Multiculturalism and Multiracialism

Multiculturalism and Multiracialism
Spread the love

The following blog post about Multiculturalism and Multiracialism is syndicated from Alex Story The Aussie Wire News’ UK Correspondent

A few days ago, Suella Braveman spoke about the country’s right to control her
borders and decide who can live within them.

She referred to Angela Merkel, Germany’s former Chancellor, who said in a
speech in 2010, that “multiculturalism had utterly failed”.

At the time, Nicolas Sarkozy of France and David Cameron, our erstwhile Prime
Minister, said much the same thing.

As if on cue, the Swedish Prime Minister, Ulf Kristersson, a few days ago,
summoned the head of Sweden’s armed forces as gang violence left 11 people
dead in September alone.

Only last week, two men were shot in separate incidents close to Stockholm,
while a 25-year-old woman was killed in a bomb attack near Uppsala, Sweden’s
fourth largest city.

In short, there is a low-level war going on in Sweden.

“Sweden has never seen anything like this before” he said, noting that
“everything is on the table, both within the current law, and the laws that need
to be changed quickly.”

Kristersson blamed a long standing “irresponsible immigration policy”, adding
“I cannot stress enough how serious the situation is”.

Painting a fuller picture, a recent study published in Forensic Science Research,
a peer reviewed journal, showed that between 2000–2015, around 60% of
convicted rapists had immigrant background. Half were born outside Sweden.
Foreign born migrants represent less than one in five of Sweden’s total
population of Sweden and are thus hugely over-represented in this
reprehensible category.

By criticising “multiculturalism”, albeit indirectly, Braveman opened herself up
for predictable attacks from the usual suspects in our political parties, the
press, state subsidised Non-Governmental Organisations, the Church of
England, and characters such as Elton John.

As she said our ability to control our borders and decide who comes to live on
our Island, according to criteria that fit our cultural requirements, are being
overridden by a cynical fear of being branded “racist or illiberal”.

She observed that “any attempt to reform the refugee convention will see you
smeared as anti-refugee. Similar epithets are hurled at anyone who suggests
reform of the ECHR or its court in Strasbourg”.

As is often the case, a topic is weaponised by a purposeful lack of clarity.
To honest folk, the word “multiculturalism” means something very specific.
However, to self-righteous power-seekers, often masquerading as
humanitarians, it is an elastic term.

This opacity is the hammer with which our notorious do-gooders bash sceptics
over the head.

Any criticism of multiculturalism turns into a verbal First World War like
trench-warfare quagmire for any hapless person who noticed some issues with
the concept.

The core line of attack, as we all know, is that to criticise multiculturalism
means being “racist”.

The truth is that multiculturalism and race are not linked at all. They never

To link both concepts together is the height of dishonesty. It is purposefully

Most people have no problem with a multi-race society, least of all the United
Kingdom. Indeed, according to the World Attitude Survey, Britain is the least
racist country in the world.

For a multi-race society to work, it must be committed to the rule of law
applied equally to all without exception.

The commonality, and the solidity of any polity, depends on justice being blind
and fair. This is true in any society regardless of racial make up.

That implies that no preference can be bestowed on any group regardless of
background, religion, however intensively felt, or lobbying power.

If this cardinal rule of fairness before the law is broken, trust in the state

Over time, this inevitably leads to the replacement of patriotism and love of
fair governance into cynicism and expedient use of the state for
Communitarian privilege.

The Balkanisation of an once rock solid country ensues with all the implication
this carries.

A stable and thriving multi-race society is possible so long as politicians and
decision-makers are not seduced by the concept of divide and rule in the
context of our national politics.

The latter, albeit extremely dangerous in the medium term, can become very
attractive to people for whom short term and personal power matter more
than national stability.

Multiculturalism, on the other hand, is the exact opposite of a stable
multiracial state.

It explicitly grants exemptions to different groups according to their
background and religious beliefs.

Few demands are made on any of the multiplying “communities”.

Over time, they thus deepen their cultural and differentiated roots in the host
country with ever less overlap with the indigenous or any other of the many
cultures that have sprung up over time.

Each becomes ever more alien to the other.

As this process accelerate due to demography, each new community grows
ever more apart.

Political power than aggregates to the least scrupulous. The “community” tops
the national interest – a fully alien concept for an increasing number.
This is so because at no time, in a multicultural society, has the concept of
patriotism, love of institutions, history, language, sense of humour and much
more been developed or insisted upon.

No demand has been made for assimilation, so little compromise can be

Multiculturalism, ironically, was a concept developed in India during the time
of the Empire.

Fresh from their victorious anti-slavery crusades of the late 18 th and early 19 th
century, British Christians began to see India as ripe for conversion to their

The upshot was deep local resentment and the 1857 India Mutiny.

The near loss of the Empire in the East led to a qui-pro quo.

The Raj decided on “multi-culturalism” as a policy for appeasement.

Each would live according to their own.

This policy was then imported into Great Britain in the 1950s and 60s as the
Empire collapsed and immigration in the country started.

We had a blueprint for India so we applied it lazily to ourselves here in Britain.

However, what was then a convenient policy of habit applied to the country
gradually turned into a cudgel in the greatly intensifying current cultural wars,
as Braveman mooted during her speech, the culmination of which we are now

A country that cannot control its borders no longer has a say over her destiny.

Our current establishment is gambling big with our inheritance.

Be that as it may, Braveman should be praised for the even-handed speech she
made. Hope springs eternal.

You can watch Alex’s latest interview with Topher on The Aussie Wire News here

Spread the love