Multiculturalism Is Splintering the West

Not Multiculturalism. Islam. Islam destroys everything.

by Giulio Meotti

  • Multiculturalism is leading to the “partition”, the separation of European societies. – Alexandre Mendel, author of the new book, Partition: A Chronicle of the Islamist Secession in France.
  • Under European multiculturalism, Muslim women lost many rights they should have had in Europe. Multiculturalism is, in fact, based on the legalization of a parallel sharia society, which is founded on the rejection of Western values, above all equality and freedom.
  • The European establishment closed its eyes while Muslim supremacists were violating the rights of its own people.

The European Union’s official statistics on terrorism are dramatic:

“In 2016, a total of 142 failed, foiled and completed attacks were reported by eight EU Member States. More than half (76) of them were reported by the United Kingdom. France reported 23 attacks, Italy 17, Spain 10, Greece 6, Germany 5, Belgium 4 and the Netherlands 1 attack. 142 victims died in terrorist attacks, and 379 were injured in the EU. 1,002 persons were arrested for terrorist offences in 2016”.

These countries all tried to integrate Muslim communities, but all came to the same dead end. “As long as that continues, the failure of integration will pose a mortal threat to Europe”, the Wall Street Journal wrote after a suicide bombing that killed 22 people in Manchester. According to a new book by the French reporter Alexandre Mendel, Partition: Chronique de la sécession islamiste en France (“Partition: A Chronicle of the Islamist Secession in France“), multiculturalism is leading to the separation of European societies.

It is also leading to constant waves of terror attacks. Last August, on a single day, Islamists killed 20 Europeans in Barcelona and Finland. A month later, they slaughtered two girls in Marseille, and in Birmingham a Shiite boy was brutally wounded. That is the deadly harvest of Europe’s multiculturalism. It is the most romanticized, seductive European ideology since Communism.

There is an “increasingly permanent chain of ‘suspended communities’ nesting within nations throughout the West”, the American historian Andrew Michta recently wrote.

“The emergence of these enclaves, reinforced by elite policies of multiculturalism, group identity politics, and the deconstruction of Western heritage, has contributed to the fracturing of Western European nations”.

Only twenty minutes separate the Marais, the elegant quarter of Paris where Charlie Hebdo‘s offices were located, and Gennevilliers, a suburb that houses 10,000 Muslims, where the Kouachi brothers, who gunned down Charlie Hebdo’s cartoonists, were born and raised. In Birmingham there is a suburb, Sparkbrook, which has produced one-tenth of the England’s jihadists. All of Europe’s biggest cities have separated enclaves where Islamic apartheid now proliferates.

There, Burqas and beards mean something. Dressing has always symbolized loyalty to a lifestyle, a civilization. When Mustafa Kemal Atatürk abolished the Caliphate in Turkey, he forbade beards for men and veils for women. The proliferation of Islamic symbols in Europe’s ghettos now demarcates the separation of these suburbs. The new leader of England’s UK Independence Party (UKIP), Henry Bolton, recently said that the Britain is “buried” by Islam and “swamped” by multiculturalism.

(Image sources: Yann Caradec, Coco0612/Wikimedia Commons)

“Multiculturalism,” according to the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, “has led to honour killings, female genital circumcision and the establishment of sharia law in inner-city pockets throughout the UK.” Under European multiculturalism, Muslim women lost many rights they should have had in Europe. They face “honor crimes” for refusing to wear an Islamic veil; for dressing up in Western clothes; for meeting with Christian friends; for converting to another faith; for seeking a divorce; for resisting being beaten and for being too “independent”.

It is one of the great ironies of multiculturalism: five European NATO members are now fighting in Afghanistan against the Taliban who enslave women, while in Europe the same thing is taking place in our own ghettos.

Under multiculturalism, polygamy has increased, along with female genital mutilation (500,000 cases across Europe). Multiculturalism is, in fact, based on the legalization of a parallel sharia society, which is founded on the rejection of Western values, above all equality and freedom.

In addition, the fear of “offending” Islamic minorities has been leading to wishful blindness. That is what happened in Rotherham, a city of 117,000 people in northern England, where the mass-rape and grooming of at least 1,400 children by “rape gangs of Pakistani origin” was allowed to go on for many years.

Under multiculturalism, anti-Semitism has also skyrocketed, especially in France. The French weekly L’Express just devoted an entire issue to the “new malaise of the French Jews“.

All Europe’s recent political earthquakes are a consequence of the failure of multiculturalism. As the British Historian Niall Ferguson said, the main reason for Brexit was immigration.

“Many people in the UK looked at the refugee crisis in Europe and thought: if they get a German passport, they will come to Britain and we will not be able to stop them. This was a key issue for voters, and legitimately, because the Germans had opened the doors to a vast influx from the Muslim world. If you looked at these things from the United Kingdom, the reaction was: wait a moment, what if they come here?”

In the Netherlands, the rise of Geert Wilders is the direct result of the murder of filmmaker Theo van Gogh by a Dutch Islamist and the anti-multiculturalism backlash that followed it. In France, Marine Le Pen’s political ascent coincided with two years of major terror attacks, in which 230 French citizens were murdered.

Moreover, the extraordinary success in the recent general election of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party is the consequence of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s fatal decision to open the doors to over a million refugees and migrants. Beatrix von Storch, an AfD leader, just said to BBC that “Islam does not belong to Germany“. She explained that it is one thing to allow Muslims privately to preach their Islamic faith, but another to appease political Islam, which is trying to change German democracy and society.

The European establishment has closed its eyes while Muslim supremacists were violating the rights of its own people. Many Islamists then knocked at the doors of Europe with ever more determination. Multiculturalism has been killing and destabilizing Europe as only Nazism and Communism have done before.

Giulio Meotti, Cultural Editor for Il Foglio, is an Italian journalist and author.


4 thoughts on “Multiculturalism Is Splintering the West”

  1. For multiculturalism to work, the hosts must abandon their own culture – thus negating the “multiculturalism!”

    The leftopaths’ ideals of “Diversity” really only mean “divide and conquer:” Hey your already fully functional, cohesive, and integrated society needs to be “fixed” by making it LESS integrated! Their motto seems to be: “There’s No Money In Solutions! Whee!”

    What is this constant “multiculturalism!” scam (and the implicit “you’re all racists!” slander) all about?

    Who cares what spicy, exotic foods one eats, or what weird sartorial clothing choices one makes?!

    There’s only two ‘cultures’ in nature, that of the law-abiding, civilized people who symbiotically band together and collaborate to solve mutual problems, and that of the criminal savages who always attack first by slanderously blaming their victims, in order to keep others on the defensive.

    And crime is more of an anti-social anti-culture than “another” culture, even if only of a hypothetically “diversely opposite equal” variety.

    And similarly, as for these delinquent libertine “liberal” criminals’ divine mantra of “DIVERSITY!” well:

    Diversity =/= equality – in fact, quite the opposite!

  2. “HATE” isn’t the problem, it’s a symptom they have to address to distract us from what they’re really trying to ban.

    Since rational people get angry with criminals for their predatory choices, and criminals insist they have no choices because we’re all equally victims who should therefore tolerate the diverse differences between the kind of victim who attacks innocent others first, and those who don’t, they insist pity is always good and anger is always bad.

    Since criminals expect that all is generally allowed unless and until it is very specifically disallowed in advance, the only real crime is trying to prevent them from doing whatever they want to do, to whomever they want to do it to, and whenever they want to do it. Such attempts are always seen by them as “mean!” or more recently, “HATEFUL!”

    But as Robert Spencer noted:

    Incitement to violence is easy to spot – but incitement to “hostility” is in the eye of the beholder; so all anti-free-speech initiatives conflate (anti-crime) free speech and even (what they call “hateful”) feelings with actual violent crimes; for instance trying to criminalize speech against a religion or race (say, against someone for their simply noticing that islam isn’t really a race or a religion, but is only a global crime-gang).

    The whole notion of “hate-speech” and “hate-crimes” IS a crime! Having “hate” isn’t a criminal act, it’s EITHER the perfectly natural and neutral human response of perpetual anger towards ongoing injustices (like islam), OR it’s a victim-blaming slanderous HABIT; but either way, it’s only an effect, and not a cause of anything. I hate crimes & the criminals who commit them; so what?

    “Hate crimes” are really only *thought*-crimes, which is a victim-blaming slanderous assertion made by criminals to deflect everyone’s attention away from their own crimes (since criminals are psycho-paths who hate thinking, of course to them nobody else should ever be allowed to indulge in potentially “dangerous” thinking, either) by asserting that anyone merely considering or feeling that one should dislike something bad – ANYTHING bad, aka crime and criminals – should be accused of committing the only “illegal crime” in itself: “Hate!”

    “DIVERSITY” is where one has given up on using one’s angry energy to unite people, to stop them from being criminals, and so one decides in stead to pretend to PITY every one and every thing equally … in stead of caring enough to risk being angry.

    so one then pretends to PITY them by using various less offensive and obvious synonyms for pity, such as “tolerance ,” “compassion,” and slanderous “inclusiveness” – as if some people had already been “excluded” just for being “different,” and are therefore victims – as opposed to having excluded them selves by choosing to be criminals.

    So “diversity!” means a demand to embrace (pity; tolerate) the difference between self-determined criminals and their innocent victims, rather than get angry with and try to change them.

    The real emphasis, in “Diversity!” is on “Tolerating” it – because why would anyone have to be told or ordered to tolerate that which was NOT dangerous to them (i.e: crime and criminals!)?!?

    Claiming “Diversity is always Good!” is idolatry, because in reality, in some situations and circumstances, it’s good, and in some it’s bad – but it’s NOT always good! As with all idolatry, the dynamics have been extracted or “abstracted” – the diversity FROM what, and TO what, have been removed from our ability to think about them, by the criminals’ choice of focus words.

    The purpose of idolatry is to hide and distract us from being able to see the implications of each statement: that rights only come with responsibilities, responsibilities with rights, causes with effects and effects with causes.

    People who haven’t taken the time to thoroughly define their terms of reference can only fall back on unreliable vague and generalized feelings – which most often result in a contrarian and adversarial “Me Good, You Bad!” subjectively hypocritical stance of paranoid masochism.

    Further, in regards to “DIVSERSITY:”

    The leftopaths went from tolerating it, to celebrating it, and now to enforcing it on others.

    Forcing others to accept one’s “difference” only confesses to one’s unique status as an extortive slaver – revealing, in one’s “diversity,” that the only real difference is a criminal one!

    So, people who choose to celebrate the idol of “Diversity!” are all criminals! Because, while they say they really only want to be left alone (thus obeying the Golden Rule of Law) they are also determined to use pre-emptive violence to force others to do so – which decision, as it breaks that very same Golden Rule, reveals their criminal hypocrisy.

    Endorsing Diversity means extorting tolerance for criminals because the cowards advocating for it don’t want to risk dealing with them. It’s the Stockholm Syndrome Christian version of islam!

  3. Christians PITY victims, and criminals AS fellow victims! Muslims blame their victims for making them ANGRY, but neither approach solves the problem of crime.

    So in this way, Muhammad was right in saying the Christians are closest to the muslims – the carrot to their stick. But in endorsing the god-idol, neither really believes in our free-will; ALL religion is slavery!

    The Christian God is pitifully weak, in only pitying us but never correcting evil or solving our problems.

    The Muslim God is pointlessly angry at the results of its own chosen actions (having deliberately created infidels for us to attack in order to prove our selves to it).

    Both gods are personally impotent yet demand we do nothing to solve any problems – the Christian one endorses no attacks ever (not even in just and moral counter-attacks in defense or either one’s self and/or of innocent others) with its “Vengeance is the Lord’s ALONE!” and “Always Turn the Other Cheek!” and “Resist ye Not Evil Men!” commands, while islam’s always demands we attack everyone all the time, randomly, just as it seems to do.

    Both approaches are literally and proudly illogical, irrational, senseless and idolatrous in that they demand the same mindless ritual approach to everything; both ignore the one or the other approaches – attacks and defenses – should be used, but only in response to different situational circumstances, not pre-emptively as attempts to PREVENT crimes.

    Crime is defined as attacking thereby innocent others first.
    Crime “prevention” is attacking thereby innocent others first.

    Both creeds love emotions and hate thought.

    In nature, animals’ emotions are their thoughts, and vice-versa – but unlike us, they can not usually divorce or “abstract” them from the dynamics of life; they don’t go from perception to conception and back again in as much detail nor for as extended periods of time as we do – their emotive thoughts are all based on external causes, not removed from them. When animals are hungry or otherwise in pain, their programmed instincts get them angry at the most likely causes of the pains, not at the pains themselves, nor at the fearful memories of past pains.

    All religion is idolatry, and all god-idols are excuses for irresponsibility.

    Even islam’s “allah” as the supposed all-powerful slaver, simply gets to negate our free-will choices and thus also guilt – it’s nothing more or less than an alibi created to excuse the muslims’ own criminal desires and actions – “I didn’t do it! The Allah Made Me Do It!”

    Ditto for Jesus:

    “All I have to do is say “Jesus is God!” and it negates all my bad and predatory criminal choices – because then he takes the blame, in more or less becoming the exact same slaver-God that “allah” was, the only difference being that I have to ask him to do so. Oh, wait – even allah demands the testimony (shahada) statement before he will admit to being my Master enslaver – which turns me from being a criminal into a victim.

    The existence of ANY “god” is an implicit threat – implying that one not only *shouldn’t* act on one’s own, free-will choices, but also that, ultimately, one CAN’T.

    They all remove responsibility and guilt. So they all also really only encourage excuse-making lies and irresponsibility.

    To embrace any and all “God” idols is but a free will negating pretense.

Comments are closed.