Multiculturalism: A Moral Intoxicant and; Anti-Western Lobby

· Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism: A Moral Intoxicant:& Anti-Western Culture

(5259 words)

Multiculturalism is a moral intoxicant. It plays on the emotion of superior virtues and is blighted with misguided “good intentions.”
Multiculturalism is basically an ideology that is Anti-Western Civilisation.
If promoted and adopted will undermine the National Security of Western Nations. It must be terminated henceforth.


  • The Introduction of Multiculturalism to Europe by Charles De Gaulle
  • Euro Arab Dialogue (EAD)
  • Bat Ye’or’s Views on Islamisation of Europe: Eurobia
  • Flemming Rose-Danish journalist
  • Multiculturalism was essential for the Islamisation of Europe
  • Holland, Denmark & Britain
  • The Muslim Council of Great Britain (MCB)
  • Australia: The Right to Leave
  • America & Multi culture
  • Consequences of Intrusion and Dominance of an Alien Culture
  • What could be the possible consequences of Charles De Gaulle’s delusions of grandeur for the return of the Glory of France’s lost world prominence…



What is MULTICULTURALISM? Surprisingly and probably unappreciated by many people, the word “multiculturalism” was first introduced around 1990. 

Why was it introduced when most Europeans were already multiracial in the sense of enjoying the fruits of many races and cultures, the languages, and the Arts, Music, literature, cuisines, traditions and such without a second thought? The Europeans already enjoyed a wide variety of cultural pursuits, for wider than the countries from which the new immigrants came, like Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Somalia, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Nigeria, Ghana and so on.

The word “multiculturalism” was really a code, an euphemism, for the  word, “multi-racial.” Obsessed with “political correctness” the word “multicultural” was preferred as it removed the connotations of race or skin colour. However, this has distorted and misled the public perception in a way it was not intended to do. 

In both the Oxford or Chambers dictionary, “multi culture” refers to the mixing of people of different races, from different nations,  of different religions and cultures. But virtually all countries have always been “multicultural” in that the inhabitants of almost all countries have always had a variety of different minority racial groups with different cultural values. For example, in England before WWII, some were Catholic, some Protestant, some were atheists, some agnostic.  Although Britain was not seen as multicultural nation till after WWII, after the arrival of large numbers of coloured peoples mostly from the ex-colonial empire, Britain became multicultural (multi-racial) within a period of a few years. [1]

Most of these  Asian and African immigrants brought their native cultures and religions with them, and because of the contrast in their cultures with that of the indigenous population (the British people), these immigrants tended to live securely in their own ghettos and made no effort to integrate. Hence pockets of immigrants, having their own language/dialects, customs, food preferences, clothing requirements, and religions existed in completely isolated communities  even several generations later. There was no integration/assimilation or cross fertilisation of culture, or races, or religions. There was no evidence of any hybridisation of peoples, cultures or religions. Each lived totally independent lives isolated and indifferent to their alien neighbours, the British. These immigrants have remained pockets of people from a foreign culture living in an alien land with an alien and unacceptable culture. Each culture did not benefit the other in any way because they did not have any intentions of integration or hybridisation. In fact the immigrants were aliens in an alien country and only wanted to continue to live independent communal lives, but benefiting from the better local social conditions and opportunities and welfare services. But some liberalists and politicians saw this  self imposed isolation as prejudice and discrimination by the indigenous population and were determined to enforce the concept of “multiculturalism.” However, even after 2 or 3 generations, many of these immigrants did not integrate with the indigenous people. It is not because of not offering the opportunities to the immigrants but the fundamental ideology of many of the immigrants, their religious doctrines, their moral codes, their social customs and hierarchy prevented any such integration. Each immigrant community could only exist as a monoculture within a well intended multicultural liberal policy. Multiculturalism cannot work. Multiculturalism in fact simply accepts the concept of ghettos of alien ideologies or cultures to fester within a larger host culture, and breaking out in dissension and disharmony from time to time. It is worse with some alien cultures than other because of its immiscible ideologies.

Normally, this lack of integration is not a major problem, but not all cultures are able to integrate but aim to dominate, and this causes serious problems the indigenous population must resolve or perish. Most countries have their minority groups, but they manage to survive alongside one another. Look at mono cultural nations(broadly speaking) like India, or Japan, or China, or Indonesia, or parts of Europe and Africa where minority groups live amiably within the indigenous population. So why this sudden consciousness of “Multiculturalism/multi-racial” movement? Who does it profit and who does it place at disadvantage and what is the object of this movement? Some minority groups, like Hindu Indians, Buddhist South East Asians, actually believe that multiculturalism will provide them more equal opportunities and favour and support this concept. They cannot see the negative side to multiculturalism. Certainly prior to WWII it was not even a topic worth considering. 

The Introduction of Multiculturalism to Europe by Charles De Gaulle

After WWII France had lost most of her colonial empire and her world influence had diminished. De Gaulle wished to restore France’s prestige and glory in the post war years by leading and unifying Europe to form an international bloc that would rival America. He envisioned France playing a leading role with her past close ties to the Arab North African states like Algeria and Morocco and thus able to influence the oil producing countries of the Arab world. De Gaulle’s pernicious merger with the Arab world began in the 1960’s. On November, 27th, 1967 Charles De Gaulle  pronounced that “French-Arab collaboration would be a fundamental element in French politics.” From that moment on, France adopted a highly amiable policy toward the Arab world and a hostile attitude toward Israel and America. Thus began Europe’s demonising of America and Israel, the price for Arab allegiance to France, Germany and the EU.

In 1973 after the Yom Kippur War, the Arab states declared an oil boycott against Europe especially those countries that had close ties to Israel. Within 20 days after the start of the war, the European Community of 9 countries “recognised the rights of the Palestinians people (and Arafat as the leader of the Palestinians) as a legitimate body to participate in political negotiations and demanded Israel’s return to the armistice boundaries of 1949, thus diverging from the UN Security Council Resolution 242, passed in 1967 which is still the basis of a negotiated settlement. With this “forced recognition” of Palestinian peoples as a legitimate body political, a concession fought over for years, the Arab’s lifted their oil boycott of  Europe. The French and German governments requested Arab leaders to enter into an official dialogue with European leaders to “cement a solid relationship.”  The Arab leaders only agreed on condition that the Europeans had a “unified foreign policy in synchrony with the interests of the Arab States.” This development should never be forgotten when we reflect on the history of Europe and the acts of Charles De Gaulle to advance the stature of France after WWII.

The Arabs now had the Europeans exactly where they want them, handed to them on a plate by De Gaulle, “a European foreign policy in synchrony with Arab interests.” This will explain all subsequent actions from the EU countries from that time onwards. But in return, France and Germany are assured of oil supplies from the Arab nations and spared Jihadist atrocities, (they hope).

Euro Arab Dialogue (EAD)

This Euro-Arab Dialogue, (EAD) created the concept of Eurabia that was intended to bring together the two shores of the Mediterranean with the interests of European society mirroring the interests of the Arab world. The Arabs were keen to homogenise the Arab and European cultures, politics, and policies between the two shores The Arabs immediately set to work with all the educational institutions, introducing the study of the Arabic language and influencing all political bodies in using correct euphemisms when referring to Islam or the Arabs. Most of this was even financed by the EU. In other words, monitoring “political correctness” and expunging unsuitable words or derogatory concepts from the European diction/language. It was the birth of the Western “political correctness” vis-a-vis Islam. Europe facilitated the Jihadist values of the Arab world. Europeans are reluctant to denounce “Islamic terrorism” but only denounced “terrorists”. Europe now accepts with little restriction mass immigration of Arabs into Europe, which is a part of the friendship agreement, and to provide these immigrants with facilities to aid in their integration, such as freely permitting mosques, tax free Islamic charities, madrassas and their Islamic practices even permitting Sharia law courts to be established within European judicial jurisdiction.

Americans have often asked, “why do so many people (outside America) hate us?” The reason is obvious from the description of the EAD and their policies. The Arabs have used their influence on the European Union since the establishment of the EAD in 1973, to be anti-Israel, and thereby by association, also anti-America because they have supported Israel. The Arabs hoped that America too might succumb to the Arab pressures and force America to come to terms with the Arabs. Hence, the Arab hatred of Israel and America was imposed upon Europe since 1973 some 37 years ago till it is almost endemic. Most Europeans and people in Britain are not even consciously aware of the “big stick” that the Arabs are capable of wielding and their insidious influence on Brussells. Little wonder the confidence and arrogance of the Arabs. This explains why every European political leader bends over backwards to appease the Islamists and will only dare utter “political Correct” rhetoric concerning Islam or Muslims. In fact, Europe now practices “positive discrimination” in their appointments to government institutions. [2]

Bat Ye’or’s Views on Islamisation of Europe: Eurobia

Bat Ye’or was born in Cairo, Egypt in 1933 but during the Suez Crisis, her family was stripped of their citizenship and expelled from Egypt, in 1957,
because they were Jewish. She was 24 years of age and already very  discerning and politically aware. The family sought refuge in Britain as stateless refugees. She became a historian and began writing after raising a family of three.

Bat Ye’or said,

“We should not ask the moderate Muslims to save us. We have to change the present situation ourselves. That is our duty to our children and our ancestors.”
“I think that we will not be able to act responsibly so long as we do not understand the dynamics, the spirit, and the functioning of Eurabia, a concept that has been conceived in Europe, and by Europeans, and has not been imposed upon us from outside.”
She is aware that the destruction of Christian societies by Jihadists has always been brought about by the Christian leaders and churches themselves. 

When the EU began their enlargement drive towards Eastern Europe, Arab countries became alarmed because Eastern Europeans were fundamentalist Catholics and others were communists, and this was counter to Islamic visions for Europe. They made Europe promise that EU funds and Arab immigration would not be disadvantaged or stopped in favour of immigration from Eastern Europe. This is why Polish immigrants were discouraged in favour of immigrants from the Maghreb. Subtleties that escape the ordinary citizen.

Bat Ye’or says, “(Arab) immigration is part of the whole strategy, which is an (Arab) ambition to create a new civilizational concept based on multiculturalism, on the dissolution of people’s  typical characteristics.”

Not only the European Union was imposing the ideology of multiculturalism, but also the United Nations. David Littman is an expert on the “creeping Islamism at the UN.” Littman,  was recently testifying before the UN but was censored when he quoted moderate Muslims condemning Jihadist bombings. According to the 56 member states of the Organisation of the Islamic Countries (OIC), even the use of “the prefix ‘Islamic’ before “terrorism” is sacrilege.” Through the channels of the UN they try to curtail freedom of thought, opinion and expression with accusations of “blasphemy.” “Islamophobia,” “defamation of Islam.” or “sacrilege.”

Flemming Rose-Danish journalist

Flemming Rose, the Danish journalist who commissioned twelve drawings of Muhammad (hardly offensive by Western standards) wanted to test to what extent “multiculturalism” had affected freedom of speech. Little did he know that things were already that bad. The outcome of his test is that his life is now in danger in Europe. Flemming may be forced to remain in hiding for the rest of his days.

Europeans are fast becoming second class citizens in their won countries. It is tempting to flee a continent that has already to a large extent become Eurabia, and hide in the relative safety of the United States. However, Europeans should stay put and resist attempts to turn Europe into Dhimmi-land. [3]

Multiculturalism was essential for the Islamisation of Europe

In the EU’s eagerness to woo Arabs to accept Europe as an ally rather than an enemy of Islam, and linking Europe with the Arab nations, Europe easily acceded to Arab demands for Arab and Islamic immigration to Europe; the non-integration of immigrants and the maintenance of their ties with their homelands; the establishment of cultural and political Muslim centres and mosques in European cities; and the management of schools, and what they teach,  and control of their own publications, and media. Multiculturalism became an instrument for the subversion of Western thought, aimed at imposing on it Islamic historical and theological thinking such as the negation of Jihad as a defensive rather than an aggressive war, and the denial of dhimmitude; or the justification of Islamic terrorism that is based on a victimised perception of Muslims, the eternal victims of the Christian West and Judaic Israel.

Multiculturalism is a fundamental requirement in the Euro-Arab agreements governing immigration, for it allows Muslim immigrants to not integrate (so they could retain their Islamic ideologies) and to protect them from the aberrations, the mores and thinking of non-Muslims. Multiculturalism encourages the coexistence of parallel communities that will never integrate, thus replicating the Ottoman millets or the conditions of Islamic colonisation after its conquest of non-Muslim peoples.  Multiculturalism and nationalism are polar concepts. By allowing millions of Muslim immigrants to bring with them their culture, and religion to Europe and establish it on an equal footing with the European culture can in no way integrate Europe.

Although the Arabs have demanded multiculturalism to achieve their own ends in Europe they will not accept any form of multiculturalism in the Middle East or accept the presence of Israel as a part of the multicultural concept. Islamists do not even accept  existence of Christianity as a multicultural partner if the truth be known.

This is why it is Bat Ye’or’s belief that this Islamic Jihad and their Judeophobia, and Christianophobia is not addressed will threaten the destruction of the Western civilisation. [4] 

Holland, Denmark & Britain

Ayaan Hirsi Ali the Somali ex-Muslim and ex-Dutch Parliamentarian condemns the “multicultural ideology” that promotes blind tolerance of any culture or tradition that is destroying the European culture. For her defence of Islamic women’s rights she has been rewarded with death threats and thus threatened she has moved to America for safety. She accused Holland of excessive acquiescence to Islamic demands by giving in to Sharia Law.

In Denmark they also have liberals who believe they must be tolerant and make allowances for the Muslims to adjust and integrate without realising that the Islamic ideology will never allow for integration with other religions.  But there are a growing group who support the “SIAD” aka “SIOE” movement who believe that if Muslims cannot integrate, it is best they settled elsewhere. [4a]*[4b]

The Muslim Council of Great Britain (MCB)

The Muslim Council of Great Britain (MCB) have already asked the British government to recognise the right to apply Islamic morals in state schools. In fact currently there are already 5 Sharia Courts (14th September, 2008), legally recognised, in Britain. Many other typically Islamic demands have been made to the government. [5] (Updating on 04.03.10*: By June 2009, the Sharia Courts had increased to 85 in Britain. [5a]

“Five Sharia courts have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. The government has quietly (surreptitiously)sanctioned that their rulings are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court. Previously, the rulings were not binding and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.” [6]

Updating on 04.03.10*: 


Last updated at 10:25 AM on 29th June 2009

At least 85 Islamic Sharia Courts are operating in Britain, a study claimed yesterday. The astonishing figure is 17 times higher than previously accepted. The tribunals, working mainly from mosques, settle financial and family disputes according to religious principles. They lay down judgements which can be given full legal status if approved in the national law courts. [5a]

Case studies of British Muslims, most of whom are now 2nd and 3rd generation Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims have shown that the larger majority of Muslims identify themselves as Muslims first rather than identifying themselves as British citizens with British values. Most British Muslims will empathise with the plight of the Palestinians, the Iraqis, the Pakistanis, or the Afghanis, sufferings and deaths, than have any feelings for the British boys who return in coffins, (or their loved ones,) from Afghanistan or Iraq. This clearly shows that after 3 generations, multiculturalism does not bring the Muslims a millimetre closer to British core values. The Muslim immigrants have had, and continue to have, NO INTENTIONS OF ASSIMILATING INTO THE HOST NATION’S CULTURE.  I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE IDEOLOGY OF ISLAM WILL ALLOW ANY DILUTION OF ISLAMIC DOCTRINES BY ALIEN CULTURES.[5] [7]

As far as Islam, and Muslims are concerned, the principle of “MULTICULTURALISM” or “SECULARISM” only works to the advantage of Islam, and I have yet to find good cause that benefits the host nation in any way. A Muslim’s first and last loyalty will always be to Allah and no other. It is his duty to serve Allah in every way even to the sacrifice of his life. In fact their loyalties will be to the countries from whence their parents came,  before they gave any consideration or loyalty to the country of their adoption. This makes a mockery of “multiculturalism.”

Qur’an:2:216 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.” [Another translation reads:] “Warfare is ordained for you.”

Australia: The Right to Leave

Our Country – YOU Have the Right – the Right to Leave !

We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, And we really don’t care how you did things where you came from.

This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this.

But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our National Motto, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,


If you aren’t happy here then off! We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted. Pretty easy really, when you think about it. [8]

This Australian, no nonsense approach to their way of life says it all. It in no way accommodates “multiculturalism” or “secularism” as envisaged by the liberals. Pragmatic Australians have rejected “multiculturalism” and “secularism” if it threatens their way of life or their culture, and that is an example for all the other nations of the world.


Multiculturalism is an unsound political theory, advocated by liberals, academics, media personnel, social theorists, government officials, Politicians (and do-gooders.)

It is a deliberate policy to actively maintain, support and build foreign cultures in Australia, to the detriment of the Australian identity, culture and way of life.

 Instead of allowing immigrants, and their native-born offspring, to naturally assimilate into the Australian culture, governments are knowingly creating bases of foreign culture in this country. These deliberately divisive policies are carried out in two areas.

First, through the multicultural policies themselves, whereby foreign cultures are sustained and encouraged. Large sums of money are granted to “ethnic” organisations, which boosts the abilities of such organisations to service and perpetuate their “ethnic culture.” In schools, multicultural policies are actively pursued, whereby children are encouraged to identify with their “ethnicity,” rather than to become “fully” Australian. Many, if not all, aspects of public life are touched in a myriad of ways to official multicultural policies, all of which actually encourage a “them and us” attitude between “new Australians” and “old Australians.”

Secondly, immigration policies are based upon continuing mass immigration, which gives foreign cultures in Australia the ability to self-sustain their separate development.

These deliberately divisive policies are turning Australians against each other, and are creating a country populated by a collection of separate communities, instead of a nation populated by a nationally unified society.

Multicultural Australia has thus become a breeding ground for a whole range of “micro-nations,” each with their own political and cultural agendas. Indeed, Geoffrey Blainey has warned that “multiculturalism… a new from of colonialism, in which we are the colony of every nation on earth.” As Australia struggles to encompass the many little Chinas, little Japans, little Italys, and little Croatias, (little Indonesias, little Pakistans) all determined to preserve their own national, cultural and ethnic peculiarities (including not only “lovely” dancing and foods, but sometimes strange, if not barbaric, customs; as well as some extremely strong hatreds (like Jihadism,)) it is very easy to see the disunity created among these ethnic communities; as well as between them and those who see themselves as “Australian,” foremost loyal to Australia. [9]

 America & Multi culture

“Today we see forces that are determined to undermine national identity, and national security, and national sovereignty with skill and determination even using national Constitutions to their advantage. Unfortunately so many are guilty of culpable complacency to the corrosive imperatives of “multiculturalism” & “political correctness” in the misguided perception that it is democratic, liberal, and Christian to hold such concepts. But in reality, “multiculturalism” is really a form of mono-cultural animus directed against the dominant (resident) culture. Sameul Huntingdon, a Harvard political scientist, notes:

“…multiculturalism is “anti-European civilisation ….It is basically an anti-Western ideology.” The multicultural advocates claim to be fostering a progressive cultural cosmopolitanism distinguished by superior sensitivity to the downtrodden and dispossessed. In fact, they encourage an orgy of self-flagellating liberal guilt as impotent as it is insatiable. The “sensitivity” of the multicultural advocates is an index not of moral refinement but of moral vacuousness.  As the French essayist Pascal Bruckner observed, “An overblown conscience is an empty conscience.”

“Compassion ceases if there is nothing but compassion, and revulsion turns to insensitivity. Our “soft pity,” as Stefan Zweig calls it, is stimulated, because guilt is a convenient substitute for action where action is impossible. Without the power to do anything, sensitivity becomes our main aim. The aim is not so much to do anything, as to be judged. Salvation lies in the verdict that declares us to be wrong.”

Multiculturalism is a moral intoxicant; its thrill centres around the emotion of superior virtue; its hangover subsists on a diet of nascences and blighted “good intentions.”

Wherever the imperatives of multiculturalism have touched the curriculum, they have left broad swaths of anti-Western attitudes competing for attention with quite astonishing historical blindness.

But multiculturalism is not only an academic phenomenon. The attitudes it fosters have profound social as well as intellectual consequences. One consequence has been a sharp rise in the phenomenon of immigration without- or with only minutiae-assimilation: a dangerous demographic trend that threatens American identity in the most basic way.

These various agents of dissolution are also elements in a wider culture war: the contest to define how we live and what counts as the good in the good life. Anti-Americanism occupies such a prominent place on the agenda of the culture wars precisely because the traditional values of American identity – articulated by the Founders and grounded in a commitment to individual liberty and public virtue – are deeply at odds with the radical, de-civilising tenets of the “multicultural” enterprise.” [10]

I could not have said it any better.


Multi culture is a moral intoxicant. It plays on the emotion of superior virtues and is blighted with misguided “good intentions.”

Multi culture is basically an ideology that is Anti-Western Civilisation.

Consequences of Intrusion and Dominance of an Alien Culture

What could be the possible consequences of Charles De Gaulle’s delusions of grandeur for the return of the Glory of France’s lost world prominence when he made overtures to the Arab world in November 27th, 1967. This was a move that must have seemed like an act of Allah in favour of his Muslim Arabs. This act opened the floodgates of Muslim immigration into Europe by peaceful means, floodgates that had been shored up from previous incursions of Islamic rule. The Ottoman Empire that began in the 14th century rising to its peak in 1600 and dominating large swaths of southern Europe, but finally fading to obscurity in 1918. during that period of dominance, the Muslim culture was imposed upon the countries controlled by the Ottomans and its legacy can be observed today.

Today, the influx of Muslims from the Muslim world taking advantage of the need for labour after WW II in Europe, and the enticement of generous welfare benefits and secular laws has meant the creation of large ghettoes of Muslims in the major towns and cities of Europe. As these immigrants will vote as a solid block, the political voice of these immigrants has become deafening. These immigrants have taken advantage of every law or regulation or social liberty to their advantage. They have learned to exploit all the welfare amenities available, and used secularism to demand for mosques, Islamic schools, and other Islamic organizations taking advantage of every tax loophole available. Local politicians who want to exploit the immigrant vote will provide more and more privileges and liberties even to the detriment of the native inhabitants.  Finally the generosity and patience of the native population has been exhausted and resentment is building up a head of steam.

Immigrants of all hues even if they do not assimilate easily or smoothly, attempt to live harmoniously and amiably with the native population. But with Islam, assimilation is impossible by the very nature of their ideologies. For Allah said:

Qur’an 20:8    “Allah! There is no Ilah (God) save Him (Allah). His are the most beautiful Names. To Him belong the most beautiful attributes.”

Qur’an 20:14    “Verily, I am Allah. No Ilah (God) may be worshipped but I. So serve you Me, and perform regular prostration prayer for My praise. Verily the Hour is coming. I am almost hiding it from Myself.”

Qur’an:9:5    “Fight and kill the disbelievers (non-Muslims) wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”

Qur’an:9:112    “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”

Qur’an:9:29    “Fight those who do not believe (in Allah) until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”

Qur’an 5:51    “Believers, take not Jews and Christians for your friends. They are but friends and protectors to each other.”

Qur’an 5:72    “They (Christians) are surely infidels who blaspheme and say: ‘God is Christ, the Messiah, the son of Mary.’ But the Messiah only said: ‘O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.'”

From the few verses quoted, and if these are accepted by any Muslim to be the authentic command of Allah, then compatibility or assimilation with any other community that rejects Allah as the only Ilah would be impossible. This is the reason, Muslims cannot assimilate into any non-Muslim community. This is not appreciated by most other communities or religions because it is so alien with their own concepts. The above verses should be a clear indication that Muslims can never integrate with a non-Muslim community because no one has the authority to challenge the word of Allah.

It is abundantly clear that compatibility or compromise between the European Christian culture and the orthodox Islamic culture is an impossibility. Only one side or the other will have to dominate. On the one hand it is inconceivable that Islam will be able to alter the commands of Allah in order to accommodate Christian/Judaic sentiments nor is it conceivable that Christians/Jews would be willing to submit to the will of Allah or be prepared to submit to Islam as Dhimmis.

In order to placate the Muslim mobs from further violence over their anger over the Danish cartoons of Mohammed, or over the wars in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or the conflicts in Palestine, the West has deplored the abuse of freedom of speech, or made patronising remarks with references to the wars, or made promises to solve the problems of the Middle East, or handling the Muslim riots and demonstrations with kid gloves and introducing laws against acts of encouragement of violence. But no matter what concessions or assurances the government offers, Muslims will always demand more. They will continue to demand until such time as the have Islamised the country they have occupied, such as the biggest and largest Mosque, towering over any other religious buildings in the area as a symbol of Islamic dominance, introducing the Sharia Law by stealth and by degrees, introducing Islamic schools, Islamic representation of all Government bodies, and institutions, and in effect until they have effective control of the country.


*Although the term “Arab” was referred to throughout this article, it was intended to be synonymous with “(Arab-Muslims)” because of Charles De Gaulle’s conspiracy with the Arab Muslims, with reference to the immigration from the Maghreb countries to South Western Europe, it took for granted the subsequent immigration of all Muslims, from other parts of the world including African countries as well as Pakistan and Bangladesh although not specifically named in the text. Immigration from Pakistan and Bangladesh was similar to the Arab immigration, but were focused immigration into Great Britain. I was taken for granted that Arabs synonymous with Islam meant all Muslims in this article.

“Multiculturalism is used as the Trojan Horse for Islamic domination of all infidel cultures.” (AbdulMuhd)


Multiculturalism: the Nihilistic Trojan Horse


ni⋅hil⋅ism [nahy-uh-liz-uhm, nee-] –noun 1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.

2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.

3. total and absolute destructiveness, esp. toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler’s last years.

4. Philosophy. a. an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth.

b. nothingness or nonexistence.


“We love death. The US loves life. That is the difference between us two.” Osama Bin Laden

Multiculturalism is the lie that all cultures are equal. Or maybe some believe they just should be treated equally. Regardless, to embrace the lie that cultures that celebrate death are equal to cultures that celebrate life is to reject objective truth. The folly of this is that no matter how irrational a culture might be, very few if any people from a non-western culture would offer the same deference. To believe in multiculuralism literally is to reject any notion of good and evil or right and wrong, because nearly everything that anyone regards as immoral or wrong is permissable in one culture or another. Check out my blog on the Kombai tribe for a few examples:

So, logically speaking (I understand it’s asking a lot for most people who try to push multiculturalism to think logically) multiculturalism is nihilism. It is not merely nihilistic, it is nihilism at its very core.

Now come the concessions. Yes, there is some value in cultural customs from across the world, and we can learn things from other cultures. But there are objective concepts such as right and wrong, good and evil. And the cultures that identify and emphasize those are the most productive and advanced for a reason. To reject the moral superiority of western cultures (though they are far from perfect) is to reject civilization and modernity as we know it. Finally, we must separate the individuals from their culture. To say that one civilization’s culture is better than another’s is not to degrade the individuals in an inferior culture, nor does it somehow make them less human. But this should be self evident.


[1] Multicultural bunk:

[2] Charles De Gaulle and EuroArab Dialogue:

[3] Bat Ye’or views on Eurabia:

[4] Multiculturalism & the Islamisation of Europe:

[4a]* Stop Islamisation Of Europe, SIOE/`(SIAD):

[4b] SIOE (SIAD):

[5] Multiculturalism in Holland, Denmark&Britain:

[5a] 85 Sharia Courts in Britain by 29th June, 2009:

[6] Sharia Law in Britain:

[7] No Sympathy for British Dead in Afghanistan&Iraq:

[8] Australia’s – “The right to leave.”

[9] The Menace of Multiculturalism (Australia):                                          

[10] Multiculturalism and America, Roger Kimball:–America-vs–multiculturalism-1472

Additional References:

[A5]***How Multiculturalism Overtook America [Must Read*]
[A6]***Video British Muslim Hate in Britain:


Comments RSS
  1. Lucie Cizkova

    On behalf of the Association for World Education (AWE), I would like to strongly protest against wrong information about David Littman who in the article above is marked at “a representative for the Association for World Education (AWE) to the UN in Geneva”. This piece of information is not true. David Littman is not and has never been a representative of the Association for World Education to the UN; he is not even an AWE member.
    I would like you to remove this piece of information as it connects our organization to someone whose views we do not share.
    Best regards,
    Lucie Cizkova
    on behalf of the Presidency of AWE

    • ellex0

      Lucie Cirkova, I have attended to your concerns, hopefully to your satisfaction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: