Despite the widespread denouncement of multiculturalism as a failed ideology, it is still very much alive in Europe and particularly among the politically progressive (or regressive, should I say?)
“According to multiculturalism’s critics, Europe has allowed excessive immigration without demanding enough integration—a mismatch that has eroded social cohesion, undermined national identities, and degraded public trust. Multiculturalism’s proponents, on the other hand, counter that the problem is not too much diversity but too much racism.”
I do not buy the argument that opposition to multiculturalism is borne of racism of xenophobia – or even a hatred of diversity.
It is an offensively overused ‘argument’ among progressives, to hurl the term “racist” at an opponent in an attempt to avoid engagement with conflicting opinions.
Indeed, it is not an argument at all.
In fact, I do not believe that the zealots of multiculturalism are in favour of diversity themselves.
Has there ever been a greater threat to the only diversity which truly matters, and can ever be positively impactful – diversity of thought – than the obsession with diversity of race, gender, religion, sexual preference, etc.?
In this article I’d like to go over my main arguments against multiculturalism as social policy or an individual outlook – two positions I consider to be by turns defeatist and presumptuous.
All culture is not equal
The necessary assumption of multiculturalism is the politically correct notion that all culture is equal.
It is necessary to believe this in order to invite foreign cultures into your own – of course, if one considers a culture inferior by certain measures, one is less likely to allow such an influence to be imported.
It is certainly not racist to desire a selective approach when considering who is allowed to enter a national sphere, as they will bring with them two sets of influences: contribution to the economy through work, and contribution to the culture through the traditions they bring with them.
The idea that migrants from Pakistan, Iran, Kenya, Ghana or Ethiopia – all countries with populations of below average IQ can contribute to the development and advancement of a European nation state the same way that those who come from, for instance, East Asian nations with IQ scores North of 100 is delusional.
Another source of concern, besides the lack of cognition and skill among migrants from certain countries, is the traditions they bring with them and the impact said traditions might have upon a native population.
For instance, according to Islamic tradition first cousin marriages are permissible.
As a result of this practise over the course of generations, there is a serious issue among Muslim populations regarding the side effects of inbreeding.
Taking the United Kingdom as an example, Pakistani couples in the country account for 3.4% of births every year, but they produce a full 30% of all children born with recessive gene disorders.
According to the Telegraph, remarking on Bradford, West Yorkshire:
“While only 15 per cent of the population in Bradford is of Pakistani origin, an estimated 55 per cent are married to their first cousins.
The city has the second highest number of infant deaths in England and birth disorders involving recessive genes are 10 to 15 per cent higher than the general population, according to a study by St Luke’s Hospital, Bradford.”
Here is an example of an imported cultural practise having a very real and detrimental effect on a UK city – more children born with cystic fybrosis and sickle cell anaemia means more public spending for medical treatment and therapies, and a lower achieving population who are more likely to be reliant on the welfare state.
“Diversity is our strength” is a lie, and the Left knows it
Acknowledging the strain on the taxpayer caused by indiscriminate immigration policy, there must surely be a good counter argument for why a native people should favour multiculturalism in their own countries.
The slogan we are often bombarded with by the pro-migrant left is “diversity is our strength”.
Strength arises from consensus on basic values, this is evident in the logic behind state constitutions – a set of principles which form a basis for government in accordance with, and representative of the nation.
A strong nation is one which agrees on certain values as a platform for debate and legislation.
How then, are we to reconcile this with the fact that over 1/5 of Muslims living in Britain believe that Sharia law should replace British law in largely Muslim areas of the country?
Continuing the example of Muslim communities, there are various areas of concern when it comes to the disparity between Muslims and the rest of the general population, as shown by a 2016 ICM Research study.
There are over 3 million gay people in the UK, yet over half of Muslims surveyed thought that homosexuality should be illegal, and the majority of them also thought that gay or lesbian teachers should not be allowed to work with their children.
The proportion of Britain’s Muslim population who believe that a wife should always obey her husband is 8 times that of the general population.
Worst of all, the ICM survey found that over 100,000 Muslims in Britain sympathise with Islamic terrorism, and only one in three Muslims would go to the police if they found out that someone they knew was involved in jihad.
In the case of Muslim migrants to Europe, the numbers show that diversity of race and religion is in fact sometimes antithetical to the upholding of European values, and is certainly not a source of strength for our societies – rather it is the source of conflict and self-segregation.
Certain migrants often do not wish to assimilate
As previously mentioned, it is far from a fringe view among Muslims living in Europe that Sharia law should implemented in heavily Islamic areas.
A French police spokesman told The Local in October 2016, amid international denial of European ‘no-go zones’ established by migrants:
“Of course there are no-go zones in France where the police cannot intervene and do their jobs in safety. And it’s the same for fire fighters or pretty much any representative of the state.”
“It’s not just a problem with this government it’s a problem with all French governments over the last 20 years. Governments will never admit there are no-go zones because it’s a sign of a failed state.”
Multiculturalism does not ask assimilation of the migrant, but rather attempts integration – a recipe doomed to cause culture clash.
According to Cardiff University Resources:
“Assimilation is rather like the process of making soup, where the ingredients lose their identity as they are blended together. Integration can be likened to a fruit salad where the individual fruits, with their varying colours and sizes contribute to the beauty of the dish.”
The problem with this sunny view is that when the ‘ingredients’ maintain their identity – even if that identity thoroughly contradicts the national identity of their country of residence, self-segregated and hostile communities are the obvious result.
Paris closed yet another in a string of radical mosques in April, calling it “a serious threat to public safety and order”.
The imams were accused of “calling on members to pray for jihadists to destroy the enemies of Islam in France and around the world.”
Multiculturalism necessarily requires the maintenance of indigenous ignorance
Given the various indictments upon the European policy of multiculturalism and the damage it has done (particularly with regard to the effect of Islam and the surrounding culture), why exactly are so many Europeans still so set in the multicultural mindset?
When we talk of censorship and propaganda, it is easy to think only of book burning and illustrations of blonde haired, blue eyes Germans marching towards utopia.
The truth is that, far from being consigned to the totalitarian history of the continent, censorship and propaganda are very much a tool of modern European states in the twenty-first century.
In December 2016, German Lena Kirschbaum was banned from Facebook after sharing a link to the profile of a 17-year-old Afghan migrant named Hussein K. who had raped and drowned 19-year-old native German medical student Maria Ladenburger.
According to Facebook, by sharing the link and criticising a migrant rapist/murderer, she had been engaging in “hate speech” – an accusation akin to ‘Islamophobia’ in it’s vagueness and openness to redefinition and abuse.
Of course, it is widely known that Facebook has colluded with the German state in the removal of tens of thousands of posts critical of the open border policy – not to mention the employment of similar tactics in attempts to tamper with the 2016 US election and 2017 French election.
In February, Swedish police officer Peter Springare went under investigation for incitement to racial hatred for a Facebook post in which he voiced his frustration at the level of crime (notably violent and sexual in nature) being committed by un-assimilated migrants in his city.
This type of online censorship is common in Europe – certain controversial YouTube channels are inaccessible to Germans and others, and certain results will not show up in a Google search if they are critical of multiculturalism.
One recent and particularly sickening piece of (specifically state) propaganda in the UK was the preferential way the British Broadcasting Corporation treated the death of one child in contrast to another.
Before the migrant crisis in Europe really picked up in 2015, a photograph was widely circulated of the body of a young, drowned Syrian named Alan Kurdi washed up on a beach.
The name Alan Kurdi appears more than 1,000 times on the BBC News website, and the photograph made it’s way into dozens of articles.
In many ways, the tragedy of Kurdi’s death was used to garner sympathy for migrants – this was done by creating an unavoidable barrage of ‘news’ surrounding that one story, which continues to be widely talked about two years later.
In contrast, Ebba Akerlund was an 11-year-old Swedish girl – she was pretty and intelligent, but had a hearing impairment.
She died on April 7 2017, a victim of the Stockholm truck attack perpetrated by a 39-year-old Uzbekistani degenerate by the name of Rakhmat Akilov.
Ebba was hit in such a way by the truck that following the attack, her legs lay detached on the ground beside her.
She didn’t hear the truck coming.
Despite being a tragic and poignant example of the risks associated with the migrant policies of Sweden and much of Europe, Ebba was never mentioned by name on the BBC website and her picture never shown.
Ebba was only ever referred to a handful of times, in vague terms such as ‘one of the four killed’.
This is a shameful example of state propaganda attempting to manipulate indigenous European populations into ignorant consensus.
I must admit that I found the repugnant behaviour of the BBC towards Ebba quite upsetting at the time, and do to this day.
Ebba’s death was an inconvenient truth – the solution of the BBC was to simply ignore it.
Substantial demographic change threatens indigenous culture
Perhaps the most vital argument in the rejection of multiculturalism is that of concern for the conservation of one’s own culture.
The saturation of one nation with the practises and sensibilities of others necessarily leads to a sort of ‘cultural homelessness’ among natives.
According to Thomas Simpson in a 2016 article for Standpoint Magazine:
“There is a deep incoherence in that outlook which claims to value diversity, while divesting itself of any bond of allegiance. It is bonds of allegiance, held in all their messy particularity, which help create the diversity.”
I agree with Simpson that the position is self-contradictory, but I have come to believe that the denial of native culture is a necessary part of the multicultural mindset and propaganda.
The detachment of millennials and younger generations of Britons from their heritage is truly disturbing in it’s completeness – through this denial, they have become less principled and more maleable in their belief in moral relativism.
However, survey after survey have shown that (at least in the United Kingdom) immigration is the top area of concern in the eyes of the public – such as this poll from a week before the Brexit referendum, in which it came out significantly ahead of any other issue:
While, in decades gone by voicing concern over the reduction of indigenous Europeans as a percentage of the population might have been scoffed at, today it is a very real issue.
The 2011 UK census showed that for the first time, London was less than half populated by natives – coming out as only 45% White British.
Therefore, there is a very valid question to ask: what happens to a nation state when the nation becomes unrecognisable?
And are the virtues of multiculturalism really worth the risk therein?
I will allow you to ponder that conundrum for yourselves, but perhaps this video will help focus your thinking on the matter.
Luigi Fogli was an Italian hotel owner in his eighties who refused to house migrants in his hotel when he realised that the state would only pay him 7 euros per ‘refugee’ per night.
Rather than respecting Fogli’s property rights, prefecture arrived with two buses of migrants and – despite Fogli protesting and attempting to deny them entry – seized the property and forced Fogli to house them against his will.
Seizure of properties to house migrants is not at all uncommon in Italy, or further afield.