Multiculturalist Ideology (Part One): A Rationale For Race War Politics
An Examination Of The Logic of Multiculturalism
An Examination Of The Logic of Multiculturalism
A report entitled ‘Protecting What Matters: Towards a more confident, cohesive, and resilient United Kingdom’ from the Labour government was published this week. In a Foreword by the prime minister, Keir Starmer states:
‘By any fair standard, Britain can be proud about of its approach to social cohesion. Simple things we take for granted – like inter-faith marriages, or religious freedom – are in fact a departure from the historical or international norm. Indeed, the ease with which people of different cultures and races live side-by-side in our diverse democracy is both envied and feared around the globe. Feared, because it provides a banal yet profound challenge to the increasingly noisy politics that says it simply cannot be done; people who are different cannot come together united under one flag. In our communities we show, daily, that it can.
This Call to Action recommits Britain to that quiet act of defiance against the forces of division and renews our approach to social cohesion. As ever, we draw deeply on our shared values. Not just our core liberal principles such as tolerance, protection for minorities, the rule of law or the freedom to live and let live. Nor just the natural pluralism that has always characterised an island country containing our four distinct and proud nations. We also draw on the distinctively British approach to integration that has always been grounded in the fairness of the two-way street: in rights and responsibilities. And we draw on our pragmatic, common-sense decency which means that people who come here to contribute can become, not just citizens, but our friends and neighbours. That bound by our common good, they become part of the greater us.
Yet as this Action Plan also sets out, we cannot be blind to the dangers or the stakes. Because the truth is while our values remain strong, in recent years their practice has often been poor. Too often, we have taken our eye off the ball when it comes to being clear about the responsibilities of cohesion, as well as the rights. We should rightly be proud of having some of the toughest anti-hate and anti-discrimination laws anywhere in the world. But this should be underpinned by a collective responsibility to pursue integration … To put it simply: if we are to be strong on the global stage, we must have strong and united communities at home. And so, to weather the storms of this volatile world, it follows that our “social contract” must now also be strengthened…
But we can and must do more. In a world where so many people – digital grifters, hostile states, politicians of grievance – have a vested interest in division, we need to be much more active in asserting British values and the responsibilities of integration. We must be stronger when it comes to rooting out extremism and rejecting the passive tolerance that sometimes prefers to look the other way. And we must be clear that patriotic pride is something to be embraced as a force for good in our communities. That it is, by its nature, a collective act of community-building that is totally opposed to exclusion and those who seek to divide us.’
The first paragraph of the Foreword shows that Starmer is in la-la land. His candyfloss presentation of the UK’s multicultural, mass immigration experiment is most definitely not envied by other countries. The immigrant rape gangs, to take one example, are unique to the UK. Other countries are horrified of the government’s tolerance of the practice. The report makes no reference to the Jihadist acts of terrorism, even against children, that have blighted the UK.
The second paragraph proceeds to demonise those who might disagree with la-la land. It is Starmer who is promoting ‘division’. The lauding of ‘shared values’ is repeated throughout the report. The term is used to the point of irritation, and its repetition does not compel the reader to accept the abstract concept despite what those who wrote the report might think.
Starmer might ‘be proud of having some of the toughest anti-hate and anti-discrimination laws anywhere in the world’, but such repression is inconsistent with a free, democratic society. Citing ‘digital grifters, hostile states, politicians of grievance’ does not prove that those demonised are responsible for the failings of multiculturalism and mass immigration.
The Executive Summary of the report asserts that ‘Trust in institutions is declining. Tensions between communities are worsening. And extremists are exploiting people’s fears for their own purposes.’ The report then sets out a number of measures supposedly to tackle the alleged problems, including education reforms to ‘strengthen citizenship, British history, and religious education’, with ‘citizenship classes’ and measures to ‘improve the national curriculum’s teaching of our nation’s history and ensure Holocaust awareness stays a compulsory topic in schools’. By religious education, they mean Muslim education; by citizenship, they mean pro-immigration propaganda; by history, they mean political correctness; and the focus on ‘Holocaust awareness’ is not a part of British history (it was a product of Nazi ideology in Germany) and such focus tries to share the blame for it onto the British. It further ignores the widespread genocides in the 20th century, for which communism was responsible, and further ignores the barbarism and bloodshed in which Islam has been and remains steeped. Given the war in Ukraine, the Holodomor is a more important genocide than Nazi one.
The report said that ‘with faith and belief communities, we will expand Inter Faith Week, boost faith and belief literacy in government and wider society, and strengthen the role of Religious Education’. In practice, this will mean promoting Islam.
Regarding immigration, the report recommends ‘reforms to the points-based system’ with ‘efforts to reduce irregular migration, whilst restoring order to the asylum system so that it operates swiftly, firmly and fairly’ and moves to ‘bolster Community Sponsorship to put power in the hands of local communities to be directly involved in welcoming and supporting those seeking refuge’. Depending on how this is implemented, at best, little will change. More likely, mass immigration will continue and ‘Community Sponsorship’ will result in immigrant communities becoming a law unto themselves.
More menacingly is a commitment to ‘ensure hate crimes are prosecuted with the full force of the law’ and to ‘provide further protective security funding for faith communities also take forward a series of actions to tackle religious hatred’. There is to be ‘a special representative on tackling anti-Muslim hostility’. Further: ‘We will also work with schools to tackle racist abuse and understand disparities in exclusions, alongside research into improving the recruitment and progression of teachers from ethnic minority groups.’ This is antiwhite, anti-English, race war politics.
The report boasts: ‘we have established the new Race Equality Engagement Group, chaired by Baroness Lawrence of Clarendon OBE. Members are providing expert advice, lived experience, and help ensure government proposals are developed in partnership with the communities who are most affected by racial inequalities.’ Alongside the usual shock at what people say on social media, there is to be ‘national reporting and response mechanisms for hate crime, including support for the True Vision platform and the government-backed helpline, run by the British Muslim Trust, for reporting anti-Muslim hatred’. This is antiwhite, anti-English, race war politics.
While the report alleges: ‘In recent years, our Muslim communities have faced growing hostility, discrimination and hate,’ there is a totally different approach to the English. There is a call for the promotion of a ‘confident, modern patriotism’, but avers that ‘the extreme right … equate being English with being White, or being Christian – exploit national identity as an ethnic construct, tied to race or religion – something the vast majority of people reject.’
This allegation about Englishness is based upon a YouGov opinion poll. That poll consists of leading, conflicting and misleading questions, data that is incomplete, figures that do not add up, ignores that there are many White people in England who are not English, and a narrative that is anti-English. The ‘key takeaways’ claimed by the poll are:
The YouGov statement ‘Being British is something you can be by coming to the UK for the first time as an adult and getting UK citizenship’ was agreed with by only 20% of those described as being ‘White, born in UK’. Of that group, 50% considered themselves to be ‘Equally English and British’, and another 24% considered themselves to be either ‘English not British ‘ or ‘More English than British’.
The YouGov poll asked all those interviewed to state their views as to the following statements:
Finally, there were those who said something else or did not know.
The answers to these questions were from all, including the ethnic minorities, and not just the English. The Ethnic minorities comprised 20% of the total. The difference between citizenship and nationality are not identified. Immigrants can acquire British citizenship but cannot acquire English citizenship as that does not exist. Nor can immigrants become ethnically English. It is the second question above that is most affected by the failings of the poll.
The ‘Protecting What Matters’ report is wrong to make the assertions it does in relation to the YouGov poll. The report would not even be necessary were there not problems with the multicultural and mass immigration experiment. It is Labour who seek to demonise those who disagree with the wisdom of that experiment, and Labour who are sowing division.