excluded from what people think of as sexism and therefore no issues of misandry were included in mainstream discussions about gender relations for half a century.

Ideas are communicated in words. We humans use language to express our thoughts. Apart from purely aesthetic self-expressions like music and the visual arts, we understand and articulate our thoughts verbally. Consequently, as a general rule for ordinary people, our capacity to think coherently is limited to those thoughts which we have the vocabulary to articulate and limited by what we understand the words to mean.

In short, people can see only what the language they possess permits them to see. Anything outside of the definitions of words they’ve been given becomes invisible to them. So, in the ABC example, people in mainstream discussions about gender relations couldn’t see misandry as being sexist because the feminist establishment had defined the word sexism as meaning misogyny.

The speech codes of Political Correctness do not merely censor what can be said, they impose their own definitions or redefinitions of words upon society so that whatever is said can only be said in accordance with what Political Correctness has defined the words to mean. This is not done accidentally. It is deliberate policy. The purpose behind speech codes and the redefinition of words is to constrain public thought.

If the political establishment can control vocabulary, then people will think what they have been taught to think and they will say what they have been taught to say. Their conception of society (or, rather, their misconception of it) and their perception (misperception) of the events which take place within society will be in accordance with the definitions of words that they’ve been given. Their view of the world will be whatever story they’ve been told; the narrative written by those in power. In this way, ordinary citizens can be blinded to the truth. They will fail to see the reality that is right in front of their faces.

This is a profoundly totalitarian approach to political control because what a person thinks determines how that person acts. The most effective way to control a person’s actions is to control their thinking. By defining the meaning of words, the political class can constrain people’s thinking and thereby control people’s actions. Once the political class have achieved this level of control over the population they do not need to give orders to their citizens because people will behave in compliance with the prevailing ideology voluntarily. People will obey because they will think in the way that they’ve been taught to think.

This is why the first political stronghold seized by the ideologues of Political Correctness was the education system, and the second stronghold was the establishment media (including the subliminal propaganda of the entertainment industry). This is also why the most vital battlefield in the politics of 2017 is the issue of freedom of speech. Those who defend the right to speak freely understand that if they lose this battle, individual freedom of thought will be lost as well as public freedom of speech.

Those opposed to free speech almost never attempt to justify their position with intellectual argument. Their routine tactic is to make an emotional appeal for sympathy based upon their political preconceptions as to who in society is the most deserving of sympathy. The groups identified as those deserving sympathy never vary much. Thus, when the powers-that-be insist upon the curtailment of free speech in order to avoid causing offence to the hypersensitive feelings of protected groups like Muslims, women, people of colour, the transgendered, and immigrants, the alleged reason for this constraint upon public speech is to have everyone behave in a respectful way toward the victimized and the vulnerable. It’s like mommy telling her children to play nicely and to not bully the weaker kids.

But anyone observing the political arrogance and the high-handed demands for special entitlements and preferential treatment being made by these so-called victim groups can hardly be expected to believe in their supposed vulnerability. They are the groups with the most muscle in contemporary politics. They are the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. They are the ones who are in a strong enough position to make demands. If they were as oppressed and victimized as they claim to be, then they wouldn’t be in a position to make such demands. They command respect but they show none. They do not play nicely. They’re not the weaker kids, they’re the playground bullies. They have earned the sarcastic appellation: cry-bully.

The real purpose behind imposing restrictions on what other people may or may not say on any given subject is to thereby constrain what other people are allowed to think on that subject. People can be taught correct beliefs about gender and transgenderism. They can be taught what to think about Islam. They can be taught acceptance of unrelenting mass immigration. Ultimately, the point of speech codes is not to control speech, it is to control thought by limiting people’s thinking to that which is acceptable to the powers-that-be.

This is why the ideological activists who presumptuously monitor other people’s speech are referred to as the Thought-Police, and this can be taken further by inducing ordinary people to self-monitor their own speech for fear of social disapprobation. The ideas which the ideological activists deprecate can be removed from public discourse so that young people never come into contact with these ideas, and can thereby never entertain such thoughts in their young heads. Speech codes are thought-control.

The one bastion of free speech in the western world over the last quarter-century has been the Internet. Where countries like China and Saudi Arabia have severely restricted their populations’ access to the Internet, in the West it has been the most valuable public forum for the voices of the masses. The dominant ideology in the West (i.e. the political correctness of multiculturalism, feminism, and the politics of identity) has not had the same level of authoritarian power enjoyed by the prevailing ideologies in China (the Communist Party) or Saudi Arabia (Wahhabi Islam) and so the Internet has been able to fly the flag of political liberty while we witnessed the abject surrender of the mainstream media to the dominant ideology of Political Correctness.

But at the time of writing this book, online media giants like Google are exercising their power to silence dissenting voices. The battle for free thought may be decided by the respective levels of technical knowledge held by the establishment and the ordinary people who defy them online. It is a conflict between the individual and ideology. It is a war between liberty and correctness. A totalitarian political class will suppress any recognition of contrary opinion by denying it free public expression, which is why the fight has come to the Internet.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. [George Orwell, original intended preface to Animal Farm]

Another method used by a totalitarian political class to suppress dissent is by the gross misrepresentation of contrary opinion through the manipulation of language. They will redefine words to make out that all their political enemies are monsters. This is why we live in a society in which anyone who defies those in power will be slandered as a Nazi or a white supremacist or whatever. If those in power can define their opponents as evil in the public mind, they will be able to exercise power without any opposition.

Moreover, if they can establish a catechism of clichés, buzz-words, and dog-whistles as the compulsory vocabulary of political discourse, then they will soon have everyone mindlessly parroting their ideology instead of thinking and speaking freely. We hear just such a catechism in the endless recitation of statements which employ uncritically phrases like promote inclusivity and social enrichment through ethnic diversity and respect personal pronouns and celebrate vibrant multiculturalism.

The Pavlovian mindlessness of this type of dog-whistle vocabulary is epitomized in the innumerable times that supporters of the political establishment have mechanically repeated the phrase diversity is our strength despite the fact that this is obviously the polar opposite of the truth, with an ever-greater diversity fragmenting society into unrelated pieces and generating an ever-increasing number of inter-communal antagonisms. Diversity is divisive and these social divisions weaken society, they do not strengthen it. To quote Orwell again:

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. [George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 1946]

In times of such egregious political duplicity, it is unsurprising that George Orwell is considered more relevant in postmodern society than ever before. One of the terms most frequently used to describe Political Correctness is Orwellian and quotes from Orwell rain down upon us, all of them seemingly predicting with astonishing prescience the tyranny of postmodern political ideology. Let’s consider a few examples.

So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot. [George Orwell, Inside the Whale, 1940]

Multiculturalists (who falsely believe themselves to be left-wing despite their betrayal of the working-class) are facilitating Islamic imperialism and socially engineering multi-sectarian civilian conflicts in all the countries of Western Europe. Yet they remain utterly blind to what they’re doing. They are socially engineering a catastrophe across half a continent, but would laugh derisively and dismissively in the face of anyone who told them so. Their ideology does all of their thinking for them, so they continue to believe in their utopian fantasy of multiethnic harmony even as the avalanche of evidence proves that they are creating a dystopia. They are too vain to admit that they are wrong and continue to insist that multiculturalism leads to peace and justice even as the riots burn the cities and the Jihadis wage war in the streets. The multicultis continue to play with political fire and insist that fire is not hot, it’s as cool as a summer breeze.

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. [George Orwell, Animal Farm, 1945]

This is a perfect metaphor for the way that feminist-multicultis claim to be fighting for equality whilst they treat people unequally depending upon what race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation a person happens to be. The whole point of identifying protected groups, and legislating to treat the protected groups differently from the unprotected groups, is to give the former preferential treatment over the latter in the name of equality. When multicultis and feminist protesters are chanting their partisan slogans their attitude of ‘women good, men bad’ and ‘people of colour good, white people bad’ is exactly the same as the attitude of the sheep in Animal Farm chanting four legs good, two legs bad.

One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool. [George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism, 1945]

This should be written over the gates of every university in the western world. These days the so-called well educated seem incapable of recognising reality or exercising common sense. The postmodern university is a highly politicized indoctrination factory and this turns it into a citadel of wilful idiocy. Compare the two-minutes hate in the novel 1984 with the anti-Trump hatred expressed by the establishment media in America. Compare the two-minutes hate with the things said by university-indoctrinated Social Justice Warriors expressing their hatred for white people or feminists expressing their hatred for men. The postmodern university apparently sees its role in society as being to promote hatred for the categories of human being that they blame for all the injustices of history.

The authoritarianism of the intelligentsia in legislating their hatred has increased as they have accumulated ever-greater control over the political state. Nothing ever satisfies them. The more power they wield, the more power they demand. They are insatiable for it. They are drunk on it. They pursue ever more extreme versions of their ideology precisely because the more extreme versions require the wielding of even more power. Yet they call this social justice. They have redefined the concept of justice to make it identical with their own ideological prejudices and political absolutism.

Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it. [George Orwell, Review in Poetry Quarterly,1945]

Doesn’t this quote remind you of the ignorant, immature, spoilt brats called Social Justice Warriors? The politically correct have nothing but contempt for the achievements of European history because, to them, history is nothing but a pageant of inexcusable political incorrectness. They view everything prior to the civil rights activism of the 1960s as being a catalogue of white supremacy and patriarchal oppression.

Their incessant virtue-signalling is an expression of their conceited belief that they are both intellectually superior and morally superior to anyone who disagrees with them. They take it for granted that they are the intelligent people who have to educate the rest of us because everyone else is bigoted and stupid. This is why they are so condescending and sanctimonious when expressing their indoctrinated beliefs. Virtue-signalling is narcissism.

The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history. [Popularly attributed to George Orwell but possibly apocryphal]

Postmodernism has rejected the concept of objective truth in favour of narratives. This has been disastrous for the quality of intellectual discussion because if nothing is objectively true, then political debate is reduced to a brute competition for power. Politics is now a conflict of narratives with each narrative fighting for ascendancy over the others. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong because there is no objective truth to make a person right or wrong. Instead there are only winners and losers; either your narrative exercises power or your opponent’s narrative exercises power. This is why in recent decades political debate has been degraded into hostile shouting matches and crude sloganizing.

This has been further exacerbated by the feminisation of politics. Establishment feminism has discarded facts (i.e. objective truth) in favour of women’s feelings, creating a politics of victimhood where whomever can offer the most emotionally compelling narrative of their own oppression is given political priority. How protected groups feel is now considered to be a winning argument. If a woman feels unsafe, then she wins the argument. If a Muslim feels offended, then he wins the argument. It’s all about the feelings. The woman does not have to provide any evidence to show that she actually is unsafe, nor does it matter if the Muslim is as offensive to others as he is offended by them. Narratives rule. Postmodern society has replaced objectivity with an ideological subjectivism.

We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [George Orwell, Review in The Adelphi, 1939]

Think of this quote when next you hear an ordinary working man or woman in the audience of a television debate show trying to explain the plain truth about real life to the deaf ears of the ideologically incapacitated experts on the panel. Common sense has become uncommon sense because it is increasingly rare. When a woman sends out the genocidal hashtag #killallmen, the claim is made that this can’t be sexist because women can’t be sexist against men. When a university professor sends out a tweet endorsing white genocide, the claim is made that this can’t be racist because it’s impossible to be racist against white people. This is the postmodern society.

To begin a book which is subtitled Understanding Multiculturalism it is necessary to follow Orwell’s advice and make a few statements of the obvious. Having acknowledged the way in which the political establishment redefines words to suit their own agenda, let’s examine a few of their favourite words and attempt a clarification of the true meaning of these words.

1. Hate Speech

The term hate speech was invented for an entirely political purpose: to suppress dissident opinion. Those in power wish to silence their opponents whilst simultaneously claiming that they support freedom of speech. How is this to be done? Simple. They argue that hate speech is not included in freedom of speech, so hate speech can legitimately be suppressed. Then they claim that everything their opponents say is hate speech. This means that everything their opponents say can be suppressed, yet freedom of speech has not been curtailed or diminished because hate speech is not protected by the right to freedom of speech.

Do you see how easy that is? If their opponents say that feminists are sexist hypocrites, then feminists will declare this to be hate speech against women and therefore they are entitled to silence their opponents. If their opponents say that All Lives Matter, it is not only black lives that matter, then race politicians will declare this to be hate speech against black people and therefore they are entitled to silence their opponents. If their opponents say that there are only two genders, the male/masculine and the female/feminine, then advocates of non-binary transgender identities will declare this to be hate speech against the transgendered and therefore they are entitled to silence their opponents.

Those engaged in the politics of identity will constantly insist that no one can be permitted to speak in opposition to their political orthodoxy because all opposition is hate speech. All contrary points of view must be no-platformed. If a dissident speaker attempts to hold a public event, the stormtroopers of Political Correctness will organise an intimidating mob to chant slogans aggressively outside the event and, if necessary, set off the fire alarms in the building and smash windows to make the speaker shut up. If someone expresses a dissident opinion on social media, then their You Tube videos will be demonetized, their Facebook posts will be deleted, their Twitter account will be closed. Hate speech laws have been introduced to prosecute and persecute the dissident, both to punish them and to frighten others into silence.

[There are innumerable examples of this online, but to select just a few: view the video evidence of the violent protests against flamboyantly gay conservative Milo Yiannopoulos https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PSYPrE5LrQ and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moNe7-sK8i8 The lies and verbal abuse used by feminazis to stop people attending an event featuring activist and author Warren Farrell https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0&list=PLCF7F5T5eiT4evxjou0XCyvpn6Wznt9ci The noise campaign to silence the evidence-based arguments of anti-feminist Janice Fiamengo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yg-f7fC0Uw The intimidation tactics used against writer and comedian Gavin McInnes, after having pepper-sprayed him in the face prior to the event https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCYXgqrOqP4 ]

The concept of hate speech is a political tool that pursues a totalitarian ideological purity. They will even turn on their own comrades, denouncing the heretic, if someone is suspected of being insufficiently pure in their ideological thought and practice. It is the contemporary equivalent of the concept of counter-revolutionary speech in Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s Communist China. Anything so designated is a crime against the ideology of the state.

This is the actual meaning of the term hate speech. It is not a literal description of what the speaker is saying. The words spoken do not signify any actual hate on the part of the speaker. The speaker may bear no hatred or malice at all. The meaning of the term lies in its political usage; in its effectiveness for silencing the opposition.

After all, the people who invented and employ this phrase are themselves the people who express the most hate in their speech. Advocates of the politics of identity are frequently to be found screaming their spit-flecked hatred and implacable malice toward anyone who opposes them, especially if that person is the despised and demonized cis-gendered straight white male. If the term hate speech were literally descriptive, then the Social Justice Warriors would clearly be the people who are most guilty of it.

Picture a typical mob of anti-Trump protestors stomping down the street roaring their furious malevolence at the President. Many of the protestors carry placards which say: Love Trumps Hate. But are these protestors acting in a loving manner? No, they are not. Are these protestors articulating hatred for their political opponent? Fuck Trump! Fuck Trump! Fuck Trump! Yes, they are, and proudly.

[For example, view this video footage of the mass chanting of anti-Trump slogans by indoctrinated youth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHwCES4rXNQ and this mindless property damage by the violent Antifa black bloc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtWnMOWDtdU ]

Yet in their minds it is President Trump who embodies hate and it is their own politics of diversity which embodies love. In their minds they are protecting love from the hate that emanates from the White House. The words love and hate have been entirely divorced from the actual human emotions seemingly being referred to, and the words have a solely political meaning. They have defined the political position they oppose (or it has been defined for them) as hate, so the very real hatred that they are themselves expressing cannot be hate because it is in opposition to hate.

The issue of political vocabulary is crucial in the present day because so many people naively assume that words must mean what they appear to mean. But in postmodern society, this is no longer the case. Just because someone is accused of hate speech, this doesn’t mean that their speech expresses any kind of hatred. Just because someone else is screaming their hatred at the top of their lungs, that doesn’t make it hate speech. The words do not mean what they appear to mean. Language has been deliberately perverted for political purposes.

2. Multiculturalism

It’s a remarkable thing but multicultis don’t seem to know what multiculturalism is. The reason for this is that they never seriously question or examine the idea. They simply endorse a few fuzzy notions expressed as slogans (respect other cultures, diversity is our strength, etc.) and then hold a multiethnic street party. They sit around congratulating themselves on being multicultis, and telling each other how great it is to be a multiculti, and how good it makes them feel about themselves, and what moral paragons they believe themselves to be for embracing diversity. But they never seem to feel the need to critically examine the concept of multiculturalism to discover its real character.

For example, have you ever heard a multiculti offer an argument to demonstrate that multiculturalism is morally superior to monoculturalism? They just take it for granted that multiculturalism is the moral high ground, and indulge in acting holier-than-thou to anyone who doesn’t endorse multiculturalism. But what if a Japanese person said that he was glad that Japan has remained a monoculture because monoculturalism is better than multiculturalism. How would the multiculti reply to prove him wrong? What argument could they put forward to prove to the Japanese guy that Japan would be a better country if it opened its borders to mass immigration and became multicultural?

This is the kind of question that multicultis never ask themselves. They’re too busy preening their pseudo-moral narcissism. But these questions need to be asked. If, for example, Denmark were a country whose population was 96% Danish, why would this be morally inferior to a Denmark that was only 76% Danish because it had been made into a multicultural society? What’s morally inferior about Denmark being Danish? Why would a multiethnic Denmark be a morally better country?

The standard multiculti response would presumably be that a Danish Denmark would be racist because it would be too appallingly white. Would the same criticism apply to Nigeria or Kenya or Uganda or Zimbabwe if they were 96% black African? No, of course not, because there is no such thing as being too appallingly black. To the multiculti, only white countries can be racist for being too white, black countries cannot be racist for being too black. So this response looks like it’s nothing more than an expression of multiculti racism against white people.

Besides, what if multicultural Denmark had mostly white immigrants from Eastern Europe? No amount of white immigration would make the country less appallingly white. To a multiculti, white multiculturalism would be just as racist as a white monoculture. So it appears that just being multicultural isn’t sufficient for a country to occupy the moral high ground, it has to be a multiracial multicultural country. In which case, why aren’t multiculturalists called multiracialists instead?

The average multiculti doesn’t have any serious arguments to answer questions of this sort because multicultis hold to their beliefs as unchallengeable dogma. Their beliefs are to be believed, not argued for. If pressed, their answer would probably be circular. They’d say that multiculturalism is better because it promotes diversity. But they use the word diversity as if it were synonymous with the word multicultural, so they’d really only be arguing that multiculturalism is better because it’s multicultural. This is the sort of failed argument that people come up with when they’ve surrendered their minds to dogma.

Let’s sketch out a working definition of the word multiculturalism. The crucial feature of multiculturalism is, as the word implies, its social engineering of a society which has multiple cultures. That may sound rather simplistic but it is nonetheless crucial.

For one thing, it means that multiculturalism is not synonymous with the political concept of diversity. The so-called melting pot society is also an example of diversity but it need not be a society of multiple cultures. The diversity of the melting pot can merge together into an amalgamation of cultures to create a new ethnic culture. For example, English ethnic culture began with a blending of Anglo-Saxon culture with a bit of Celtic culture and a bit of Viking culture. These cultures did not remain segregated and distinct. Over time the Celts and the Vikings assimilated into the dominant Anglo-Saxon culture to form one new monoculture called Englishness. If this happens, then the society is not multicultural.

Another confusion is that the words multiracialism and multiculturalism are often conflated but, again, these terms are far from being synonymous. Consider these two hypotheses:

(1) Theoretically, a monoculture could nonetheless be multiracial. For example, if there were significant African immigration into France but the Africans all assimilated successfully into ethnically French culture, then you’d have a population of white and black French people. The society would be multiracial but monocultural.

(2) Theoretically, a society of multiple cultures could nonetheless be monoracial. For example, if there were significant white immigration into Poland from various European countries and the white immigrants all retained their own ethnic identities (as Swedes and Hungarians and Scots and Germans, etc.), then you’d have a population of white people with a diversity of ethnic cultures. The society would be monoracial but multicultural.

These, however, are conceptual speculations. In practice, multiculturalism in Western Europe has gone hand-in-hand with multiracialism, which is why they tend to get conflated. Even so, the conceptual distinction between the two is very important because we are trying to establish a working definition of multiculturalism and this conceptual distinction shows us that there is a difference between being a multiculturalist and being a multiracialist. The criterion of multiple cultures is essential to any adequate definition of multiculturalism. Anyone who endorsed mass immigration to create a melting pot monoculture would not be a multiculturalist, they would be a multiracialist.

Multiculturalism in a country like England has required the mass immigration of non-English people because if you begin with a population that is almost entirely English (where the white Irish were the most significant foreign population), then you have to get additional cultures from somewhere. How else could multiple cultures be created in England? They have to be imported.

But it’s not enough for the multicultis to import vast numbers of foreigners. As we’ve seen, assimilation defeats the goal of multiculturalism. If the immigrants had assimilated into English ethnicity, then this would only have created a multiracial Englishness. Multicultis aren’t trying to socially engineer a multiracial English monoculture, they’re socially engineering the multiple ethnic cultures of a pluralist society.

Multiculturalism needs the immigrants to retain their foreign ethnic identities. It has to stop the immigrants from becoming English. That’s how multiple cultures are created within one country that was formerly a monoculture, and this has indeed been the political programme of the multicultis since the late 1960s. This is why multicultis are so keen to have everyone celebrate a diversity of ethnic cultures. They need to constantly encourage immigrants to retain their foreign ethnic identities, to avoid assimilation, and thereby create a society of multiple cultures.

So, there are two essential criteria for multiculturalism. (1) It must have multiple cultures. (2) Immigrants must retain their own foreign ethnic identities.

Yet even this isn’t enough because multiculturalism isn’t intended merely as a transitory phenomenon. It isn’t intended as a stepping stone to a new melting pot monoculture. If multiculturalism is the best form of society, if it is the best way to live, then the multiple cultures must be maintained into the future on a permanent basis. Multiculturalism must stop the immigrants from ever assimilating, either into the existing English population or into a melting pot monoculture.

This can only be achieved (and, in practice, is achieved) by immigrants living in their own communities where their children can be raised within their parents’ and grandparents’ ethnic culture. Multiculturalism requires the second-generation immigrants to be as culturally distinct as the first-generation. For multiple cultures to be maintained into the future, the third and fourth-generations must be as culturally distinct (i.e. as foreign) as the original immigrants.

Unfortunately, this means that multiculturalism is a form of ethnic apartheid. It has to be. It couldn’t exist otherwise. If the diverse multiple cultures don’t pursue separate development, at least to some considerable extent, how will they be able to retain their distinct ethnic identities? Each culture has to have a collective identity of its own in order to function as a recognizable culture. It has to be sufficiently dissimilar from all the other cultures to take its place in a plurality of distinct cultures. Apartheid is the only way that a society can have multiple ethnic cultures. Multicultis support apartheid, they just don’t know that they do because they have no understanding of what multiculturalism actually is.

By its very nature, multiculturalism is intrinsically socially divisive. Far from being inclusive, as is so often claimed, a society of multiple cultures must have definite social divisions which set apart from one another the various cultural identities within its population. Far from allowing people to overcome their trivial differences so that they can come together in their common humanity, as multicultis like to believe, it actually does the opposite. It lays stress on the differences between people because these differences are the cultural identifiers. They cease to be trivial and become vital because it is the differences between cultures which make them distinct from one another. The inclusivity of which multicultis boast is merely the inclusion in society of an ever-greater multiplicity of cultures with an attendant increase in the fragmentation of that society.

What is to hold such a society together? Assimilation is anathema to multiculturalism, so it attempts to unite its plurality of cultures by means of something called integration. This is not an integration of individuals, but rather an integration of cultures. But, with the multicultis usual lack of self-examination, it is left unclear as to what this integration actually amounts to or how it is to be achieved.

One method of integration seems to be the quota approach where affirmative action attempts to force a proportionate representation of all the diverse cultures into workplaces and social institutions. Another method is to downplay the pre-existing native culture and raise the social profile of all the immigrant cultures. But the precise social structure of integration remains vague. Multicultis have only a romanticized utopian vision of the future and lack any real comprehension of what their integrated multicultural society (if it could ever be achieved) would actually look like.

This is a brief sketch of multiculturalism (we’ll look at it more closely in Part 2) but it is sufficient to provide a basic definition. Yet how many multicultis would accept the view that multiculturalism means a socially divisive policy to establish a culturally pluralist ethnic apartheid by means of mass immigration?

None of them would. They’d be horrified and insulted by this definition. Yet it’s an analytical definition. It’s derived from the meaning of the two words which make up the portmanteau word multiculturalism, namely multiple and cultures. Maybe the multicultis should have thought about their political programme a little more honestly, to see what it might actually entail in real life, before they imposed it upon Western Europe.

[Author’s Note: The words multiculti (mull-tee-cull-tee) and its plural multicultis (mull-tee-cull-teez) are used frequently in this book. These are simply an abbreviation of the word multiculturalist; an advocate of the policy of multiculturalism.]

3. Diversity

In itself, diversity is an inoffensive word that can be safely applied to many different types of diversity. But the variety in an eclectic musical taste, the miscellany of object d’art in a curio shop, or the wide range of assorted sweets in a supermarket are not examples of the diversity to be defined here. We’re only concerned with the political use of the word.

Even limiting the word to a political context, diversity might mean many different things. It could refer to a diversity of ideas and opinions, a diversity of cultures and customs, a diversity of political ideologies and philosophies, a diversity of political structures and authorities, a diversity of races and skin colours, a diversity of socio-economic classes and folk traditions, etc. Not all of these are included in the policy and practice of multicultural diversity.

In postmodern society the word diversity is used for a particular purpose. Specific policies are implemented in the name of diversity and in pursuit of diversity. The word encapsulates the intersectional agenda of those engaged in the politics of identity. Issues of diversity demand preferential treatment, self-important attention-seeking, and excessive praise for protected or vulnerable or oppressed collective identities. (There need not be any reality to their alleged oppression or their supposed vulnerability.) What are the collective identities that must be promoted in a policy of diversity?

Diversity signifies skin colours other than white. It signifies women but not men. It signifies homosexuals but not heterosexuals. It signifies non-binary gender and transgender persons but not cis-gender persons. It signifies certain categories of the registered disabled but not the able-bodied (or those with the wrong sort of disability like short-sightedness or a hernia or recurrent backache). It signifies Islam and Hinduism and Sikhism but not Christianity or Judaism or Atheism. It signifies all ethnicities other than the traditional ethnic culture of any formerly white country.

This is not an exhaustive list, of course, because the list keeps growing longer as the years roll by. But, in short, diversity lets us know which people in society are politically important and which people can be politically disregarded. In the politics of pandering, diversity tells us that these collective identities must be indulged and gratified, whilst those collective identities can either be ignored or rebuked. It’s a division between the protected and the unprotected. This is what postmodern society calls equality.

The social divisiveness of diversity politics is obvious to everyone except the advocates of diversity. Multicultis will speak of white people as if they were one homogenous lump. They will speak of black people in the same way. These classifications tell us nothing about the life experience of any particular people who happen to be white or happen to be black, these are purely political classifications. The terms white and black instruct us in how different collective identities are to be treated. For example, it is socially acceptable to make racist remarks to a person who is white, but it is utterly forbidden to make racist remarks to a person who is black.

Distinctions as to who must be treated in what ways become more complicated as identity-politics divides society up into ever smaller classifications of collective identity. Mr Patel and Mr Khan will both be classified as Asian, and they might both be classified as Indian, but they will be divided by Mr Patel being a Hindu and Mr Khan being a Muslim. As Asians, Indians, a Hindu and a Muslim, the two men are also classified under the broad category called minorities.

They have this in common with African immigrants and Caribbean immigrants, who are also minorities, although the classification African/Caribbean is distinct from that of Asian (especially when it comes to the character of local neighbourhoods in real life) despite these two groups having long been lumped together by multicultis in the category of Black and Ethnic Minorities or BME. The classification of BME was simply a crude way of dividing the immigrant population from the white population. But more recent mass immigration from Eastern Europe, in which nearly all the immigrants are white, has now complicated this social division.

The crucial aspect of any political classification, of course, is whether it entitles the person to the status of victimhood, and thereby entitles the person to protected status. A white Romanian heterosexual male will have protected status as a Romanian and as an immigrant and as an ethnic minority but not as a white person, a heterosexual, or a male. If the Romanian were female, this would entitle her to the protected status of a minority despite the fact that women are a statistical majority. Men, although a statistical minority, do not have minority status politically.

The term minorities is also