‘Diversity’, the New Age Religion

Leftoids obsessed with cultural relativism are deliberately obscuring the Mohammedan invasion with euphemistic blather about ‘diversity’,  ‘ethnicity’ and culture’.  Their morally bankrupt  shrieks of ‘racism’, which blames irritated Aussies for not being nice enough to unassimilable, belligerent Muselmaniacs, are beginning to sound like a broken record.
  by Christina McIntosh

As dutifully reported by the ABC this morning.

“Cultural Diversity Survey: Victorians Support Ethnic Diversity, but 40 Percent Believe Some Groups “Do Not Fit In”.

I would like to know the exact wording of the questions that people were asked.  Because ‘ethnic’ and ‘cultural’ are distinct.  A person may, for example, be Indian by ethnicity or ‘race’ – speaking a South Asian language and having certain physical characteristics – but practice any one of a variety of wildly-different belief systems – Sikhism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, or even be an atheist or a communist. And those belief systems will make a significant difference in the way that person behaves toward others.  A ‘Persian’ speaking Farsi may be Christian, Shiite Muslim, Zoroastrian or atheist; and it would be a fool who pretended it did not matter a great deal which.  – CM


‘Victorians support the idea of cultural diversity but 40 percent of people believe there is at least one ethnic group that does not fit into Australian society, a survey has found.

There is one ‘group’  I can think of that does not fit and has no intention of fitting…but that group is not an ‘ethnic group’, it is defined solely by adherence to a specific ideology.  Those who join it – by choosing to accept and adhere to that ideology – tend to become just as dangerous and disruptive, just as much “misfits”,  as those who were born to its practitioners and steeped in its tenets from birth. – CM


‘The VicHealth Race and Cultural Diversity Survey said 78 percent of Victorians were in favour of cultural diversity, but one third of respondents thought certain minority ethnic groups posed a risk to their way of life.

‘It also found 2 in 5 people believed [that] certain race groups did not “fit in” with Australia’s way of life.

‘Ethnic groups’. ‘Race groups’. And among these groups, as we will find, they include..Muslims, who are not a “race'”, not an ‘ethnos’, whose ‘culture’ is the product of an all-encompassing, total and totalitarian ideology. When, oh, when, will somebody run a survey and compare apples with apples; forget all about “race” and “ethnicity”, put that to one side, let’s ask just survey Aussies on what they think they know and how they feel about a whole range of different belief systems and political ideologies., and about the practitioners of same.  And include Islam among  those belief systems, those ideologies.  “How do you feel about: Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Communism, Neo-Nazi movements…”? – etc.  - CM

‘The research, conducted by Deakin University and the University of Melbourne, involved 1,250 Victorians over the age of 18.

‘The last survey was taken in 2006, and VicHealth chief executive Jerril Rechter said not a lot had changed.

“Victorians have a really strong record of nurturing cultural diversity and working towards equality for all”, she said.

Dear Jerril: read your fellow Victorian Mark Durie’s book “The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom” and find out what happens to cultural diversity when Islam and Muslims rule; find out that the sharia of Islam encodes, sacralises and promotes active discrimination against – and outright oppression and abuse of – all non-Muslims by all Muslims, and of women by men.  In any sharia-suffused Islamic state there is no equality of women with men, and there is certainly no equality before the law of non-Muslims with Muslims.  Nor can there be.  The core teachings of Islam expressly forbid it.  Do your homework, Ms Rechter, and then ask yourself whether it is really so inexplicable that some Victorians might be just a tad leery of Muslims and of the proliferation of Muslims and mosques in their midst. – CM

“However, we have seen some areas where we do need to strengthen our understanding of cultural diversity and the benefits.”

The more Muslims you have, however, my dear Ms Rechter, the less real cultural diversity you will have.  Because the final goal toward which all Muslims are supposed to work – and toward which many do indeed work – is a global Muslim monoculture. – CM

‘One in five people said certain race groups threatened the economic security of other Australians by taking jobs away.

The real issue is not jobs. Nor is it ‘race’.  The real issue is the rapid and continuing expansion of the – ideologically-defined and constituted – Ummah Fifth Column. – CM

‘Victorian Attitudes Towards Diversity’.

’78 percent are in favour of cultural diversity.

’54 percent say certain race groups did not ‘fit in’

Which? – CM

’70 percent have positive contact with other ethnic groups.

’54 percent say certain race groups did not ‘fit in’.

How on earth was this survey worded?  What is the difference between a ‘race group’ and an ‘ethnic group’??  If the survey used these two forms of words, did it provide a definition?  Sloppy wording betrays sloppy thinking. – CM

‘9 percent feel uncomfortable around those of other backgrounds.

Again, is ‘other backgrounds’ the wording used in the survey question itself?  If so, what on earth is thatsupposed to mean?  It is so broad in its possible applications as to be without meaning. I could take it to mean that Aussies from the bush feel uncomfortable around those raised in the Big Smoke, and vice versa; never mind about ‘racial’ or belief system differences. – CM

‘Of those who expressed prejudiced attitudes about certain groups, more were likely to feel negative towards people from Muslim (22 percent), Middle Eastern (14 percent), African (11 percent) and refugee (11 percent) backgrounds.

I’d like to know whether those are actual categories used in the survey – “Muslim”, ‘Middle Eastern”, “African”, “refugee”.  Because if they are, this survey is so sloppily worded as to be beyond useless.  Because the categories ‘Muslim’, ‘Middle Eastern’, ‘African’, and ‘refugee’, overlap substantially – many of the latter three groups are Muslims –  but are not perfectly interchangeable (there are Muslims who do not fit into any of the latter three groups, and there are also significant numbers of ‘Middle Easterners’, ‘Africans’ and ‘refugees’ who are not Muslims at all.) I would object strongly if someone demanded that I say only whether I liked or disliked “Middle Easterners”, because that question , being too broadly worded, would not allow me to make a distinction – a distinction which matters a great deal – between Muslim ‘Middle Easterners’ and non-Muslim ‘Middle Easterners’.  

And then the report – having gingerly noticed that people seem to feel greater misgivings about Muslims than about anybody else, whilst categorising those misgivings as ‘prejudice’  (and therefore to be deplored) – proceeds to discuss the negative effects of ‘racism’….

“Ms Rechter said discrimination and poor attitudes towards minority groups can have profound health effects.

Yes, discrimination towards minority groups can be very nasty.  And that discrimination need not be based on ‘race’.   E.g. the rampant discrimination toward and abuse of the minority Christian Copts in Egypt, by Muslims; the gross mistreatment of the minority Christians and Yazidis in Iraq and Syria, by Muslims; the gross mistreatment, up to and including rape and lynchings, of Christians and Hindus in Pakistan, by Muslims..and those are not by any means the only Muslim lands within which non-Muslims, qua non-Muslims, are badly treated, all day and every day, by Muslims, in full accord with the core Islamic principle of Loyalty (toward fellow Muslims) and Enmity (toward all non-Muslims, as such). - CM

Racism hurts more than just feelings.  It can affect people’s mental wellbeing and people that are the subjects of racism can suffer from anxiety and depression”, she said.

“So it’s incredibly important that as a community we stamp out racism whenever we see it, and we don’t just stand by and watch it occurring…”.

Ms Rechter: so why, if your main focus is “racism”, not prejudice and injustice more generally speaking, did this survey include a question about Muslims?  Since it asked people how they felt about “Muslims” it should also have asked them how they felt about “Communists” or “Neo-Nazis” or “Christians” or “Buddhists”. 

Because Muslims – let’s say it for the 1000th time – are not a race, not an ethnos, they are – just like Christianity, or Buddhism, or atheism, or communism – a group defined by adherence to a specific belief system or ideology.  No-one is ‘born’ Muslim, despite the Muslim claim that this is the case; like all other faiths or belief systems, Islam has to be explicitly and deliberately taught.  Distrust of or wariness toward Muslims could - if you are prepared to ignore the content of the Muslim texts, the character of Mohammed the founder of the cult, and the way in which Muslims very frequently behave toward non-Muslims at all times and in all places where the Muslims (whether majority or minority) control the levers of power, and if you are therefore prepared to pretend that distrust of Muslims is baseless, irrational and reprehensible – be called bigotry; it cannot logically be called racism.  

Am I being “racist”, Ms Rechter, if I deplore the conduct of Ms Samantha Lewthwaite, or of Shane Kent and David Hicks, or of the two black African converts to Islam (they were raised in Christian families) who attacked and murdered and beheaded Lee Rigby and then proceeded to spout Quran verses to explain what they had done?  Is it “racist” of me to wish that Australia had never permitted a mass influx of card-carrying Quran-believing Mohammed-honoring Muslims?  

I don’t care what colour they are or what language they speak or where in the world they or their parents come from; it’s the ideas in their Books and the malevolent example set by their ‘prophet’ that worry me, and the blue-eyed fair-haired euro-aussie converts to Islam – whether male or female – worry me just as much as any Afghan Muslim male-of-military-age who has gotten in here as a “refugee”. – CM

What Multi-Culti Isn’t

by /Gates of Vienna

Many thanks to JLH for translating this brief essay from Politically Incorrect about Modern Multicultural Germany:

What Multi-Culti Isn’t

by Alpha Centauri

It is no secret that European and German journalists would like to make the country more “colorful.” The concept of (the German word) “bunt“ is generally associated with something positive, brightly colored and desirable. The concept unites positive aspects and automatically negates uniformity, forced conformity, sadness, death and terror — all negative aspects which have nothing in common with the concepts “bunt“ and “multikulti.”

For, you see: What our “people’s representatives,” “investigative journalists” and “associations” — more exactly our collaborators, traitors to people and country — would like to establish is not what is “colorful” but is black as death, red as flowing blood and green as the standard of the Prophet who according to today’s international law would be a mass murderer and war criminal, and no doubt was, in his own time.

They don’t want to establish a varied/colorful republic which would positively influence the country and Europe, but rather a republic that is red, black and green and brings oppression, death and ruin into human lives. If you think analytically about many political decisions and themes in everyday life, there can be no other interpretation for what they propose.

It is the same with the idea “multi-cultural.” “Multi-culti” is supposed to inspire positive associations, that people from other cultures are an enrichment for a country and a society. But is that true? Why are no distinctions made? Why are various cultures thrown into one pot, even if they don’t want to be? Why is a Turkish woman (Aydan Özoguz) the official in charge of immigration, refugees and integration? Does she represent, for instance, Greeks, Italians, Chinese, Japanese, Spaniards, Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, Slovenes, Russians, Chechens, Poles, Portuguese, French, English, Dutch, Danes, etc.? Do these people feel represented by her? Why is a Muslim in this position? Why not someone from one of the other ethnic groups?

No, Mrs. Özoguz exclusively represents her fosterlings, her Muslim co-religionists — i.e., those who are neither varied and colorful nor multicultural, and are willing to integrate little or not at all.

Her fosterlings from the East are living symbols of what is proclaimed to be “colorful” and “multi-culti.” But these cultures are no enrichment for Germany, unlike other peoples who live in Germany and Europe and really represent a positive diversity — who share the same or similar values and respect the country, and are not involved in fighting at every level of society.

Politically, “colorful” and “multi-culti” stand for oppression, destruction, moral decay, perverted values and reversion to an archaic time in which violence and might-makes-right shaped political and social life.

Anyone who clearly understands the situation rejects this form of “colorful diversity.” Anyone who seriously advocates for “colorful” and “multi-culti” in its Islamic iteration, is not only a traitor to people and country, but is mentally ill and a danger to peace in Europe.

The peoples of Europe may thank Muslims and their devoted, compliant followers in politics, the economy and the media for the fact that unrest has arrived here. If it is not stopped, Europe is facing either its destruction or a bloody civil war. Both are scenarios which no one wants.

2 thoughts on “‘Diversity’, the New Age Religion”

  1. Excellent article on multiculti suicide, from here:

    From here:


    December 7, 2014

    When Liberal Preferences Meet Islamic Principles

    By Selwyn Duke

    There was a recent scandal that, as much as anything else, illustrates the intellectual emptiness and moral ennui of the modern liberal man. It occurred in Britain but reflects a wider phenomenon; what can be said about it can be said about happenings in Sweden, France, Holland, Canada or Belgium — or the United States.

    It was discovered recently that Muslims in seven London schools were indoctrinating children with Islamic propaganda, ignoring Western culture and refusing to inculcate the “British values” of the moment. The situation was such that all of one school’s library books were in Arabic and many students couldn’t tell investigators whether they should follow British or Sharia law or which was more important. And one of these schools, mind you, was a state-run Church of England institution — that happens to now be upwards of 80 percent Muslim.

    When hearing about the subordination of British law to Sharia and other such Islamic cultural inroads, one of my instincts is to say “So what?” Cry me a river of multiculturalist tears.

    Multiculturalism, we’ve been told, dictates that all cultures are morally equal and deserve the same respect and footing within “Western” civilization. Never mind that the ideology is self-defeating. After all, since different cultures espouse different values, not all cultures can be “morally” equal unless all values are so. This makes multiculturalism not only a corollary of, but also a Trojan horse for, moral relativism. And consider the implications. If all values are equal, how can showing cultures equal respect be superior to cultural chauvinism? And what if another culture does prescribe the latter? It then follows that the people within it cannot both have their own culture, unaltered, and accept multiculturalism.

    Nonetheless, since multiculturalism is considered enlightened by Western pseudo-intellectuals, it’s time for some personal petard hoisting. A *Daily Mail* piece on the Londonistan school situation tells us


    that some students told inspectors “it would be wrong to learn about other religions” and that “it was a woman’s job to cook and clean.” The paper furthermore reported that schools were criticized for “failure to give girls equal opportunities,” narrow curricula, not preparing students “for life in a diverse British society,” not encouraging students “to respect other people’s opinions” and for creating a situation in which students’ “understanding of the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance, is underdeveloped.”

    And the problem is…?

    What if these Muslims’ faith and culture dictate that women should be steered toward domesticity and shouldn’t have equal opportunity; that there should be not diversity but Islamic homogeneity; that not all opinions should be respected and that it is wrong to learn about other religions; and that Islamic theocracy is preferable to democracy? And the matter of “tolerance” is an interesting one. Since the term implies a perceived negative — you wouldn’t tolerate a delectable meal or fine car, but would have to tolerate a stubborn cold or bad weather — the reality is that tolerance is only admirable under two circumstances:

    When something you dislike isn’t objectively bad, such as when you tolerate a vegetable you’re not partial to for health reasons.

    When you’re powerless to change something that is objectively bad, such as an irremediable crippling condition.

    But if something is objectively wrong and can be eliminated, it is an abdication of moral responsibility to refuse to do so. And has it occurred to anyone that pious Muslims may instinctively realize this and, considering Western culture a misbegotten force (their perspective), view changing it a divine mission?

    Be that as it may, given that multiculturalism espouses cultural equivalence and its correlative moral relativism, by its lights none of the bemoaned Islamic curricula standards and outcomes can be any worse than what secularists prefer. So what gives? Are you liberals denying these Muslim immigrants their culture and creed?

    You certainly are. But this hypocrisy is nothing new. Multiculturalism has been used for decades, at every turn, as a pretext for denuding Western traditions and Christian symbols and messages from our cultural landscape, using “tolerance” and “diversity” as rallying cries. Even as I write this, a Washington state high-school senior faces expulsion


    from school for sharing his Christian faith, the idea being that such expression is “offensive.” Multiculturalism was always nonsense. “Anything goes” — as long as it’s branded “culture” — could never be a recipe for organizing anything because it doesn’t allow for distinguishing between anything and any other thing. A standard of some kind must be applied when devising laws, regulations and social codes; and standards, by definition, involve the upholding and imposition of values.

    This is why G.K. Chesterton once noted, “In truth, there are only two kinds of people; those who accept dogma and know it, and those who accept dogma and don’t know it.” Except for leftists possessed of evil genius, most are in the latter camp. Multiculturalism certainly felt right when useful for purging an element of tradition contrary to the liberal agenda; it doesn’t quite have the same glitter, however, when it would allow the institution of such an element. Multiculturalism is for use on *other people’s* dogmas; it’s not for use on the Left’s own.

  2. Truth welcomes scrutiny. Falsehood demands tolerance.


    Everything liberals do is a deliberate attempt to prove themselves to be mentally incompetent, so they won’t have any responsibility to think for them selves about anything. We should simply let them prove their point, declare them non-compus mentis, and move on to other problems.

Comments are closed.