WHAT IS MULTICULTURALISM?

In recent discussions on television there has been some muddle over what multiculturalism is. It is conflated with mass immigration and with a country being multiethnic. Put overly simply, a country which is multicultural has more than one culture and a multiethnic country is one with more than one ethnicity. But things are more involved than that.

Mass immigration is a reference to large scale immigration. For the UK, mass immigration is a recent experience that began following WWII. Up until the late 1980s, the UK was a net emigrant country. Today, it is the recipient of large scale net migration. When Enoch Powell warned of the dangers posed by mass immigration, the UK was then still a net emigration country.

States are usually comprised of one nation. But some are not. The UK consists of three nations – the English, Scottish and Welsh – with the divided population of Northern Ireland in addition. Together these nations form the British nation. The USSR, for example, was comprised of many different nations and ethnicities. Belgium is split between two ethnicities.

Even single-nation states are not ethnically pure. Although they were founded by their Staatsvolk (the people who formed the country, are identified with it and whose culture is reflected in the country’s institutions), there remains the lingering presence of other peoples too. The Staatsvolk of England are the English, who originally consisted of different tribes who merged with the ancient Britons after the collapse of Roman rule.

All countries will have some immigrants. The entry into a country by one person of a different culture does not render that country multicultural. For a country to be multicultural it must have a critical mass of different cultures. Furthermore, those cultures would need to be of prominent influence within the country, or else a dominant culture would remain.

For a multiculturalist, there is no such thing as a national culture and the concept is denounced as racist. For there to be a national culture would mean that other cultures were not the national culture and this is discrimination. This can be witnessed by the denunciation of so-called nativism (Collins English Dictionary: nativism: the policy of favouring the natives of a country over the immigrants). In the UK, many Tories have openly condemned nativism as being akin to racism.

The opposite of nativism is so-called civic nationalism (aka constitutional patriotism) as defined by the Marxists of the Frankfurt School. With this, the state owes no loyalty to the Staatsvolk at all. The nation’s culture is to be removed from state institutions. The supposed decolonisation of the school and university curriculums is a part of this. Whereas multiculturalism draws in alien cultures and promotes them, civic nationalism purges the culture of the Staatsvolk from state institutions and society.

Multiculturalism applies mainly to the West. Third World countries do not strive to become multicultural; those in the West do. Multiculturalism is a process. The objective is to multiculturalize Western countries. Governments across the West have promoted mass immigration of non-Western cultures in order to dilute the culture of their various Staatsvolk. Without mass immigration from non-Western countries, it would be impossible to create a multicultural state.

Multiculturalism is therefore a process – created by governments and is dependent upon mass immigration. A multiculturalist is someone who promotes multiculturalism. Acceptance of the fact of ethnic or cultural diversity is not an acceptance of the normative process of multiculturalism, and opposition to multiculturalism is not a denial of ethnic or cultural diversity.

In setting out a vision for a multicultural UK,The Parekh Report (produced more than 20 years ago) stated: ‘European societies, it is sometimes said, are multi-racist societies.’ The report divided racism into two parts, ethnic racism and cultural racism, saying:

‘Britain continues to be disfigured by racism; by phobias about cultural difference; by sustained social, economic, educational and cultural disadvantage; by institutional discrimination; and by a systematic failure of social justice or real respect for difference. These have been fuelled by a fixed conception of national identity and culture. They are not likely to disappear without a sustained effort of political will. Is it possible to reimagine Britain as a nation – or post nation – in a multicultural way?’

The Parekh Report’send goal was a ‘multicultural post-nation’. A post-nation is the ultimate logic of multiculturalism, to which English or British nationhood is an obstacle. Taken to its conclusion, as Parekh advocated, multiculturalism will destroy the British nation state, regardless of how the English might react, being England’s Staatsvolk, and despite overwhelming hostility to multiculturalism even in traditional immigrant countries. This national destruction is entirely in keeping with the communist agenda set out in The Communist Manifesto of 1848 (written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels), and entirely in keeping with the neo-Marxism promoted by the Frankfurt School.

Will Kymlicka is a prominent Canadian multiculturalist. Regarding immigrants, he contrasted the pre-1960s expectations with the present arrangements:

‘Prior to the 1960s, immigrants to these countries were expected to shed their distinctive heritage and assimilate entirely to existing cultural norms. This is known as the “Anglo-conformity” model of immigration. Indeed, some groups were denied entry if they were seen as unassimilable (e.g. restrictions on Chinese immigration in Canada and the United States, the “white-only” immigration policy in Australia). Assimilation was seen as essential for political stability, and was further rationalized through ethnocentric denigration of other cultures.’

The Anglo-conformaty model of immigration has been completely abandoned in the Anglosphere, at the same time as have immigration controls. The consequences are visible to all but the wilfully blind. The current anti-Israel and anti-Jewish hatred across many cities in the West, the UK in particular, are a foretaste of the future. Those who hate the Israelis so much, due to their alleged colonial oppression of the Palestinians, are equally likely to hate the British due to their colonial history and the evidence of that abounds.

More recently, regarding the definition of racism, the UK Government commissioned a report from The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities. This set out what was meant by various types of racism bandied about today:

‘1. Explained racial disparities: this term should be used when there are persistent ethnic differential outcomes that can demonstrably be shown to be as a result of other factors such as geography, class or sex.

2. Unexplained racial disparities: persistent differential outcomes for ethnic groups with no conclusive evidence about the causes. This applies to situations where a disparate outcome is identified, but there is no evidence as to what is causing it.

3. Institutional racism: applicable to an institution that is racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours in a single institution.

4. Systemic racism: this applies to interconnected organisations, or wider society, which exhibit racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours.

5. Structural racism: to describe a legacy of historic racist or discriminatory processes, policies, attitudes or behaviours that continue to shape organisations and societies today.’

Of these, it is the fifth category that is already causing, and will yet cause far more, trouble, as it is being used to demand reparations. One prominent multiculturalist in the UK recently wrote: ‘Reparations are due, and tearing down Western capitalism is an utter necessity if we are serious about ending racism. But to realize the revolutionary politics necessary for this transformation we first need to recognize that the West can never pay full reparations for slavery without destroying itself.’

The liberal wing of political correctness, of which multiculturalism is a part, are still too engrossed in their own self-appointed righteousness to recognise the harm they have caused and the exisential threat multiculturalism poses to the West. For the patriots and Conservatives, they do, to a varying extent, see the danger, but have not and have yet to fully oppose multiculturalism or advocate the patriotic cause. For the communist wing of political correctness, multiculturalism has succeeded in debstabilising Western societies and the end goal of the destruction of the West and a communist revolution is in sight.