The prophecied failure of multiculturalism

Yes, yes, it is about the incredibly divisive Enoch Powell, an accused British racist. He made it clear about his racial views:

“It depends on how you define the word "racialist." If you mean being conscious of the differences between men and nations, and from that, races, then we are all racialists. However, if you mean a man who despises a human being because he belongs to another race, or a man who believes that one race is inherently superior to another, then the answer is emphatically "No.”"

But of course today such a statement designed to clear up any misconceptions will be unequivocally condemned as outright racism. Such charges are preposterous and an utter disrespect for all individuals of intellectual knowledge. Common sense should clear up such exaggerations and clear fictitious stories deliberated upon by the 60s liberals and foisted upon the unsuspecting citizens of our Western nations, but alas common sense has been replaced with the calculated idea of “politically correct” designed to silence dissent from their order and stifle free-speech by taking advantage of the human sense of shame.

No fear, his words were mere racism designed to divide the masses and counter intelligent debate, or maybe the same could be said about the true culprits behind the segregation in the West and those who seek to end all debate outside of their world of politics. You leave politically correct and you are obviously a bigot of some sorts, stay within politically correct however you are confining your personal feelings and intellectual fortitude within a psychological bubble designed by professionals to keep you a slave to your own bureaucratically designed conscience.

Sorry to break this to you but I am not a racist, not a zealot, and not a bigot of any sorts. Do I have reservations about certain cultures and cultural practices? Yes. Do I recognize the obvious differences between people of all races, religions, cultures, and nations? Yes. Do I believe anyone is somehow inferior or superior to me racially? No. Do I believe all people have their god-given rights which no man can take from them? Yes.

This does not however mean that I condone mass immigration, the racial, religious, and cultural changes of current Western society, or self-segregation and welfare abuses of immigrants. In fact immigration should be entirely halted from all non-Western nations, sure attack me with “well you just don’t want immigration from countries where people are a little darker than you” well you are wrong, if there were an African nation or Arab nation which shared a relatively similar culture they would never be excluded.

It is not about ending all immigration, it is about lowering to such a level and forcing certain requirements be met that when immigrants come to our shores that they are doing so because they truly want to be citizens here and become a successful member of their local and national community. This means learning the language, accepting the national history, accepting the national culture, accepting the certain principles that the nation holds dear, and acknowledging that being a threat to any members of the community in your nation can land you on a plane back to your native lands.

With these policies it would allow the nation to end the self-segregation, poverty, tension, and failed multiculturalism which exists today. Right now tensions are mounting, emotions are raging, and the threat of chaos between people in the Western nations has never been so high in our history. These are all internal divisions which, as stated in the video, could end us up with civil wars.

"Have you ever wondered, perhaps, why opinions which the majority of people quite naturally hold are, if anyone dares express them publicly, denounced as 'controversial, 'extremist', 'explosive', 'disgraceful', and overwhelmed with a violence and venom quite unknown to debate on mere political issues? It is because the whole power of the aggressor depends upon preventing people from seeing what is happening and from saying what they see."

reply to post by Misoir


It's funny the degree of intentionally deceptive redefinition of obvious conditions which can be demonstrated not ony in humans but most life forms being legislated into evility where the initial intent of the observation was simply to identify for self defense potential high probability risks and help keep inevitably conflicting and contentious parties separated for their own benefits.
Something akin to wolves calling sheepdogs race traitors because they keep the wolves from merging freely their flocks of sheep. While race is unlikely to have any but a tangential effect on behavior, segregations of groups into development of conflicting cultural values and behaviors are what's really being discussed and by ignoring that behavior is the real problem and associating it only with coincidental physical characteristics, intentionally, is the truly evil act, as it serves to suggest that one is not to make any judgments which affect their own survival positively when one culture collides with another. It is to deny nature wich is make plainly ithrough put the natural world. Is it any wonder that those most concerned with the task of blinding the general population to their survival are also are most vigilant in self segregating? Coincidence? You decide.

reply to post by FriedrichNeecher


My personal view is that this concept of "multiculturalism" and its companion "diversity" are aspects of a broader goal for humanity that reaches further than the mind of common humans can attain. But as a distant, if unattainable goal, that is well and good when little else seems worthy of striving toward.

It is, of course, all part and parcel of the New World Order, Globalization and all of that business tied into making us a united world, understanding and accepting of our neighbors. It is a worthy pursuit. No different at all than the struggle in the US during the 1960s for integration which was mandated by law and has worked to a remarkable degree. It will be made to happen over the whole Earth but it will take a couple of hundred years if there are no major setbacks such as world wars.

Its purpose is to harmonize the world into one structure dominated by one source of power. That would be the UN or something equivalvent. Along with this brotherly love singing around the campfire will be the sharing of wealth that we keep hearing about in the West but can't quit fathom the reasoning behind.

The explanation for all of this required change must have a grand master somewhere pulling the proper strings to get it started if not done. Worldly governments are not that strong nor are the special elites that the consipracy folks constantly allude to. It must be that the Galactic Federation has demanded it. Anybody have a better explanation, a higher purpose or a better reason to get our stuff together on this blue speck?

I do consider multiculturalism as failed when there is a state of war as it has been the cultural divisions that define the conflicting factions. In that respect multiculturalism has been failing for a very long time. What is surprising is that one of the most multicultural nations is currently the main provoker of global unrest and perpetual war, so perhaps there is more to culture than nationalism.

Here in Australia, the ocean boarder and tight immigration policy has reasonably managed the multiculturalism issues. The aboriginals did get a hard time with the initial colonisation process. The white western powers has maintained control while allowing a globally diverse immigration policy over the past 50 - 60 years to integrate into the community. There have still been problems and conflicts along the way, but have generally be localised or representative of global issues with the more serious aspects quickly addressed.

I am not fully aware of the multiculturalism issues within England or the EU, but some recent reports are expressing heightened tension. If there is large scale riots or violence going on then immigration policy is one method to help stop the problems expanding while the community resolves the issues. Immigration policy is always a long and tough debate and personally makes me sick listening to the politicians continually go on about it for days, months and years. It is a big, complex, messy and difficult issue to find the right balance. The state does collect many metrics to help measure the effect. Open and frank discussion while not being degrading is also important to understand the communities perspective.

reply to post by Aliensun

Anybody have a better explanation, a higher purpose or a better reason to get our stuff together on this blue speck?

Warfare has reached a stage where civilisation will be exterminated if it cannot live together. A few small pockets of humanity may survive if they can get through the nuclear winter but things will go back to the stone age.

reply to post by Aliensun


You can have any view you want. Some of us are actually responsible for results and acting proactively on this planet until your supernatural cavalry arrives to make you king or at least manager or your servants. Fanciful erudition and pie in the sky and someone elses effort does not feea a single hungry child. In the history of man, never has there been what you seek, so maybe you should consider it's not possible.
If you study man objectively you know why that is. There is achieved earthly unity and common purpose in only death and in that alone, and any push to achieve earthy pan-equality will end the same way. All claimed human condition levelers level by killing those they find unworkable. While these futurists find mass death acceptable, somehow they never find themselves or their own expendable and they claim a comfortable managment position and fee to admire their perverse 'creation' of destruction of essentially anything else that would claim or withhold a portion of the managers comforts.
You should consider that equality is unachievable, and what is claimed as equality ignores 99% of the total human condition and focuses only on cash transfer. How about equality in age, gender, talents, attractiveness, climate. longevity etc? Open your mind, and leave other peoples wallets to themselves

reply to post by Misoir


The more races and cultures you bring into a county then the less united it is. Some people assimilate into their new culture but many more simply stick together with people they can already relate to. This is why you have areas known by the culture or race that makes up the majority.

A house divided cannot stand and though I'm not a racist person I can certainly see how multiculturalism ultimately fails.

Here's my problem with multiculturalism in the U.S.(I'm a green card holding Hispanic immigrant BTW):


You have 3 White Christians, 3 Arab Muslims, 3 Atheists, and 1 Hindu who have moved into one house. When they walk in they are each given a piece of paper with the rules of the house that were already there before they moved in.

For a while this is fine for everyone as they try to get adjusted, and unpack their belongings. Everyone is following the rules of the house..But one day the three Arab Muslims decide that they cannot live in a house that does not respect the establishment of Shari'a law. So they tear up their pieces of paper with the house rules on them and begin to impose Shari'a on the rest of the house.

What happens? Christians get mad and begin squabbling with the Arab Muslims over the rules of the house. Christians now attempt to impose Christianity and law based on strict interpretations of the Bible. What happens?

Atheists get pissed off. They start taking Korans and Bibles and burning them. They impose a strict no religion rule on the household. Even though the original house rules respect the free exercise of faith in any form. What happens?

Hindu is now alone in a house full of angry people and no longer allowed to have a religion.

The minority suffers, house rules have broken down, and there is now chaos in the house.

These events can happen in any order. It doesn't have to be the Muslims who start it or whatever, and frankly that isn't the point of this little story. The point is, if you advocate for "social justice" instead of equal justice you are VIOLATING the rights of anyone not included in your definition of "social justice".

Multiculturalism doesn't work. We are ALL Americans(if you live in America) and should all be playing by the same rules. Anything less than that and you will sow anger and resentment and a push from opposing side to restrict or entirely take away the rights of the "other side".

If you want harmony there are a few easy steps:

Mind your own damned business

Play by the same rules everyone else does(Equal Justice)

Don't impose upon others

Have some respect for people who don't believe as you do.

Fight those who wish to change the rules for their benefit and only their benefit.

reply to post by projectvxn


while I dont disagree in general I find it curius about this christianity being imposed on others all the time. How so?
If you do a survey something akin to the 10 commandments exists in every culture so is that your christianity burr under your saddle? Thou shalt not kill, steal etc.?, Is it the dang carols that now start before thanksgiving, I'm confused, which are the christians forcing all in the room to eat and drink their jesus?

reply to post by FriedrichNeecher


I think you've missed the point of that post entirely. It was never meant to disparage anyone. Only to illustrate the point of why multiculturalism isn't a working philosophy,

reply to post by projectvxn


I thoroughly understand many aspects of multiculturalism now because of that explanation