Paul Weston - Multiculturalism — Merits and Debits

Multiculturalism — Merits and Debits

by Paul Weston

Until very recently British politicians and journalists were forever eulogizing on the merits of a multicultural society. They told us how enriching it was and how we should celebrate our vibrant diversity hitherto unavailable in the racially stale and homogenous West. However, despite these outpourings of praise verging on the messianic I have yet to hear any of them elaborate on the concrete positives of multiculturalism. Just one instance would suffice, but multiculturalism’s adherents prefer to praise in the general rather than the specific. As such they are just words with no meaning and no intention of meaning, other perhaps than that of deliberate subterfuge.

After the July 2005 bombings of London’s transport system two lone voices miraculously came to the fore to gently propose that multiculturalism as preached in the UK was more divisive than inclusive. Fortunately, these voices belonged to non-white immigrants and were therefore listened to and reported on rather than being shouted down with the inevitable charge of racism. Trevor Philips, the Lenin-admiring Guyanese chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality suggested we were sleepwalking toward segregation whilst Dr. John Sentamu, the Ugandan Archbishop of York, alerted the native British to the dangers of losing their culture.

With the taboo apparently broken Britain is now engaged in an “intense debate” as to the merits and debits of multiculturalism — with particular regard to Islam. The general consensus, fairly unsurprisingly, is that multiculturalism’s ideology of encouraging a separate Muslim identity is to blame for the alienation of British Islamic youth. This is partly true but what is not mentioned is that British Muslims need little encouragement to retain their identity, whilst their propensity to vent their righteous indignation by self-detonating in crowded tube trains is semi-excused. This does not appear to me to be a debate that can in any way be termed intense.

If we are to genuinely hold an intense debate on multiculturalism, then it must be warts and all. Hiding behind a wall of well-intentioned words is of little use when our lives are under threat every time we board a bus or train. There are many criticisms of multiculturalism, yet even now these negatives are never allowed to see the light of day. These criticisms are real words about real effects and as such transgress the idealistic and unrealistic worldview held by our liberal elites.

The first issue to look at is what does multiculturalism actually mean? It is a word of such obtuse generalisation that one has to assume it is merely camouflage for an underlying agenda. It is also a word that was unknown a few decades ago, only coming to prominence with the simultaneous rise to political power of sections of the liberally inclined baby-boom generation.

The education- and media-led definition of multiculturalism is that all races and cultures are equal, that immigration enriches us culturally and economically, and, given an atmosphere of mutual tolerance and respect, differing races and religions will benefit one another when intermingled within the same territory. This is the prevailing and generally accepted definition across the West.

However, this is not the way it is taught in our schools, nor disseminated by our media. Indigenous children are indoctrinated into the belief that Western civilisation is guilty of historical and present day inequality and oppression — in short, brainwashed into shame about their race and culture. Conversely, ethnic children are both encouraged to take pride in their own race and culture and to feel victimised by the majority white society they live amongst. This version of multiculturalism is force-fed with a fervour almost religious in its intensity, despite it being a recipe for balkanisation and resentment rather than assimilation.
- - - - - - - - - -
Multiculturalism in not some type of fixed entity; it is constantly evolving, and means different things to different people. For example, to the 1960’s cultural revolutionaries and their ideological progeny, multiculturalism is simply a tool with which to bash Western civilisation. The white working class had become too affluent to be used as political pawns; ergo, import a new, “oppressed” revolutionary power base. It is not coincidental that multiculturalism’s white activists are politically of the hard left and that they deliberately divide Western countries along imported racial and religious fault lines.

To the naïve white liberal, multiculturalism means a happy-clappy utopian world without borders, where all races and all religions live together in peace and tranquility. That this runs counter to historical precedent, current reality, and the law of nature is of little interest to its proponents, thereby exposing them as either astonishingly uneducated or wilfully ignorant.

To the incoming third-worlder the white abasement ideology of multiculturalism is viewed as a weakness prevalent in the governments of the native countries. Not only are they welcomed and subsidised, they are encouraged to keep their own identities and cultures and are the recipients of state-legislated privileges not available to the native whites. It is thus an ideology that can be used to advance their ethnic group self-interest over and above that of the native group. I can only assume that their private discussions must revolve around disbelief and astonishment that any race or culture could prostrate themselves before an aggressor in such a grotesque and effeminate manner.

To the white native who wishes to preserve his historical homeland, tradition and culture, multiculturalism takes on a more disturbing aspect. Demographers predict that we will become a minority in our own countries at various points this century, some even before 2050. This means we are being territorially dispossessed, that each and every year we cede a little more physical ground to the incomers.

When one race invades the homeland of another race it does so in order to acquire territory and to impose its own culture. Conversely, the invaded group resists in order to preserve his race, his territory and his culture, not simply because he is a racist and dislikes the skin colour of the invader. Or at least that is historically how things were. The people of the West today are ceding territory, tradition, and culture, and do so in the face of evolutionary imminent minority status, whilst the incomer makes no pretence of his intentions in his avowal of Islamic mono-cultural superiority. To resist is to be called a racist, yet no one was called a racist in 1939 when we went to war with a different race and culture that wished to enter our homeland, overthrow our elected government, murder the Jews and homosexuals and consign our remaining citizens to second-class status.

Multiculturalism, when viewed through the conservative prism of racial reality rather than the liberal prism of a multiracial and multi-religious utopia can lead to only one logical conclusion, to wit, Western countries are in the process of unopposed invasion and are submitting in their entirety. Multiculturalism as practiced in the West today is an ideology of territorial and political aggression by the anti-Western invader and the submissive ideology of state sanctioned white European appeasement.

Democratic societies require balance if they are to remain democratic. Multicultural societies have drawbacks — as listed below - and if we are not to slowly slide into dictatorship or civil war then the following negative points must somehow be balanced by the positives of multi-racial, multi-religious societies.

1.		Mass immigration is undemocratic. A survey carried out in 1970’s Britain showed that 90% of the population was against mass immigration, which at the time was not quite as “mass” as it is now. Recent surveys, although no longer as high as 90% (a testament perhaps to the power of forty years incessant drip-feed propaganda), still suggest that the majorities in Western countries are against further immigration, yet Western governments everywhere have disallowed a referendum on this important issue whilst increasingly flooding their countries with anti-Western, unassimilable immigrants.
2.		Race and minority status are relative. To be a Pakistani minority in Britain is all well and good, but there are one hundred and sixty million Pakistanis in Pakistan and they therefore outnumber the British by one hundred million people. One cannot, in a reasonable world, come from such large a group and claim the ethnic spoils available by dint of minority status in a different country, simply because one chose to leave one’s country of origin. This argument holds equally for Africans and Muslim Arabs.
3.		White Europeans internationally are a global minority themselves, making up only fifteen percent of the world’s population, and declining. In the case of continental Europe, the EU Institute for Security Studies predicts that by 2025 white Europeans will make up only six percent of the global population.
4.		Ethnic colonisation and ethnic political advancement operate only in countries with white European majorities. Whites who historically built bases in foreign climes were deemed guilty of colonisation and subsequently expelled. No non-white country today makes special exceptions for white minorities. Indeed, those parts of the world where whites have a final scrabbling toehold actively discriminate against them to the point of ethnic cleansing. Witness Zimbabwe and South Africa.
5.		Multi-religious countries have a history of internal violence, the outcomes of which tend toward a reversion to mono-religion after bloody civil wars. When India was partitioned in 1947 seven million Muslims moved from India to Pakistan whilst a similar number of Hindus and Sikhs moved in the opposite direction, seeking safety in a religious majority. Whilst partition stopped a full-scale civil war, some half a million people were killed [some Indian sources cite a much higher death toll — ed.]. Europe has had its Protestant/Catholic religious wars, so to introduce into its peaceful midst the fanatical religion of Islam is an act of breathtaking irresponsibility.
6.		Multicultural societies have present day tribal conflict. The UN currently has sixty thousand peacekeepers engaged in fifteen peace missions around the world. These are not cross border wars; they are internal, inter-tribal/religious conflicts. Only Western, liberal minded elites, be they Labour or Republican, could suppose that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein that the Shias, Sunnis and Kurds would all kiss and make up. The chaos in Iraq is multiculturalism in the form of religious tribalism — without the benefit of a ruthless dictator to hold it together — exposed in its stark reality.
7.		The white proponents of multiculturalism are hypocrites. They are in the main, middle class suburban or rural dwellers of majority white enclaves. One peculiarity of white liberals is that whilst they embrace the ethnic colonisation of the West they are repulsed by the history of white colonisation in the East, thereby showing that their political views have less to do with colonisation per se and more to do with a hatred of Western civilisation. Trying to find a working class man in a gritty and diverse part of town who supports this peculiar ideology is akin to discovering a conservative at the BBC or a democrat in church. Put simply, Western liberals, feminists and homosexuals, who for reasons known only to themselves support multiculturalism, do not choose to live in Riyadh yet hold up Islamic culture as equally valid.
8.		The non-white proponents of multiculturalism are hypocrites. The Middle East is monocultural, as is Pakistan and India. The idea that Europeans in Saudi Arabia can be flogged for practicing Christianity whilst Saudi money is financing thousands of radical mosques throughout Europe is perhaps the best example of multiculturalism’s rank hypocrisy.
9.		Multiculturalism’s belief that all cultures and races are equal is simply not true. Their evolutionary capacity for equality may well be so, but when the Romans left Britain the indigenous Brits forgot all about aqueducts, under-floor heating, and democracy and immediately sank into the dark ages. If white Europeans became extinct next Friday the entire world would similarly revert to the dark ages. The world flocks to the West; there is no reciprocity as would be the case if we were truly equal.
10.		Multiculturalism breeds resentment. If we are all equal, as it supposes, then the only reason many non-whites fail to become CEO’s of multinational firms is perceived to be a consequence of white oppression rather than an innate lack of ability. Breeding resentment of course was always foremost in the mind of the culture wars liberal.
11.		Multiculturalism brings with it an increase in violent crime committed at a ratio vastly out of proportion to the ethnic numbers. This also leads to an increase in low-level crime, which the police simply have no time to handle as they are too busy writing reports and recommendations in triplicate over the latest gang rape or racial murder.
12.		Multiculturalism promotes dishonesty. Were the true facts of rape, murder and violence honestly reported, it is possible that even the docile, TV-addicted Brits might rise up. The facts are not reported, however; censorship or self-censorship of the press and media lead to a road travelled upon in the last century only by totalitarian states.
13.		Multiculturalism leads to propaganda and brainwashing. It is no coincidence that the majority of our young today display a conformity of politically correct thought diametrically opposed to that of their grandparents. In order to make a suicidally unnatural ideology acceptable it is necessary to resort to the indoctrination of children, so the history of Islamic conquest and the subjugation of the defeated peoples is hidden from view in the liberal establishment’s educational curriculum. Again, this has more to do with totalitarian dictatorships than democratic states, although having said that, it is very definitely a first whereby the state works to dispossess its own ethnic majority.
14.		Multiculturalism leads to greater government controls. In the wake of Islamic terrorism in Britain the government has passed various control and anti-terrorism orders. In the main they have been used against terrorist suspects but they have also been utilised against the indigenous population when the government does not like what it hears or sees. One example out of many is the televised manhandling and detaining of an eighty two year old heckler, Walter Wolfgang, under anti-terrorism laws during the 2005 Labour party conference. Similarly, the EU’s European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, whilst purportedly seeking to criminalize genuine racism also suggests that criticism of the EU could be termed xenophobic! We no longer have freedom of speech and this type of restriction is liable to intensify as the ethnic numbers and ensuing tensions increase, until eventually control will by necessity be on a par with Tito’s Yugoslavia or Saddam’s Iraq.
15.		Multiculturalism, if history repeats itself, will lead to a probable — rather than a possible — civil war. There are some three hundred and forty million ageing and demographically declining white Europeans in Western Europe and some twenty million Muslims whose reproductive proclivity will give them, varying from country to country, a numerical advantage amongst the traditional fighting ages of sixteen to thirty year olds within the next twenty to forty years. Mark Steyn in “America Alone” suggests that Islamic youth makes up forty five percent of total French city youth today. If the forty percent of Islamic youth mean what they say with regard to wanting Sharia law and if Western youth has really absorbed the appeasing indoctrination of multiculturalism then the scope for bloodshed and carnage amongst hundreds of millions of peoples is something not even the veterans of WWII can begin to imagine. If Albania, Bosnia, Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, and Turkey became involved the number of European Muslims today amounts to approximately one hundred million.
16.		Multiculturalism promotes a brain drain from Western nations. According to the Conservative Monday Club, one in two native Brits would emigrate if financially able to do so. They cited crime, education and overcrowding as the reasons but true to politically correct form never mentioned Islam or multiculturalism — only the consequences thereof. Young middle-class professionals with children are also bailing out of Europe in unprecedented droves. As this escalates, the tax base will have to rise to support Europe’s welfare states, thereby driving further taxpayers abroad until Europe will eventually consist of an embittered white underclass and a simmering ethnic population, both competing for dwindling resources.
17.		Multiculturalism is responsible for the reintroduction to the West of tuberculosis, cholera and malaria, diseases previously thought eradicated. In Britain no medical checks are carried out on immigrants.
18.		Multiculturalism has brought the British National Health Service to its knees. The cost of anti-viral drugs used to treat HIV sufferers is some twenty five thousand pounds per year and, as a great many sub-Saharan Africans have the misfortune to suffer from this virus, it is unsurprising that they move heaven and earth to bring themselves and their infected families to Britain to benefit from free medical aid. Disapproving of this may sound inhumane but economic reality leads to a service for its own or no service for everybody.
19.		Defenders of multiculturalism point out that the British health service would collapse without immigrant nurses and doctors. This may well be true but to import them from poor countries, which have stumped up the money to train them in order to tend their own populations is an act of extreme illiberalism.
20.		Multiculturalism leads to a lack of cohesion. A successful nation is made from the bottom up. Individuals form families, then communities, towns, cities, and lastly the Nation State. Cohesive countries tend to be monocultural, acting in the best interests of the group. The West today is being balkanised and tribalised and, should we need to come together at some future point to defeat, say, a 21st century Hitler, or more pertinently an Islamic France, it is unlikely that our Muslim communities would fight on our side.
21.		Multiculturalism is responsible for the reintroduction of slavery, euphemistically entitled “people trafficking”. Britain’s massage parlours generate close to a billion pounds per year from the enforced prostitution of five thousand predominately East European and Asian teenaged children smuggled in by Albanian and Turkish gangs.
22.		Multiculturalism is a betrayal of our fathers and grandfathers who fought and died to preserve their countries and cultures. Many ex-servicemen I have spoken to tell me with great sadness that multicultural Britain was not worth their sacrifice or the deaths of their comrades. Indeed it is a double betrayal: young children today may well have to face submission or war in the coming decades.
23.		The Jewish Holocaust was an act of such inhumane savagery that Western Europeans vowed it would never happen again. But multi-racialism/multi-religion is responsible for present day holocausts. The Islamic Janjaweed militias have killed one million non Muslim Sudanese Africans over the last decade. Does one million dead not count as a holocaust?
24.		Multiculturalism betrays the low-income white child. Some schools in the poorer parts of London speak thirty different languages, hardly a place for poor white children to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The result is that low-income white children are now at the very bottom of education league tables.
25.		Multiculturalism restricts the freedom of both children and adults. I know many parents who refuse to let their children travel into central London and undertake said journeys themselves only if absolutely necessary. This is hardly surprising. Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, Director General of MI5 claims that British secret services have thwarted five full-scale attacks since the July 2005 tube bombings and are actively tracking two hundred groups consisting of one thousand six hundred people. She admits these are only the ones that they know about, and is concerned that one hundred thousand “British” citizens sympathise with terrorist suicide bombers. Well, yes — so she should and so should we.
26.		Multiculturalism leads to a reduction of standards in our quota driven-institutions. To take one example, entry requirements for the British police now consist of zero academic qualifications whilst minor criminal convictions are overlooked if the applicant is of the right colour.
27.		Multiculturalism is a drain on the taxpayer. There are literally thousands upon thousands of diversity officers, equality officers and race awareness officers, all funded directly by the state.
28.		Multiculturalism claims all faiths are equally valid yet in practice it is distinctly anti-Christian, anti-Semitic and pro-Islamic. It is thus partially responsible for the cleansing of Christianity from continental Europe and is totally responsible for the rise in anti-Semitism, particularly in France, which Israel now deems unsafe for Jews.
29.		Multiculturalism is totalitarian. It brooks no opposition from its detractors and carries out campaigns against perceived heretics with a viciousness previously unknown in Western politics. The vitriolic campaign waged against the British headmaster Ray Honeyford during the 1980’s is a case in point. That his proposal of Muslim assimilation has now been vindicated is not to suppose he will receive compensation or apology. The irony, if irony is not too weak a word, is that multiculturalism, in its promotion of Islam, seeks to elevate the one single culture and religion with an avowed ambition of mono-cultural global dominance.
30.		Finally, multiculturalism is treason. Not legally, I grant you, but technically, how can this not be so? If it is indeed the case that the West is undergoing a slow-motion, unarmed invasion then any government that both condones the invasion and criminalizes those that oppose it must surely be guilty of treason. When the ancient treason laws were written it never occurred to the original drafters that any country would be foolish enough to open its doors to an Islamic Trojan horse, but we in the 21st century West are that foolish; we have opened the doors and the treason laws need urgent redrafting.

In conclusion, although this essay is entitled “Multiculturalism — Merits and Debits” I cannot in all honesty think of any merits important enough to outweigh the negatives above. That mass immigration from the third world is of supposed economic benefit is one, but Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migration Watch UK debunks this proposal, whilst a liking of spicy curry simply doesn’t cut the ideological mustard.

This essay, although slightly revised here, was posted on a British web site earlier this week. The reaction was one of incredulity that anyone could write such racist rubbish. I was accused of being either xenophobic or mentally unhinged. The web site was right of centre with a distinct anti-Islamic ethos, so either too much thinking about Islam and the West has finally done for me, or more worryingly the British have been so utterly brainwashed they can longer see the reality of their imminent demise. Many social commentators on American web sites are of the opinion that Britain is committing suicide. In further light of this article[BELOW] in today’s Daily Mail, I am inclined to agree.
----------------------------------

 

Sunday, Apr 01 2012 

The town branded too white and too British

Last updated at 09:42 02 March 2007

Corby (top) is 93.7% white, while Leicester (middle) is 59.6%. Louise Bagshawe (bottom) received the letter from Ann Beasley (inset)

A town is being stripped of scores of public sector jobs because its residents are "too white and British".
The Prison Service is relocating the posts to a nearby city where there are more ethnic minorities.
The incredible decision, which could lead to an investigation by the Commission for Racial Equality, was disclosed yesterday in a leaked official letter.


It is the first known case of its kind, but MPs warned similar moves could secretly be taking place across the country as civil servants are under enormous pressure from ministers to boost the number of ethnic minorities working in the public sector.
The 80 office jobs are being transferred from the depressed former steel town of Corby, in Northamptonshire, to Leicester.
The Tory General Election candidate for the town, which suffers from deprivation and is in desperate need of jobs, wrote to the Prison Service to demand an explanation.

In an astonishing reply, director of finance Ann Beasley - one of Home Secretary John Reid's top civil servants - said the town had too many white British residents.
As a result, it does not satisfy the drive to recruit more ethnic minorities.

Under the heading "key influencing factors", the letter states: "Our ability to attract a more diverse workforce - 93.7 per cent of the population of Corby are white British, compared to 59.6 per cent in Leicester>"

Mrs Beasley also implies Corby's residents are also too stupid to keep the jobs, which are mostly clerical posts buying equipment for the prison service.

She states that 17 per cent of people living in Leicester are qualified to degree level, compared with only nine per cent in Corby.

Furious opposition politicians were stunned by the reply and accused Labour of effectively being racist against whites.
The Conservative's diversity spokesman, Dominic Grieve, said: "This is very worrying. The Government should not be penalising people because of the ethnic make-up of where they live. The Government needs to explain just how widespread this policy is."
Louise Bagshawe, the candidate who received the letter, said: "Labour has controlled Corby council for 23 years and the town is very deprived. We have the lowest wages in Northamptonshire. Now locals are being told that Corby is too British for British jobs."
She added: "I told Ann Beasley our town already has a thriving Polish immigrant community, but she ignored this. Corby is just beginning to turn the corner, but we need good jobs.
"Gordon Brown loves to bang on about Britishness - if he means it, I call on him to reverse this disgraceful policy and tell Corby people they aren't too "white British" for Government jobs."
Kettering's Tory MP Philip Hollobone, whose constituents are also facing job losses, added: "People will be hugely offended that a decision like this is being made on racial grounds."
The Home Office last night stood by the letter, saying that attracting a "more diverse workforce" was a "key factor" in moving the jobs.
Discriminating against somebody on the grounds of race is outlawed by the Race Relations Act 2000.
But the Act does allow public bodies to take "positive action" to meet recruitment targets. In this instance, it would be illegal to say that the jobs must be filled by ethnic minority recruits, but moving to an area where they are more likely to apply for the posts is not illegal.
Staff based at the Crown House building in Corby will lose their jobs on March 19 when the building closes for regeneration work.
It had been assumed the Prison Service would find a new office in the town - which has an above average unemployment rate of 5.7 per cent, compared with 5.2 per cent nationwide. But officials, keen to fall in with Labour's "diversity agenda", seized the opportunity to move jobs to Leicester, one of the UK's most ethnically-mixed cities.
Staff have been given the option of transferring, but few - if any - are expected to agree to the lengthy commute.
A spokesman for the Commission for Racial Equality said that if they receive a complaint from any of the workers involved, they will start a full investigation.
A Prison Service spokesman said: "The potential sale of the property has given Her Majesty's Prison Service the opportunity to look at what provides the best option for the Prison Service and therefore the taxpayer in the medium to longer term.
"The key factors that influenced our decision to relocate to Leicester were the closer proximity to a greater number of prison establishments, better transport links, the ability to recruit professional staff and the ability to attract a more diverse workforce."
---------------------------------