Multiculturalism — The Final Solution

The following essay by Nick McAvelly was originally published at Partiot’s Corner in a slightly different form.

Multiculturalism — The Final Solution
by Nick McAvelly

“One belief, more than any other, is responsible for the slaughter of individuals on the altars of the great historical ideals — justice or progress or the happiness of future generations, or the sacred mission or emancipation of a nation or race or class, or even liberty itself, which demands the sacrifice of individuals for the freedom of society. This is the belief that somewhere, in the past or in the future, in divine revelation or in the mind of an individual thinker, in the pronouncements of history or science, or in the simple heart of an uncorrupted good man, there is a final solution.

“This ancient faith rests on the conviction that all the positive values in which men have believed must, in the end, be compatible, and perhaps even entail one another. ‘Nature binds truth, happiness and virtue together by an indissoluble chain’, said one of the best men who ever lived, and spoke in similar terms of liberty, equality and justice.

“But is this true? It is a commonplace that neither political equality nor efficient organisation nor social justice is compatible with more than a modicum of individual liberty, and certainly not with unrestricted laissez-faire; that justice and generosity, public and private loyalties, the demands of genius and the claims of society can conflict violently with each other. And it is no great way from that to the generalisation that not all good things are compatible, still less all the ideals of mankind . But somewhere, we shall be told, and in some way, it must be possible for all these values to live together, for unless this is so, the universe is not a cosmos, not a harmony; unless this is so, conflicts of values may be an intrinsic, irremovable element in human life. To admit that the fulfilment of some of our ideals may in principle make the fulfilment of others impossible is to say that the notion of total human fulfilment is a formal contradiction, a metaphysical chimera.”

— Berlin, Isaiah (2012-12-31). The Proper Study Of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays (pp. 237-238). Random House. Kindle Edition.

Finally, the mainstream media are beginning to acknowledge the poisonous fruits of multiculturalism. For years journalists have been afraid to speak the truth about what is happening in Britain, just as the council workers in Rotherham who were responsible for child welfare were afraid to speak the truth. And what is the truth they have been so afraid to give voice to? Multiculturalism is a failure, both as a political theory and as a matter of fact.

When the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany joined forces at the beginning of the war, Time magazine referred to the enemies of civilization as “Communazis”. Each had their final solution to the question of how human beings should live together on earth, and they were both willing to employ absolutely any means in order to achieve that end. We have seen the same mindset in government, both at a national level and in local councils up and down the land for many years now. Their final solution to the question of how we are to live is “multiculturalism”, and woe betide anyone who questioned that unproven, impossible theory.

The Soviets would as a matter of practice smear individuals who questioned the party line by declaring them to be Nazi sympathisers, and the Communazis who have been running rampant in the UK for years now have, as we all know, adopted the same policy. Anyone who questions them is immediately said to be a “Nazi”, “far right” (whatever that even means) and of course, a “racist”. The new Communazis of the UK will happily sacrifice the livelihoods and reputations of dissenting individuals in the name of their final solution.

As we have just seen, the new Communazis have been willing to sacrifice thousands of vulnerable young girls in the name of their final solution, too. In their minds, any price must be paid, if it means their final solution is to come to pass.

“The possibility of a final solution — even if we forget the terrible sense that these words acquired in Hitler’s day — turns out to be an illusion; and a very dangerous one. For if one really believes that such a solution is possible, then surely no cost would be too high to obtain it: to make mankind just and happy and creative and harmonious for ever — what could be too high a price to pay for that? To make such an omelette, there is surely no limit to the number of eggs that should be broken — that was the faith of Lenin, of Trotsky, of Mao, for all I know of Pol Pot. Since I know the only true path to the ultimate solution of the problem of society, I know which way to drive the human caravan; and since you are ignorant of what I know, you cannot be allowed to have liberty of choice even within the narrowest limits, if the goal is to be reached. You declare that a given policy will make you happier, or freer, or give you room to breathe; but I know that you are mistaken, I know what you need, what all men need; and if there is resistance based on ignorance or malevolence, then it must be broken and hundreds of thousands may have to perish to make millions happy for all time. What choice have we, who have the knowledge, but to be willing to sacrifice them all? Some armed prophets seek to save mankind , and some only their own race because of its superior attributes, but whichever the motive, the millions slaughtered in wars or revolutions — gas chambers, gulag, genocide, all the monstrosities for which our century will be remembered — are the price men must pay for the felicity of future generations. If your desire to save mankind is serious, you must harden your heart, and not reckon the cost. The answer to this was given more than a century ago by the Russian radical Alexander Herzen. In his essay From the Other Shore, which is in effect an obituary notice of the revolutions of 1848, he said that a new form of human sacrifice had arisen in his time — of living human beings on the altars of abstractions — nation, Church, party, class, progress, the forces of history — these have all been invoked in his day and in ours: if these demand the slaughter of living human beings, they must be satisfied.”

— Berlin, Isaiah (2012-12-31). The Proper Study Of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays (pp. 12-13). Random House. Kindle Edition.

As anyone who spends more than five minutes thinking about it will realise, the core concept of multiculturalism, namely that all cultural values are compatible, and even in some mysterious sense the same, is utterly false. Multiculturalism is not only a proven practical failure, it does not even make any sense. Logically speaking, multiculturalism is an absurdity.

“What is clear is that values can clash — that is why civilisations are incompatible. They can be incompatible between cultures, or groups in the same culture, or between you and me.”

— Berlin, Isaiah (2012-12-31). The Proper Study Of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays (p. 10). Random House. Kindle Edition.

“The notion of the perfect whole, the ultimate solution, in which all good things coexist, seems to me to be not merely unattainable — that is a truism — but conceptually incoherent; I do not know what is meant by a harmony of this kind.”

— Berlin, Isaiah (2012-12-31). The Proper Study Of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays (p. 11). Random House. Kindle Edition.

This has not prevented the new Communazis from taking over and transforming our societies. Reality means nothing to them. Logic, morality, truth — they must all be sacrificed in the name of their final solution. The fact that 1400 vulnerable young girls have been brutally raped, sexually abused, physically assaulted, attacked and even murdered in the name of “community cohesion” shows the depths to which the Communazis will sink in the name of their final solution. In order to make a multicultural omelette, these evil men and women are willing to break any number of eggs.

“The one thing that we may be sure of is the reality of the sacrifice, the dying and the dead. But the ideal for the sake of which they die remains unrealised. The eggs are broken, and the habit of breaking them grows, but the omelette remains invisible . Sacrifices for short-term goals, coercion, if men’s plight is desperate enough and truly requires such measures , may be justified. But holocausts for the sake of distant goals, that is a cruel mockery of all that men hold dear, now and at all times.”

— Berlin, Isaiah (2012-12-31). The Proper Study Of Mankind: An Anthology of Essays (p. 14). Random House. Kindle Edition.

True believers will never give up their final solution. We all know that. It is too much to expect them to start acting in a rational and moral way, in councils up and down the country. These people are still there, still welded to the structure of British society, and they are still aiming to destroy everything and everyone who stands in their way or who threatens their power base. But now — finally — the press has begun to ask questions about “community cohesion” and “multiculturalism” and the inevitable shouts of “racism” whenever anyone speaks the truth in Great Britain. What this means in effect is it is now going to be possible to talk honestly and openly about the problems with multiculturalism both at a practical and theoretical level, because we can point to this example of evil being allowed to flourish unchecked as a prime example of how multiculturalism can go wrong. This is now simply undeniable.

These evil men and women who sacrificed the health and well-being, even the lives, of 1400 vulnerable young women may have thought that doing so would bring about their final solution.

Instead, it may help put an end to it.

31 thoughts on “Multiculturalism — The Final Solution

  1. On the subject of the state (at whatever level) adopting a policy which serves to silence its own citizens in the name of “community cohesion”, whatever the cost may be …

    5. Truth Claims

    In a world that is sliding deeper into chaos every day, the political elite are trying to maintain their authority by silencing anyone who speaks openly about what is happening. Politicians in the West have deliberately loaded Islamic software on to a platform with a Judeo-Christian operating system and are using the inevitable compatibility problems that arise to identify individuals who have the intellectual and moral wherewithal to stand up to them. The political elite can then target and silence those individuals, so there will be no one to challenge their rule as the world comes crashing down around us.

    In order to understand what it actually means when a political elite use the power of the state to silence individuals, we would do well to consider the views of John Stuart Mill, the author of On Liberty, one of the classic textbooks on freedom of speech. We could say that by using coercion to silence an individual, that state is violating their human rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech under Article 18 and Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and that would be a sufficient condition to condemn that state. But Mill advances another argument in On Liberty which deserves our consideration.

    Mill points out that one benefit of hearing the view of someone who disagrees with you is that they could always be right, and you could be wrong. No one is infallible, so if you listen to what other people have to say, then you will always have the opportunity to correct your own thinking.1

    There are politicians who are arrogant enough to believe that whatever they have to say is the final word on any matter. Many more repeat the opinions held by the members of their own social class or political party at any given moment as if nothing could ever be said against them, although having members of your own circle agree with you is no guarantee of infallibility.2 If a politician refuses to listen to citizens who are critical of the prevailing ideology, then their position is untenable. To paraphrase Mill, if you believe that your own opinion is true because it has withstood everything that can be said against it that is one thing, but silencing anyone who disagrees with you in order to prevent dissenting voices from being heard is something else altogether.3

    Mill argues that we have only made the progress we have over the years because we have been able to set our mistakes right, so we must keep the tools we use to do that available. When we are considering whether a particular assertion is true, we need to have access to all the relevant facts, and just as importantly, we need to hear from people who can put those facts into their most compelling form, especially if the conclusions they reach contradict our own, because only by knowing the relevant facts and hearing dissenting opinions will we be able to change our mind when we are wrong.4

    Politicians are fallible human beings just like everyone else, and only by hearing what can be said both for and against them can they have any real confidence that what they are doing is based on the truth. More to the point, only by making sure that we live in a society which honours our right to freedom of speech can we have any real confidence that what politicians are doing in our name is based on truth, not falsehood.

    If a state silences dissenting voices, there is a real possibility that we will sooner or later embark on an evil course of action, and there will be no means of altering course before the vessel we are aboard runs aground.

    Accepting what politicians say without question is clearly no way to discover the truth about anything. The political elite in our country have shown themselves to be Machiavellian operatives who have the ability to appear honest and trustworthy while they say whatever they believe is necessary to maintain their own positions of power and influence.

    Machiavelli argued that a prince must be prepared to do what is not good in order to maintain his position because other people are not good, and a prince has to make sure he comes out on top whenever he deals with them. So if one adopts a Machiavellian view of human affairs, then it may be thought necessary for a politician who is acting on behalf of a nation state to get their hands dirty when they are dealing with someone of exceptionally low character.5

    But what if politicians are dealing with men and women who are being intellectually honest and only want to exercise their human rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion? What if the state is dealing with men and women like Hans and Sophie Scholl?

    If any state denies such individuals their right to freedom of speech, then that state deserves to be condemned, just as the state that silenced Hans and Sophie Scholl is now condemned.

    Machiavelli believed that not every prince who was willing to get their hands dirty should be included in the pantheon of great rulers. Agathocles is named as someone who did not possess virtù, because he used force against other people when it was not necessary for him to do so.6

    Politicians today who exercise the power of the state in order to silence good men and women are no better than Agathocles in this regard. They are failures both as political leaders and as human beings. They may have learned how to look good when they are acting on TV but in reality, they are nothing more than dishonest thugs.

    McKay, KD (2014-07-31). Spiritual Warfare at Street Level (Kindle Locations 283-300). . Kindle Edition.

    • In short, we need Free Speech so we can apply the Scientific Method to our societies.

      Good post.

        • It seems clear that it is not only–and, not primarily– politicians (i.e. the state) engaging in coercion to suppress the speech and impede the coherent thinking of the individual. I would say Academia and the Media are more prominent culprits; ironically, both claim to be bastions of and defenders of the very ‘free speech’ and ‘independence of thought’ they curtail. Cesspools of leftist conformity IS what they are.

    • I believe the root of all that you have written and that now ails Western Civilization is the political class. I won’t go into details how it is that when individuals join a group, and in order to fit into that group they must ‘lose’ some or all of their individuality to be accepted into that group, but that is one of the inherent problems within any political party.

      As you have touched on, within the political class there are many who completely fall in with the prevailing political group thinking and because they are either too weak an individual or prostitute themselves to the group ideal for their own personal benefit, fail to fulfil their oath of office, and indeed and in many cases, actively work against those who elected them.

      I believe it has become quite obvious that the political systems of all Western forms of government have failed in their primary reason for existence. Political systems within the West are now being used to suppress the citizenry as you have also pointed out. I shouldn’t need to point out the reasons they have failed as I believe that to be self evident to those who take the time to simply watch, listen and learn, from what now goes on around them.

      But, how do we fix a broken and current political system? The short answer is that we cannot because the system is so geared toward our own national destruction that only a revolution in political thinking or action by the people can halt it. Any new system that is then introduced must give the people far more say in the day to day running of government. Forget the old system of voting for parties, that has proven to be a failure, we must have more personal input into government that can guarantee the system will not fail us the people in the future.

  2. The whole idea was to prevent more wars by diluting the autochthonous culture by immigrants and weakening the white mans’ evil nationalistic spirits.

    Then the Gramsci’s thought “Hey, we can use this”
    Then the Islamists thought “Hey, we can use this too”

    Then the founders died and we are stuck with this idea like a case of gestational herpes, which has now become a cancerous idea-fixe. Our politicians don’t know why we have this idea but they maintain it. Our academia and elite believe they can cashier the Islamists after either group gains power. Logic and reason are gone but the idea remains like a tattoo on our foreheads. I hope it is not seen in our open caskets where it’ll eventually read as a stigma of cultural insanity by future anthropologists.

    • In one of the most notorious passages in The Prince, Machiavelli makes the empirical claim that political leaders who have been deceitful have been more successful than those who have been sincere, citing Pope Alexander VI as an example. Machiavelli notes that Achilles was taught by Chiron the centaur, and knew how to be half man and half beast. 14 Machiavelli concludes that it is necessary for princes to learn how to act both according to the laws of men and as a beast would, and he advises them to make use of the nature of the fox and the lion. Relying only on the force of a lion is not enough. A prince must be fraudulent when it is necessary. In practical terms, this means that a prince must take pains to appear honest, merciful and religious, but should not hesitate to be deceitful whenever it suits him. 15

      The political elite have learned this lesson well. We now know that they initiated a radical social engineering project in Britain more than a decade ago, and that this project had social as well as economic objectives. This was denied for years, until a former speech writer for the state called Andrew Neather let the cat out of the bag in 2009 and acknowledged that the political elite wanted to turn Britain into a multicultural country. 16

      The United Kingdom has been changed significantly because of that radical political policy. A census carried out in 2011 showed that the number of immigrants in England and Wales had increased by three million in the previous ten years. 17 Out of all the recent immigrants to the UK , one group is considered to be more important than any other by the political elite. That same group has also been given precedence over the indigenous population, who were abandoned long ago by the political elite in this country. 18

      The key to understanding this is the essential duality of human reality. All flesh and blood human beings have beliefs, and that naturally will include religious beliefs. There is an obvious distinction to be drawn between human beings and the religious beliefs they hold, just as there is an obvious and easily understood difference between hardware and software.

      The UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has stated clearly that people are protected under human rights legislation, but religious beliefs are not. 19

      Looking at this issue from a philosophical standpoint, we can say that religious beliefs are about things that have existed, do exist and will exist in the future. Those beliefs have what is known in philosophical literature as intentionality. This distinguishes religious software from muscles and bones, because hardware isn’t ‘about’ anything else. Once you understand that there is an essential difference between human hardware and software, you can begin to understand what the political elite have done.

      It’s a software issue. The political elite have pirated a copy of religious software that was developed in 7th Century Arabia, which they didn’t write , didn’t pay for, don’t have a licence for and don’t understand, and they have installed that software on an entirely different platform: 21st Century Europe. Imagine trying to run an old copy of WordPerfect 5.1 that was written to run on MS-DOS, with all its inbuilt limitations, on a brand new iPad running the latest iOS.

      Why would anyone want to do that?

      McKay, KD (2014-07-31). Spiritual Warfare at Street Level (Kindle Location 130-155). . Kindle Edition.

      • I think that this “hardware-software” meme could be an effective counter-weapon against the tired old cries of racism every time one wants to discuss the doctrines and practices of Islam – a religion. People are hardware (and are protected under human rights legislation.) But religions are software!

        It is possible for two people to discuss the latest version of Windows without ever referring to their laptops. In fact, nowadays the hardware is pretty irrelevant. One laptop is much like another. In the same way, it is – of course – possible to discuss religious “software” without ever mentioning, or being in the slightest concerned about, muscle and bones (human “hardware”).

        A point that could be used to shoot down anyone who tries to throw that particular ad hominem attack around whenever Islam is mentioned.

        Human beings are hardware.
        Religion is software.

        • Sorry, Nick, but I have to disagree on that last point. If you believe in objective “Truth”, particularly from God, you have it inverted.

          Truth is the hardware. We are the software, and how soft we are.

          • Hardware – the world around us, legs, laptops, etc. is impermanent (basic Buddhism, if you like.) Software – thoughtstuff – well that’s another matter entirely.

  3. Often it is not a matter of deceit, but a naive belief that ‘they’ act and think as we and ultimately share our values. “All mothers protect their children and will do everything to make sure they grow up in a safe environment so as to best ensure health, happiness, prosperity and a long life,” is a typical trope. This naive belief is best (I think) referred to as “Cognitive Egocentrism” and explored brilliantly by Professor Richard Landes.

    • One might think the Muslim mantra “We’ll defeat you because we love death while you love life” might put paid to the notion that “everyone really wants the same thing; everyone just wants to build a better life,” blah blah. But the arrogant Western lib, hearing people with different values say plainly what they want and intend, is likely to think they don’t really mean it; that it’s only what they say because we’re doing bad things to them.

  4. One of the worst features of the reporting of this problem is the persistent racism from the BBC and most other media in referring to these predators as ‘Asians’, which associates decent Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists with these pedophilie-worshipping perverts.

    Mohammedans know that the best way to strike terror in the hearts of the infidels (as Mohammed commanded) is to kill, rape and enslave kafir children. These tactics appear wherever Muslims come into contact with infidels and are very successful.

    Islamic gang-rape of infidel children is a common feature of jihad worldwide. We’ve seen rape and murder of school children at Beslan, abduction and sex slavery of Nigerian, Yazidi and Iraqi Christian girls, and attacks on British children in every city with a sizeable Muslim population.

    In fact, the population needn’t be that sizable. In Rotherham, a town with just 3% Muslim population, the jihadists bribed, subverted and threatened the police, council and social workers into abject dhimmitude for years while their beating, burnings and rapes of kafir kids went unpunished.

    Muslim councillors asked social workers to reveal the addresses of the shelters where some of the abused girls were hiding. A Muslim deputy leader of the council is accused of “ignoring a politically inconvenient truth” by insisting there was not a deep-rooted problem of Islamic perpetrators targeting young white girls. The inquiry was told that influential Muslim councillors acted as “barriers to communication” on grooming issues.

    • I have also heard reports that Muslim Cllrs in Bradford demanded the addresses of shelters for vulnerable girls and battered wives.

      ‘ The UAF was instrumental in getting the 2004 documentary banned from TV. ‘ – Joe. I presume you are referring to the Channel 4 documentary about ‘grooming’ of girls in Keighley West Yorks. The Chief Constable West Yorks demanded this documentary should not be broadcast untill after the 2005 General Election. Why ? He was terrified that the total failure of the authorities including the police to take any action over this would become an election issue. The only person to raise this issue at the time, with no official support, was the indomitable Mrs A Cryer the Labour MP for Keighley (After the 2005 General Election, to his credit, the newly elected Conservative MP for Shipley, Philip Davies, supported her).

      Despite the ongoing ‘grooming’ incidents in Keighley, Bradford, Dewsbury etc the West Yorkshire Police closed down their specialist anti-grooming task force early in the last decade !! They have now launched a joint team with Bradford Council Social Services, based in Bradford, to help ‘exploited young girls’. Basing it in Bradford which has a much lower incidence of grooming complaints rather than Keighley is idiotic (non UK readers please note Keighley is a town within Bradford Met District Council’s boundary). The mix of social workers and police officers means it is not primarily aimed at identifying/prosecuting the offenders but is more intended to be a source of support to the exploited young girls with shelters etc etc.

      BTW their has been very little publicity about this new joint team. Many of the victims of grooming probably do not know it exists. I only found out while having a cup of tea with a senior social worker I know, who specialises in ‘problem’ teenagers. There is a strong suspicion among many of those involved that the joint team has only been put together so that Bradford Council and West Yorkshire Police can say that they were ‘doing something’ about the issue.

      • Do you have a source on the request by the constable for suppression of the documentary until after the elections?


          I made one error in my comment. I said 2005 General Election. In fact the broadcast was in 2004 but was delayed untill after the Local Elections. Before those elections Bradford was controlled by a Tory/Liberal coalition. After the elections the council was controlled by the Tory group. The main group the chief constable was concerned about was BNP. BNP gained 5 seats in Bradford (out of 90 – all seats were up for re-election in 2004 because of boundary changes). This included two wards in Keighley, Keighley West a low income white area with two council estates in the ward (many of the victims of grooming were girls from this ward) and Worth Valley (Haworth, Oxenhope etc – ‘Bronte country’) a rural ward which normally votes Tory.

          BTW the electors of Keighley West Ward are still not happy with the Labour Party and the way it patronises them and refuses to deal with issues which concern them (including grooming – it is still happening !). This year they showed their disgust at the local elections by voting in a UKIP Cllr.

    • Over here, one complaining Muslima induced a food business to take down a sign referencing bacon.

  5. “The real cause of the Rotherham abuse is Leftwing contempt of the White working class. It wasn’t “anti-Racism” but racism and class war against the white families and their children- regarded as lumpenproletariat or “Useless Mouths”. I don’t understand why people do not see this for what it is-

    naked ideology typical of the Left- a deliberate hate fest against the working class of Rotherham and elsewhere by Socialist revolutionaries against class that “failed” in their eyes, to do their Socialist duty by overthrowing Capitalism as ordered by their “betters” in the 1970s.

    The whole edifice of state is rancid with this vile racist/class hatred ideology-from the Social worker Kommissars to their Police boot-boys all programmed with contempt for the families and class from which these nubile English girls came. This was a deliberate campaign of hate and genocide against an entire white community by the local Soviets.

    Talk of fear of “racism” and accusations of “Islamophobia” is absolute nonsense. All the “officials” are as guilty as the Pakistani gangs for whom they kept silence and even procured the victims for the perpetrators, with the Police acting as “gatekeepers” while the girls were stolen and abused. The Police even arrested some parents for trying to report the cases. That is not fear but intimidation-a gang racket.

    These people, do not feel any guilt whatsoever-indeed many feel they are in the right! The Left are all the same.

    How do I know they are like this? I have listened to their talk when I belonged to the Labour Party at University. They are evil, plain and simply evil.”

    • Yes, it’s noticable that none of these people have managed to admit that they did anything wrong, because of course they don’t believe they have done anything wrong.

      My analysis, taking on board Isaiah Berlin’s writing on “the final solution” is that they are true believers who are willing to sacrifice anything and anyone on the altar of that impossible utopia.

  6. Berlin was smarter than most of us put together. Decades ago, he said the Victorians would have been amazed that in the 20th century, wars were still being fought over religion.

  7. “Finally, the mainstream media are beginning to acknowledge the poisonous fruits of multiculturalism. For years journalists have been afraid to speak the truth about what is happening in Britain, just as the council workers in Rotherham who were responsible for child welfare were afraid to speak the truth. And what is the truth they have been so afraid to give voice to? Multiculturalism is a failure, both as a political theory and as a matter of fact”

    The trade unions of journalists, teachers, council workers, civil servants were the major backers of the UAF. Those professions are thus the people who not only turned a blind eye to the abuse of 1000s of children, they actually paid for the organisation which attempted to destroy anyone who did speak out about the grooming gangs. The UAF was instrumental in getting the 2004 documentary banned from TV.

    It’s irrelevant that the media discuss the failure of multiculturalism. The elite have no way to solve the problems they’ve caused. By 1989, they kicked the ball into the long grass. As a consequence, grooming gangs were able to rape maybe 100,000 schoolgirls (just extrapolating from the stats from Rotherham to the rest of the UK – there are 77 towns in the UK bigger than Rotherham).

    Multiculturalism was not the project. Multiculturalism was a band-aid, adopted in countries like the UK in the 1990s (post-Satanic-Verses). It was the way the “liberal” elite could avoid dealing with the manifest problems caused by islam in the west. If you search the British Library catalogue for books on multiculturalism, you will find there were none about Britain during the 1970s and 1980s — they were all about Canada, where multiculturalism was really about French language v. English language. The liberal elite picked up this idea as a way to avoid confronting the barbarism they had imported into the west.

    So, who are the media trying to persuade? The leaders of the 3 biggest & richest countries in the EU not only reached this conclusion 3.5 years ago — they announced it to the world. In 2011, on the day of EDL had their first major demo in Luton, David Cameron announced “multiculturalism has failed”. Within a month of that, both the French President and the German Prime Minister made the same announcement. But have any of these countries started a national debate on what is to be done about this failure? Has any government or likely-governing party been discussing what is to be done? Of course not.

    Nothing will be done. And european countries will, over the next 3 decades, descend into civil war. Consider the number of people who support ISIS in France (16%) or the UK (7%). Do these islamic supremacists, who will commit the most brutal murders, care whether or not 50% of our society oppose multiculturalism? Even if France elects Le Pen now, it is probably too late for that country. The French will have no stomach for genocide, but those 16% who support ISIS will have the stomach for it — they are just waiting until the odds are more in their favour.

    Pre-islamic Mecca and Medina were multicultural. They tolerated Mohammed and his new religion. Multiculturalism is precisely the petri dish which islam needs in order to expand and succeed.

  8. I have thought about why it is that the government of the country, regardless of which political party is in power, does nothing to deal with the problems created by immigration. I think it is because politicians are only concerned with being elected and then re-elected and most have more loyalty to party and themselves than country. At the moment the government can maintain stability in the country, regardless of how bad things are now compared to how they were in the past, they can currently maintain control.
    The future will be for someone else to try and sort out. The government would rather leave the problem alone, than take the steps necessary to deal with it. They do this because they know that the instability that would result, should they try and do what needs to be done, they may not be able to control. And they may then not be able to get the country back to some level of stability. This is despite the fact that they know, as we know, that at some point in the future the stability of the country will be beyond their control, whatever they choose to do about immigrants or immigration.

  9. Agreed.

    Liberal democracies are intrinsically multicultural, so liberal democratic governments have no role in promoting or institutionalising multiculturalism.
    The effects of this uncontrolled social engineering have been toxic.
    We, the inheritors of 2500 years of Western civilisation should regain our pride in its achievements and perhaps, just a little of that sense of cultural superiority our earlier generations.

    Anyone who believes in cultural relativism is welcome to migrate to any clan based chaotic, failed state in the ME that he or she chooses, curiously few Westerners choose to do so.

  10. It’s pride, foolish pride, a blinding pride that offers the feeling of rushing headlong towards a fine and dandy dream… when it’s only an indication of surrender a detachment from reality. Strawberry Fields Forever.
    Look at it from the other side.
    Muslims and Christians can’t get along, you say?
    Watch! (those bad old days need to be terminated).
    Yes but…
    Watch! (not only can our devil swim in your holy water and reach the other side, he can break a world record and be sponsored by a Korean Smartphone company).
    Yes but…
    Values are bad for business. A zillion surveillance devices guaranteee harmony in a country so free that you can reassign your own gender… Devices capable of instant facial, scent, iris recognition… and our wizardry will guarantee the rough passage of the nativists towards the inevitable soft brown society. It’s new and exciting. Even sexy. Works great in commercials.
    Yes but…
    I know, I know, the old rot “The Heart Cannot be Commanded”… But minds can be shaped and guided. Once Bill Gates gives every African child internet access and a condom…
    …OOPS! Who opened the lid on Rotherham?! I want his head on my desk!
    By Allah the Most Compassionate, I will be very pleased to oblige!

Comments are closed.