The Paradox of Multiculturalism

· Multiculturalism

The Paradox of Multiculturalism

Islam is what makes multiculturalism impossible.

Multiculturalism instead of creating a level playing field and equality for all, only creates segregation and dissension among the communities because it creates ghettoes and non integration. It allows the infiltration of any dominant, aggressive, totalitarian culture to take over any culture or civilisation and is the biggest Trojan Horse of the 20th-21st Century ever invented. Don’t be fooled by disinformation.


Multiculturalism and Nationalism are unbridgeable polar concepts and it is a moral intoxicant.

Multiculturalism is the promotion of multiple ethnic cultures applied to the multi-racial make- up of a nation. It advocates equitable status to all the distinct ethnic and religious groups without promoting any specific ethnic, religious, or cultural cohesion as central.

It is promoted as a fairer system that allows people to truly express who they are within a society, that is more tolerant and better adapted to social issues. It is also promoted that diversity enhances and enriches the nation. Many believe that it removes racial, and religious prejudices and equalises the stature of all citizens regardless of origins and thus guarantees them all equal rights. Its aims are to remove (state/national) racial prejudices with equal opportunities for all. A utopian solution for racial/religious harmony.

But is this view of multiculturalism a paradox? Will it in fact make the assimilation and social integration of minority groups less likely and create ghettos of ethnic groups creating for more diversity and building up distrust and animosities? [1]

Many of us are mesmerised by the over-simplification and the fogging of the rhetoric of the issue. We look at nations like Canada and America who proudly boast of their “melting pot” citizenry of the world and look at how they have grown in size and stature and now are the most powerful nations on earth. People visualise how over a relatively short period of time these multiplicity of cultures begin to fuse.

Just as the Irish, Poles, Jews and Italians, who had rubbed shoulders and more in the wake of the European immigration of 1900, had, by the 1950s and ’60s, begun to intermarry en mass, so the process is beginning to take place among recent arrivals in L.A. One can find every sort of non white combination in the city now: Hmong and Salvadoran, Ethiopian and Taiwanese, Mexican and Filipino.

Which is commendable and true, but Irish, Poles, Jews, Italians, Germans, English, Spanish, are all Caucasian stock and broadly belong to the Judeo-Christian culture. Yet there are many other cultures and religions that have a much older traditions and of quite different racial stock who are proud of their heritage and are much more reluctant to assimilate, integrate, intermarry into that melting pot. There are ghettos of Mexicans, Latinos, Africans, Chinese, Japanese, Arabs, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Ahmadis, Buddhists, Taoists, who even after generations of living in the land of milk and honey, have preferred to stay within their own cultures, discarding nothing, and not even wanting to integrate.

But this is exactly what multiculturalism advocates, pockets/ghettoes of like immigrants, and it has existed since the beginning of time. So it is nothing new. By forcing or implementing multiculturalism as a state policy only guarantees the freedom of any culture or sect to enforce its ideologies without hindrance of State intervention, and so provides special cover to any subversive (triad,Mafia,religious extremism) activities under the cloak of multiculturalism. 

For example because of the Constitutional acceptance of secularism in America plus popular multiculturalism, it would be hypocritical and unconstitutional for America to prevent a Rabbi, a Hindu priest, a Buddhist priest, a communist evangelist, a Nazi supremacist, an Islamic preacher, and atheist promoter, and their families and entourage from entering and practising and spreading their ideologies. “Constitutional Secularism” over-rules “homeland security regulations.” Thus secularism provides the loop-hole for the infiltration of American security. Thus Multiculturalism would be the loop-hole for the infiltration of any nation state if that culture has a sinister intention. And this has and is happening before our very eyes in Europe under the Euro-Arab Dialogue policies.[2]

Either you practice multiculturalism or you modify and make regulations for exceptions exempting certain groups of peoples, but that would defeat the very concept of multiculturalism. Hypothetically, it would have been inconceivable to to have expected any of the Western Democracies  to have accepted large influxes of Nazi, or Communist immigrants soon after WW II even when they are of Caucasian stock. So would these Western Democracies been accused of being anti-multiculturalism? Or to accuse these democracies of having double standards and hypocrisy? Of course not, the clash of ideologies would have prevented such tolerance especially when they have shown such animosity to the Western democratic system.

Still, hypothetically, let us expand this concept one step further. We can understand the abhorrence of accommodating Nazis or Communists in the 1950 to 2000 into western societies because we considered them “The Enemy” with unacceptable ideologies, but let us extrapolate this concept further.

Because of labour shortage after WWII, it would have resolved labour problems in western Europe if they would have admitted the millions of Hindus, or Buddhists,  or Africans, or Chinese into their countries to help repopulate their nations, but this too would have been rejected by these governments as well as their populace. Why? Because these people were seen as having alien cultures, and they looked and behaved differently. But these peoples, the Hindus, the Buddhists, Africans, or Chinese are highly civilised and sophisticated peoples, who are all peaceful, hard-working, and would make an excellent workforce and citizens, and they were not enemies of the West.  These groups of people have never had an agenda like the Nazis or the Communists who have openly declared that they wished to  supersede other governments and to take over and rule the world. Yet, the barriers are up. Why? Because they looked different and had different cultural values from that of the Anglo-Saxon Judeo-Christian peoples of Europe and America.

Perhaps this is what the promoters of multiculturalism are fighting to overcome, unwarranted xenophobia. But would any western nation allow unregulated immigration from India, or Africa, or China into their nations to overwhelm their cultures? There would be a revolution in these western nations if this was contemplated. Because, deregulation would mean a flood, nay, a tsunami of  immigration of 3rd world peoples into western nations who have carefully built up their government institutions and their social welfare institutions, and their standards of living, for the benefit of all built upon the taxes they have paid to attain their standard life. Peoples of the 3rd world countries who never enjoyed any of these social welfare safety nets in their countries would naturally swarm to where such facilities are available, especially if it is available free  on their arrival. These 3rd world peoples would be transported instantly from a state of poverty and deprivation and hopelessness into a “heavenly paradise.” 

Who would want to stay in the old hell-hole where they were born and brought up when “heavenly paradise” was just a matter of walking into a Western nation that immediately doled out such manna to all who came? Yet, non of the mentioned groups of peoples, with different cultural heritage’s, like the Hindus, Buddhists, the Chinese, have any intentions or ambitions to be the dominant culture with ambitions of overtaking the government of the host country. They just would like to live, let live, and live a peaceful life in harmony with the laws and culture of their host country but with the hopes of keeping their own ethnic cultures alive.

Basically the primitive tribal systems and fears of primitive societies have developed in the west into tribal nation states, amalgamating tribes into nations. But the protective and defensive instincts of man still exists buried under all that sophistication. It is a fundamental instinct of man that multiculturalism seemed to want to destroy, the primitive instinctive self preservation nature of tribalism in mankind. Is there a hidden sinister agenda promoted by unscrupulous groups? 

Of interest we note from the above the resistance of western nations to the influx of economic migrants or all hues to their nations because essentially there is not a limitless supply of welfare to share with the world and the fear of the take over of alien cultures with one exception, the Islamic culture. Between the end of WWII and the 21st century the influx of Islamic migrants has been continuous and overwhelming in the West. Taking advantage of the confusion after WWII, and the need for unskilled labour in the West, as well as the modern concepts of “liberalism, secularism” and “multiculturalism” the flood-gates to the West were lowered.

These immigration barriers (flood-gates) were not, in my opinion, innocently or accidentally raised because of incompetence or inefficiency of Western governments. The relaxation of immigration regulations was a planned and carefully integrated surreptitious scheme for a positive discrimination to include Muslim and Arabs into the Western countries to re-establish Europe’s once dominance in world affairs and to counteract America’s role in world affairs. What are the strengths of the Muslim/Arab world, Europe’s closest possible ally, that could be exploited to rebuild Europe’s influence in the world?

One of the bedrock goals of the American value system has always been the ultimate assimilation of racial and ethnic groups into mainstream society; in the process, members of minority groups change their ways to conform to those of the dominant culture. In the 19th century, the United States was described as the great “melting pot,” a place where immigrants of varied racial and ethnic backgrounds willingly and happily blended to create a brand-new national identity. Most people believed that opportunities for inclusion into the larger society, as well as high-paying, stable jobs, could come about only if people from different cultures gradually lost their differences and adopted the lifestyle of the majority.

Assimilation sounded good to many Americans well into the 20th century, particularly when spiced with stories of their own grandparents arriving in this country as penniless immigrants but working hard and eventually “becoming” proud Americans.

However, the inherent trap of assimilation is that although it may signal an ethnic or racial group’s inclusion in mainstream society, it also requires the group to transcend its status as a disliked minority by conforming to the dominant in our society, European-American way of life.

Assimilation has sometimes been systematically forced on groups whose beliefs conflict with those of the dominant white culture. Native Americans, for instance, were forced to abandon a lifestyle that was built on values unacceptable to whites. When blacks were brought to America as slaves, they were forced to take new names, families were split apart, and they were forbidden to practice any of the traditions of their native cultures. For them, and for other minority groups, assimilation is sometimes an undesirable goal.

In contrast to the melting pot model, many people today feel that a pluralistic or multicultural society in which groups maintain not only their ethnic identity but also their own language, art, music, food, literature, and religion enriches American civilization. With the massive influx of foreign-born, non-English-speaking people into this country, it has become especially difficult to think of America as one culture and Americans as one people. 

Strangely, although some see this as the strength of America, others also see that multiculturalism is divisive for national unity. So to keep to populations united in purpose, it is no coincidence that America has always had to create Satans for the people to hate and to throw stones at. For example, there was the (1) Satan in the shape of the European Monarchy, (2) the Satan of the Pope and the Archbishops who wielded great powers and control over their flock, (3) the Satan of Colonialism, (4) the Satan of Nazism,  (5) The Satan of Nipponism, (6) The Satan of Soviet Communism, (7) The Satan of Sino-Communism (8) The Satan of Sino-millitarisation for example, and America has managed to slay many of these Satans.

Yet because of America’s First Amendment to the Constitution, America and Americans have been blind to any religious Satans who might threaten America’s security. Namely, Islam. Islam has special privileges, as a religion she is protected by the First Amendment, and with the acceptance of Multiculturalism, Islam is free to proselytise and practice her faith largely unmolested in America. Until this issue is understood and confronted by the American legislators, she will continually be undermined in her sovereignty. What must be understood is that Islam is not only a religion but it is also a complete way of life and a complete political ideology determined to rule the world. Islam has to be viewed and classed as a totalitarian fascist ideology that  will stop at nothing to force Islam on everyone living.

Multiculturalism a Cause of Racist Hatred

The best illustration I can give is to show what has happened to Europe by way of quoting what has happened to their multicultural policies since WWII. The behaviour of Islamic ghettoes and their militancy is frightening.

European ‘No-Go’ Zones for Non-Muslims Proliferating
“Occupation Without Tanks or Soldiers”

by Soeren Kern
August 22, 2011 at 5:00 am

Islamic extremists are stepping up the creation of “no-go” areas in European cities that are off-limits to non-Muslims.

Many of the “no-go” zones function as microstates governed by Islamic Sharia law. Host-country authorities effectively have lost control in these areas and in many instances are unable to provide even basic public aid such as police, fire fighting and ambulance services.

The “no-go” areas are the by-product of decades of multicultural policies that have encouraged Muslim immigrants to create parallel societies and remain segregated rather than become integrated into their European host nations.

In Britain, for example, a Muslim group called Muslims Against the Crusades has launched a campaign to turn twelve British cities – including what it calls “Londonistan” – into independent Islamic states. The so-called Islamic Emirates would function as autonomous enclaves ruled by Islamic Sharia law and operate entirely outside British jurisprudence.

The Islamic Emirates Project names the British cities of Birmingham, Bradford, Derby, Dewsbury, Leeds, Leicester, Liverpool, Luton, Manchester, Sheffield, as well as Waltham Forest in northeast London and Tower Hamlets in East London as territories to be targeted for blanket Sharia rule.

In the Tower Hamlets area of East London (also known as the Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets), for example, extremist Muslim preachers, called the Tower Hamlets Taliban, regularly issue death threats to women who refuse to wear Islamic veils. Neighborhood streets have been plastered with posters declaring “You are entering a Sharia controlled zone: Islamic rules enforced.” And street advertising deemed offensive to Muslims is regularly vandalized or blacked out with spray paint.

In the Bury Park area of Luton, Muslims have been accused of “ethnic cleansing” by harassing non-Muslims to the point that many of them move out of Muslim neighborhoods. In the West Midlands, two Christian preachers have been accused of “hate crimes” for handing out gospel leaflets in a predominantly Muslim area of Birmingham. In Leytonstone in east London, the Muslim extremist Abu Izzadeen heckled the former Home Secretary John Reid by saying: “How dare you come to a Muslim area.”

In France, large swaths of Muslim neighborhoods are now considered “no-go” zones by French police. At last count, there are 751 Sensitive Urban Zones (Zones Urbaines Sensibles, ZUS), as they are euphemistically called. A complete list of the ZUS can be found on a French government website, complete with satellite maps and precise street demarcations. An estimated 5 million Muslims live in the ZUS, parts of France over which the French state has lost control.

Muslim immigrants are taking control of other parts of France too. In Paris and other French cities with high Muslim populations, such as Lyons, Marseilles and Toulouse, thousands of Muslims are closing off streets and sidewalks (and by extension, are closing down local businesses and trapping non-Muslim residents in their homes and offices) to accommodate overflowing crowds for Friday prayers. Some mosques have also begun broadcasting sermons and chants of “Allahu Akbar” via loudspeakers into the streets.

The weekly spectacles, which have been documented by dozens of videos posted on (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here), and which have been denounced as an “occupation without tanks or soldiers,” have provoked anger and disbelief. But despite many public complaints, local authorities have declined to intervene because they are afraid of sparking riots.

In the Belgian capital of Brussels (which is 20% Muslim), several immigrant neighborhoods have become “no-go” zones for police officers, who frequently are pelted with rocks by Muslim youth. In the Kuregem district of Brussels, which often resembles an urban war zone, police are forced to patrol the area with two police cars: one car to carry out the patrols and another car to prevent the first car from being attacked. In the Molenbeek district of Brussels, police have been ordered not to drink coffee or eat a sandwich in public during the Islamic month of Ramadan.

In Germany, Chief Police Commissioner Bernhard Witthaut, in an August 1 interview with the newspaper Der Westen, revealed that Muslim immigrants are imposing “no-go” zones in cities across Germany at an alarming rate.

The interviewer asked Witthaut: “Are there urban areas – for example in the Ruhr – districts and housing blocks that are “no-go areas,” meaning that they can no longer be secured by the police?” Witthaut replied: “Every police commissioner and interior minister will deny it. But of course we know where we can go with the police car and where, even initially, only with the personnel carrier. The reason is that our colleagues can no longer feel safe there in twos, and have to fear becoming the victim of a crime themselves. We know that these areas exist. Even worse: in these areas crimes no longer result in charges. They are left ‘to themselves.’ Only in the worst cases do we in the police learn anything about it. The power of the state is completely out of the picture.”

In Italy, Muslims have been commandeering the Piazza Venezia in Rome for public prayers. In Bologna, Muslims repeatedly have threatened to bomb the San Petronio cathedral because it contains a 600-year-old fresco inspired by Dante’s Inferno which depicts Mohammed being tormented in hell.

In the Netherlands, a Dutch court ordered the government to release to the public a politically incorrect list of 40 “no-go” zones in Holland. The top five Muslim problem neighborhoods are in Amsterdam, Rotterdam and Utrecht. The Kolenkit area in Amsterdam is the number one Muslim “problem district” in the country. The next three districts are in Rotterdam – Pendrecht, het Oude Noorden and Bloemhof. The Ondiep district in Utrecht is in the fifth position, followed by Rivierenwijk (Deventer), Spangen (Rotterdam), Oude Westen (Rotterdam), Heechterp/ Schieringen (Leeuwarden) and Noord-Oost (Maastricht).

In Sweden, which has some of the most liberal immigration laws in Europe, large swaths of the southern city of Malmö – which is more than 25% Muslim – are “no-go” zones for non-Muslims. Fire and emergency workers, for example, refuse to enter Malmö’s mostly Muslim Rosengaard district without police escorts. The male unemployment rate in Rosengaard is estimated to be above 80%. When fire fighters attempted to put out a fire at Malmö’s main mosque, they were attacked by stone throwers.

In the Swedish city of Gothenburg, Muslim youth have been hurling petrol bombs at police cars. In the city’s Angered district, where more than 15 police cars have been destroyed, teenagers have also been pointing green lasers at the eyes of police officers, some of whom have been temporarily blinded.

In Gothenburg’s Backa district, youth have been throwing stones at patrolling officers. Gothenburg police have also been struggling to deal with the problem of Muslim teenagers burning cars and attacking emergency services in several areas of the city.

According to the Malmö-based Imam Adly Abu Hajar: “Sweden is the best Islamic state.” [2]


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: