By Robert J Davies
NOTHING strikes more decisively and painfully at the heart of who we are as a people than the ill-begotten creed of multiculturalism. Like many things on the road to Hell, this is a paving stone with “good intention” carved upon it. Or at least, in the early days it was well-intentioned. Originally, multiculturalism was a generous policy offered by kind, decent Britons who loved their own way of life but nonetheless wished to make newcomers feel at home.
Multiculturalism in the hands of revolutionary thinkers on the Left quickly developed more sinister overtones, however. Still under the guise of being a virtuous and humane policy, it allowed plenty of scope for subversives who loathed their own socially-conservative traditions to chip away at them and demand, ultimately, that they be abolished.
For those on the nihilistic Left, there is an attraction in wiping the slate clean and starting again with a blank slate. The socialist, egalitarian utopia of which they dream is hindered and held back (in their eyes) by quaint notions such as an adherence to Christian faith; the primacy of the family; a pride in British history and its place in the world; and an innocent enjoyment of a culture based around one’s own kith and kin, handed from one generation to the next.
Multiculturalism attracts those for whom the abolition of any over-arching culture, values, faith and history is useful as a starting point for shaping the population around new loyalties: egalitarianism, multi-racialism, gender fluidity, minorityism and a wide range of sexual peccadilloes embracing more or less everything short of paedophilia. Not only does multiculturalism elevate other cultures, beliefs and values to parity with our own in this, our country, it in fact goes further than that, offering preferential treatment to non-native cultures while denigrating our own as white, elitist and privileged and therefore, beyond the pale.
Over the years, as the medicine of multiculturalism began to leave an increasingly unpleasant taste in the mouth, so a new buzzword started to circulate: diversity. Today, with further fracturing and atomising of communities, we even occasionally hear the Orwellian phrase “super-diversity”. The dual meaning of “super” in this context is deliberate, of course.
The irony is that the mass importation of totally different populations into Britain, wider Europe and, in fact, anywhere where people of European heritage hold sway, will ultimately lead to very much less diversity. Certainly an increase in diversity within nations will diminish that between them. Will burqa-clad “Norwegian” mothers with their large broods of dark-eyed, dark-skinned, dark-haired offspring appear markedly different to burqa-clad “French” women surrounded by similar-looking family members – all adherents of the same belief system and coming from near-identical ethnic backgrounds?
To make such points is to risk the charge of claiming that we Brits / Europeans are superior to those who seek to share our homelands. In fact, there is no reason why we shouldn’t prize our own way of doing things above those of others, in the same way that we distinguish between a fine wine and a lesser one. But this is not the point. It does not matter and should not matter, whether British / European lifestyles and values are objectively more advanced and sophisticated than those to be found elsewhere in the world. What matters simply is this: that we should have the right in our island home – our only home – to live as we wish, among our own kind, in our own way, according to our customs and values.
Interestingly, the United Nations’ declaration on the rights of individual peoples should come to our aid on this. What a pity it is not more often cited. Article Eight states as follows:
“Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture. 2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for: (a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values or ethnic identities; (b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources; (c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights; (d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration; (e) Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.”
Yet multiculturalism / diversity – certainly as applied to the United Kingdom, is the direct antithesis of this. The British are no longer allowed to consider themselves a Christian nation; nor to claim as our culture anything which excludes that of ethnic groups; we are certainly not permitted to think of ourselves in ethno-nationalistic terms. With sustained white-flight from urban areas one could argue that we are indeed being dispossessed of our lands, territories and resources. And of course, diversity, while permitting incoming cultures to remain distinct, offers no such succour to indigenous culture which most definitely is required to assimilate and integrate. When was the last time you watched a BBC or ITV drama – even if set in regions with few ethnic minorities – in which the cast was not a carefully-selected kaleidoscope of races, cultures and backgrounds?
If the Left wished to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” as was the covert aim of Tony Blair’s government in the early 2000s, then they have succeeded. And since then, despite the advent to power of a Conservative government, mass immigration has continued at break-neck speed with the white British population now falling to barely more than 80% of the total.
What is left of Britain as a country recognisable to those who fought and died for our freedom in two world wars, now faces two grave threats: continued mass immigration coupled with the ongoing championing of diversity. If we fail to massively restrict numbers coming in and fail also to start earnestly championing what remains of our own cultural identity, then Britain will surely end up British in name only within a generation.
To express such fears is, according to the oh-so-impartial BBC and other mainstream media, at best “Far Right” and at worst, borderline racist. It is a bitter irony – lost on them – that those in politics like Angela Merkel, who actively encourage this irreversible demographic upheaval are styled as compassionate “moderates” worthy of consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize, while those who point out the impending dangers are castigated as “extremist”.
It is worth briefly – and wearily – mentioning David Cameron’s declaration in 2011 that state multiculturalism had failed. That was followed four years later by Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, warning of the “dark side” of multiculturalism and its capacity for setting community against community and fanning the “flames of racial and religious conflict”.
Even Angela Merkel, in the past, has condemned “multi-kulti” as a failure in Germany, demanding that immigrants do more to integrate. That was in 2010, some five years before she thought it a good idea to throw Germany’s doors wide open to a mass, six-figure influx from the Middle-East.
The problem is, of course, that when liberal-minded people say this sort of thing they have no intention of taking the necessary action. They just want to talk tough to defuse growing popular discontent while doing nothing to address the reasons for it. Future generations here and across the Channel, will pay the price for this folly and paralysis – some in blood or violated bodies. For them, there will no longer be the option of taking the necessary action. It will simply be too late.