‘Multiculturalism’ is a mental disorder.
‘Celebrating diversity’ is a diabolical plan to destroy the nation.
Transferring huge amounts of our wealth to build mosques and madrassas in Indonesia is sheer lunacy. We will pay a huge price for this folly.
Politicians Â who Â aided and abetted the invasion by large numbers of illiterate Mohammedans, to change the balance of power forever, with the intention to replace the natives with a Mohammedan proletariat need to be arrested and tried for treason.
In light of the above, one of my favorite Churchill quotes comes to mind:
“It is the primary right of men to die and kill for the land they live in, and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invader’s hearth.”
Having pride in Britain protects all cultures
David Cameron was right to say that multiculturalism has failed, echoing similar statements by Nicholas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel. It was undertaken for the highest of motives. It was intended to create a more tolerant society, one in which everyone, regardless of colour, creed or culture, felt at home. Its effect has been precisely the opposite…
Many Jews of my parents’ generation owed their lives to this country. It took them in when they faced persecution elsewhere. They loved Britain and deeply internalized its values. The inscription on the tombstone of a former President of the United Synagogue summed up the entire Anglo-Jewish experience. It read, “A proud Englishman and a proud Jew.” …
They were proud to be English because the English were proud to be English. Indeed in the absence of pride there can be no identity at all. They integrated and encouraged us to go further because there was something to integrate into.
At some time that pride disintegrated, to be replaced by what Kate Fox amusingly calls “one-downmanship.” The British started seeing their own history as an irredeemable narrative of class, snobbery, imperialism, racism and social exclusion. It was in this atmosphere that, in the 1970s, multiculturalism was born. It said: there is no need to integrate.
The first people to try multiculturalism, the Dutch, were also the first people to regret it. The Princeton sociologists Paul Sniderman and Louk Hagendoorn found that the Dutch favoured tolerance and opposed multiculturalism. When asked what the difference was, they replied that tolerance ignores differences; multiculturalism makes an issue of them at every point.
Multiculturalism is part of the wider European phenomenon of moral relativism, a doctrine that became influential as a response to the Holocaust. It was argued that taking a stand on moral issues was a sign of an “authoritarian personality”….Â But moral relativism is the deathknell of a civilization. In a relativist culture, there is no moral consensus, only a clash of conflicting views in which the loudest voice wins.
That is where we are today. The extremists command attention and capture the headlines, and they become the role models for the young. Since there is no national identity to claim their allegiance, there is no contest. Hence the phenomenon, widespread throughout Europe today but rare in the past, that the children of immigrants are more hostile to the host society than their parents were, and feel themselves more alien to its values.
I have never known the British Jewish community, especially its university students, more anxious about the future than they are today. But I have heard the same from many Hindus and Sikhs. They feel that the more they seek to integrate, the less attention is paid to them by the government and the media. They are no problem, therefore they can be ignored. That too is terribly dangerous for the British future.
Multiculturalism, entered into for the noblest of reasons, has suffered from the law of unintended consequences. By dissolving national identity it makes it impossible for groups to integrate because there is nothing to integrate into, and by failing to offer people pride in being British, it forces them to find sources of pride elsewhere.
Without shared values and a sense of collective identity, no society can sustain itself for long. I fear the extremism that is slowly but surely becoming, throughout the world, the siren song of the twenty-first century.
This is the very argument I’ve put, having noted the sameÂ rewarding of the most hostile, the most extreme andÂ the least assimilated to a culture with too few defenders, and too many abstainers.Â But now that Lord Sacks says it, can Leftists really keep responding only with screams of ”racist!”?
Labor, when in opposition, was prepared then to have this debate it’s trying to shut down now with smears:
In a speech to the Fabian Society in Melbourne last night, Labor’s immigration, integration and citizenship spokesman, Tony Burke, said more needed to be done to make multiculturalism work.
Not. Europe was always multicultural. But no country in Europe ever allowed Â millions of hostile Mohammedans to invade. Musliculti is a one way street, it will never work.
“The recognition we’re making is that simply promoting diversity on its own isn’t enough,” Mr Burke said.
The Government had ”dropped the ball on integration”, which was vital to the success of a multicultural society, he said.
“The Government has been talking about integration as though integration and multiculturalism are mutually exclusive,” Mr Burke said.
“This is wrong. Integration is the way to make a multicultural society work.
“There is an alternative to integration – and it’s called disintegration.”