Cult of Multicult

Cult of Multicult

Back in 1965, the Tory philosopher George Grant wrote Lament for a Nation, prophesying the eventual absorption of Canada into a technocratic, corporatized and American led continental super state. Grant came from an older Victorian tradition of Toryism, one essentially alien to what most Canadians think of as conservative today. In modern terms he might be described as a British-Canadian paleoconservative.

Ironically, the book – with its famous blue binding – became a totem for the Canadian nationalist Left in the 1960s and 1970s, much to Grant’s annoyance. While the Left picked up on Grant’s suspicion of Americanism – a far cry from the adolescent anti-Americanism we see emanating from the MSM today – and capitalism, it rather conveniently missed the philosopher’s defence of traditional British values and customs, including Christianity.

With four and a half decades of hindsight, we can see that Grant was correct that Canada and Canadianism was under grave threat. Sadly, he failed to correctly identify the enemy. It was not large American corporations, the bland omnivore of Yankee popular culture or technological progress. Instead the real threat to Canadianism was sitting in his classrooms.

The 1960s were the great cultural watershed of recent western history. A brief moment when millennia of social arrangements were discarded, or distorted, to make way for a profoundly contradictory culture. At once unapologetically libertine, at another moment totalitarian in its pretensions. Promiscuity, fiscal indiscipline, moral relativism were not merely encouraged, they became nearly mandatory among those under thirty.

This cultural crisis seemed to be a passing youthful fad in Canada. 1968 was a horrible and violent year in France and the United States. Canadians contended themselves with anointing as Prime Minister a late middle aged hippie with a fondness for much younger women. We remained, as always, the peaceable kingdom. While the hair was long, the soul remained its old sensible self.

At the same moment the wider West was tearing itself apart, Canada was quietly undergoing a major identity crisis. After a century and a half of being solidly British – with some New World variations and anxieties – Canada found itself lost with the collapse of the British Empire. The generation passing through Grant’s classes was left asking in the wake, if Canada is not British, then what are we?

Multiculturalism provided a convenient answer, or more correctly a non-answer. What is Canada? We are everyone and anything that happens to show up here. It was rarely expressed in such stark terms. So obvious a call for suicide would have been dismissed out of hand. The call for a Canadian mosaic – as opposed to the supposedly totalitarian notion of a melting pot – was carefully conflated with something superficially similar, the multi-ethnic state.

Because of our rather unusual founding, Canada has never been a mono-ethnic society. A crude appeal to ethnic nationalism, even among anglophones, would have fallen flat. Something else had to inspire the Welsh, Scots, English, Irish and even the French into a semi-coherent whole. The settling of the Prairies had required the import of various Slavic and Scandinavian groups. However different they were from Anglo-French norms, they were nevertheless recognizably European and Christian.

In a process that began with John Diefenbaker, our immigration policy was greatly liberalized toward the non-European world. Most Canadians assumed, rather naturally, that these new groups would be integrated into Canadian society in much the same way as had the Ukrainians, Germans, Poles and other assorted groups. There would be friction – as there always had been – but in a generation or two it would all be sorted out.

For an instinctive patriot like Dief (of German descent), that was his thinking as well. To advocates of multiculturalism, this new liberalized immigration policy was a way of transforming Canadian culture. Lacking its traditional British center, the new Canada could be more easily reformed by a small group of academics concentrated at key universities, principally Queen’s, UBC, McGill and the University of Toronto. By conflating a multi-ethnic society with a multicultural society, these academics could perform a simple bait and switch.

Opposition to a multi-ethnic society was regarded – correctly – as bigoted. By insisting that multi-ethnic was the same thing as multicultural, opposition to this transformation of Canadian society could be silenced as racist. Beginning with the monarchy – traditional English speaking Canada’s legal and cultural lynchpin – a slow campaign of hollowing out our institutions was conducted. The rationale provided was that our institutions needed to become relevant to these New Canadians.

This was – and remains – a patent absurdity. It is not the job of Canadian institutions to become relevant to the immigrants, it is the immigrants who must make themselves relevant to the institutions and what they represent. Canada did not come to them, they came to Canada. Aside from a tiny minority of immigrants from other First World nations, the overwhelming flow of new comers were from backward and tyrannical societies. Their arrival here, often after great personal risk and suffering, is testament to their own belief in the superiority of Canadian society.

Canada is in many ways a very young country. We have not yet had the centuries to acquire the deep and rich artistic, architectural and cultural legacy taken for granted in Europe, the Middle East and Asia. Carefully managed the influx of people and talents from these societies could – and has – greatly enriched Canada. Where it can to lead to disaster is where our social contract goes unenforced. Yes, we are a young country in a cultural sense. In a political sense, we are among the oldest in the world.

With the exception of Britain, the United States, the Dutch and the Scandinavian states, Canada is the oldest liberal democracy in the world. The careful efforts of men like Baldwin, Lafontaine, Macdonald, Brown and Laurier are half forgotten and taken completely for granted today. However, it is in our political accomplishments, and the great wealth and long peace they have engendered, that immigrants needs to be instructed. It matters little how they dress, eat or pray, so long as they speak either of our main languages and understand our political and legal customs.

In pre-multicultural Canada the teaching of, and expectation of adherence to, these values was taken as a matter of course. The central tenet of multiculturalism, not as it is commonly understood, but in its original intellectual meaning, is that all cultural values are relative. It is immoral – indeed bigoted – to argue that parliamentary democracy and the common law are superior to a witch doctor and a tribal council. That the former has produced a first class society, whose citizenship is keenly sought, and the latter has not evolved in centuries, is an irrelevant consideration.

Even if most Canadians do not understand the nature of the multiculturalism con, which has ruthlessly exploited their benevolence, they feel threatened by it. It is, however, little more than an emotional objection. From time to time the fear becomes anger, and is misdirected at the immigrants themselves, not the academics, journalists and politicians that have advanced it for going on two generations.

This uncharacteristic anger bursts out at unexpected moments. The allowing of Sikhs to wear turbans, while serving in the RCMP, was one such moment. At the time it seemed to be simply a moment of friction, just an older generation failing to understand the changes that had taken place. In retrospect it was vital turning point in our evolution. Not because of the reaction of the Canadian public, but because of the reaction of the Canadian Establishment. The choir invisible of official Canadian opinion branded any opposition to the policy as bigotry.

The policy, however, could easily have been justified along traditional Canadians. Sikhs had worn turbans in the service of the Crown for centuries, including fighting alongside Canadian forces in Italy during the Second World War. Religious tolerance has been a hallmark of Canadian identity since at least the time of Baldwin-Laftontaine. It would have been perfectly consonant with our traditions and customs to have allowed turban wearing Sikhs in the RCMP, so long as reasonable precautions were taken for public and personal safety. Another part of the gradual, peaceful evolution of a multi-ethnic society.

Instead, for the advocates of multiculturalism, it was a test case, which they won handily. The allowing of turbans was not a victory for religious tolerance, but was instead framed as a victory for cultural relativism. We were not simply allowing other people to practice their beliefs peacefully, even while wearing the uniform of our national police force, we were instead proudly asserting that our values, our traditions and customs were no better than anyone else’s values, traditions and customs. The demand was not for tolerance alone. It was for tolerance to the point of suicide.

Posted by PUBLIUS on January 28, 2011 | Permalink


I think many Canadians will agree with this analysis of the problem. But the question is: What can we do about it?

Posted by: Michael Richard Jackson Bonner | 2011-01-28 12:02:14 PM

The hideous cult of multiculturalism is probably the most destructive idea that the Canadian left ever devised. (The term multiculturalism was coined by that ‘great thinker’ Trudeau btw.) As a result, the government pays immigrants not to be Canadians, and encourages the annihilation of our traditional Canadian culture (pre-Trudeau Canada) by proclaiming that we’re now ‘multicultural’. By saying that our core values and traditions are everything, the multicults are essentially saying that we have no core values. The combination of the State religion of multiculturalism, and the unsustanible mass-immigration policy that the high priests of multicultualism advocate, will inevitively result in the national suicide of this country. Therefore it is imperitive that we destroy the State religion of multiculuralism by demanding that immigrants assimilate into our culture, not the other way around. Furthermore, we must end mass-immigration (the world does not have a divine right to Canadian citizenship) and recognize that certain ethnic groups and cultures are more easy to assimilate than others. Finally, we must re-establish our true Canadian values, our Judeo-Christian heritage and our British tradition of individual freedom that made our country great.

Posted by: Yukon Gold | 2011-01-28 12:55:43 PM

The past can not be undone and the future can not change without the recognition that we are on the wrong path. As we recently saw with Iggy seing nothing wrong with kirpans being worn by MPs in parliament , we are still blind to the danger of watering down our own laws in exchange for a few votes bought with appeasement. Even bloggers on the CBC saw this as wrong, (wow) but not any of our leaders. What we need is the Canadian version of the “tea party” or perhaps even a American takeover. We still have far more in common with them than the immigrants coming here now. At least they are still proud to be American and will retain the melting pot concept. At least they fight back when they sense that they are losing their identity. In a few decades we will be fragmented into regions that have very little in common with the Canada we once knew.
Regardless, we have little time left as whites will be a minority in less than 40 years if our birth rates and immigration policies dont change.

Posted by: peterj | 2011-01-28 5:07:47 PM

One thing that both conservatives and liberals would rather ignore is the role of real estate-financial business lobbies in promoting multiculturalism. The banks, REITs, developers and construction companies lobbied the Trudeau and Mulroney governments hard for increasing immigration, in order to fuel housing demand, and multiculturalism was one of the carrots used to draw immigrants here. More warm bodies means more profits, and a country which allows every quirky cultural practice from headgear (hijabs and niqabs, turbans) to respecting culturally-ingrained fears of ghosts (i.e., the Vancouver hospice issue) will get lots of immigrants.

The corporate media (in many cases, with substantial real estate and financial cross ownership) has framed any criticism of mass immigration as ‘racist.’ Chartered banks, REITs and developers also contribute heavilly to ‘environmental’ groups, like the David Suzuki Foundation, keeping concerns about immigration-driven urban sprawl and environmental damage off the agenda. As with so many other ideologies, multiculturalism is rooted in profits.

Posted by: Adam | 2011-01-28 5:22:03 PM

Excellent post. I would argue that multiculturalism (the mixing of different cultures) has always existed. All cultures have adopted ideas and things from other cultures through a gradual and slow assimilation of them. What we have had imposed on us beginning with Trudeau is official state sponsored multiculturalism, which has nothing to do with the previous natural process. As already stated by Yukon Gold we have the state rewarding immigrants for not assimilating and even punishing Canadians who dare question any aspect of these imported cultures. There is no doubt that unless this official government policy is repealed Canada will become simply a vast balkanised territory with no sense of a common identity, or even a common interest.

Adam, while you may be correct about the lobbying for more immigrants, even from very different cultures, this is not the same thing as lobbying for official multiculturalism. Especially since immigrants from these countries and cultures did not need a carrot to want to come here. Simply opening wide the immigration door while eliminating the previous selection standards resulted in the flood. Now it is more difficult for a qualified white British professional to immigrate than a third world unqualified non white. This is state sponsored national suicide.

Posted by: Alain | 2011-01-28 6:40:21 PM

Posted by: morticiaa | 2011-01-29 7:26:13 AM


(This means retracting the law, changing the law or legislation that allowed rcmp to change their uniforms)

Then be strong enough to stand up to the backlash pressure from these extremists




Too bad we are subject to the charter created by that little scumb bag

Regarding the religious costumes, this is how I personally feel,

The fact is that they look ridiculous and this costume represents a backward cultural religious practice that belongs in the 18th century

We don’t burn witches, we moved beyond

Think of all that long greasy stinky hair with all sorts of dandruff under layers of unwashed cloth

Hello What a joke,

I know lots of modern sikhs who don’t have to run around looking like they came from a time capsule, and who don’t practice the backward barbaric gender inequality cultural norms are lock stock and barrel of the rest of the multiculti feast that goes along with adherence to extremist fundamentalists

They got their legislation passed while all of us were sleeping years ago

People are brainwashed through education and the infrastructure to think that they must respect this lunatic symbol of backward cultural and religious belief,

Brainwashed to dull their abilities to think critically, evaluate, judge, to the point of being zombies, the general public, a mass that represents the ‘Colonel Klinck Philosopy’ from Hogans Heros, “I see nothing, I know nothing”

Ever hear about anyone wanting to move into Surrey anymore????? Just people leaving as it is no longer a community that represents anything close to what Canada is, a modern free democracy with people of all backgrounds integrated and living together practicing Canadian values in a free democracy

Instead we have multiculti ghettos,

When I see the number of religious costumes that are worn in all the service industry it makes me cringe,

The one thing I can do so far, is turn right around and go some where else, I refuse to be served by anyone wearing religious costumes,

Today in Canada, I am free to do this, who knows about tomorrow

Posted by: morticiaa | 2011-01-29 7:49:42 AM

The left in Canada adore multi-culturalism because it gives them a feeling of moral superiority, especially in terms of the US. It is however nothing but an illusion. All one has to do is listen to an NDP or Liberal MP from Toronto extolling that 350 languages (or what ever the number is)are spoken in the city. Most of them however wouldn’t be caught dead in the areas where the blacks,pakis or tamils live, except during an election. The real problem with multi-cultualism is groups start getting preferential treatment in immigration, where quotas are set for different ethnic groups. One only has to look at Europe to see where we are headed. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see civil unrest / war breaking out in several countries.

Posted by: The Stig | 2011-01-30 4:54:08 PM


Multiculturalism creates a world structured in terms of cultures, usually national cultures. This structure is imposed on people who do not want it: since it is a global structure, there is no escape. It limits freedom, it limits possibility, and it limits possible futures. In Europe, multiculturalists form a de facto alliance with nationalists, to impose culture on Europe. The specific examples are from the Netherlands. When I first wrote this, multiculturalism was the political standard here, and it was taboo to criticise it. Since then, attitudes have reversed and hardened, especially since the assassination of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. There is now a consensus that immigration must be restricted, and that immigrants are a source of social problems. A similar reversal of attitudes is now under way in Germany. So take note: multicultural political correctness can suddenly evaporate. If it happened in the Netherlands, it can happen elsewhere.

For more on nationalism, see the introduction to the link site Nation Planet.

___Legitimising racism and inequality

The reality of a ‘multi-cultural society’ has become more evident. In the Netherlands, ‘multicultural’ is systematically used as the opposite to ‘equality’. A multicultural society is a society where African immigrants clean toilets, and upper-middle-class ethnic Dutch are the lawyers, pilots, surgeons and bankers. The word ‘multicultural’ no longer carries any connotation of equality or respect – if it ever did. It implies the presence in society of ethnic minorities, but says nothing about their social status. Worse, it implies that all moral obligations have been met, when society is ‘multicultural’ in this sense.

___Compulsory culture

A ‘multi-cultural society’ oppresses migrants. Having left one culture, they are obliged to rejoin it in the country in which they arrive. Wherever they go, they will be enclosed in their culture of origin. Mono-culturalism, multiculturalism and inter-culturalism all enforce culture. Despite what you have been told at school (and at home), it is simply not necessary to have “culture”. Far from being sacred, it is a political choice, a choice advocated by nationalists.

When government policies are based on this kind of multiculturalism, they favour traditionalists. Conservatives often put themselves forward as representing the “true values of the community”. If the government looks for authentic representatives of each culture, the it will find that conservative kind of representative. In practice many European governments do nominate conservatives, often religious leaders, as representatives of an immigrant minority. This has happened so often, that multicultural has acquired the meaning ‘multi-faith’ or ‘multi-religious’. For instance, in Amsterdam local politics, Turks are assumed to be Muslims. The imam of the local mosque is assumed to be their representative – even if they are atheists, even if they never saw the inside of a mosque, and don’t know where the local mosque is.

This attitude – compulsory culture – facilitated the switch back to mono-culturalism in the Netherlands. And just as predictably, the ‘Dutch values’ now being demanded of immigrants are those of the 1950’s. The standard version of culture is always the conservative version – better no culture at all.

___Hereditary culture

Multiculturalism makes culture hereditary. A good example was the “Education in own language and culture” program in the Netherlands. For instance: if the Turkish language has any value, then why are children of Chinese immigrants forbidden to learn it? Why are children of Turkish immigrants forbidden to learn any form of Chinese? This is how the program works: the “own language” is the language of the parents’ country of origin.

What makes Turkish an “own” language for a child who speaks only Dutch? The answer is obvious: birth. They are born to be Turkish, whether they like it or not. Children, whose parents are both Turkish citizens, are defined as Turkish. So, the extra language they are taught, is Turkish. This labelling process continues into the next generation, and perhaps into a 3rd and 4th generation. There is no appeal against this definition (as even the South African race classification had). This approach has harmed many children of Moroccan origin in Amsterdam. In the name of multi-culturalism they were given their education partly in Arabic. The multiculturalists, on the basis of their own racist ignorance, simply labelled them “Arabic”. In reality, most Moroccan immigrants come from Berber-language areas. The children were being educated in a language they often could not understand – in the name of preserving “their own culture”.

In the post-Fortuyn Netherlands, attitudes have reversed, but the children will not be any better off. The children of Moroccan immigrants who are separated from their parents, must now learn Dutch in Morocco before they are allowed to join their family in the Netherlands.

___”Cultures” are nations

The ‘cultures’ in multiculturalism, correspond to existing nation states. A classic example is again Turkey: many of those classified as Turkish in the last 20 years, considered themselves Kurds. And the “Kurdish question” is not the only identity issue in Turkey. Why is someone born in Istanbul not Ottoman? or Byzantine? or Roman? or Mediterranean? Why is someone born in Izmir (formerly Smyrna) not Greek? And why is someone born in Tashkent not Turkish, as the pan-Turkists claim? Why are people born in Helsinki, Istanbul and Budapest not all Turanians, as pan-Turanists claim? None of these identities is permitted to form the basis of a multicultural programme. In other words, multiculturalists reject ‘cultures’ which do not correspond to nation states.

Most multiculturalists, for example, would reject the claim of a person born in the Republic of Ireland, to consider themselves British. Yet for some time after Irish independence there was a small Unionist party seeking Ireland’s reincorporation into Britain. Some southern Irish did feel British: in northern Ireland many still do. As time passed, the equation of southern Irish with Republic of Ireland citizenship became accepted as natural and self-evident. But in the last few years, a small unionist trend has re-emerged in the Republic: what will the multiculturalists say now?

In general, the world view of multiculturalists is the same as that of the anti-immigrant parties in Europe: a cultural-nationalist world-view. (In the United States, also, all the hyphenated identities of diversity correspond to existing nations, or nationalist movements). For centuries there was a Burgundian state in Europe, yet there are no classes in Burgundian culture for immigrants in Amsterdam, and there are no Burgundian-Americans. But if someone founds a Burgundy Liberation Front, and it gains some support, “Burgundian culture” will become a political force. Cultural nationalism is about present politics, not ancient memory, although it uses that memory as an instrument.

Again, the identification of cultures with nations has undoubtedly facilitated the switch back to mono-culturalism. Right-wing anti-immigration politicians, such as Pim Fortuyn, consistently used the rhetoric of cultural value to legitimise their attitudes and policies, with success.

___Multicultural order

Multiculturalism internalises the nationalist world order in each nation state. The end result would be, in a perfectly multi-cultural world, 180 UN member states, each with 179 narrowly defined minorities within its borders, corresponding to the other states. In the United States this ideal – Nation of Nations – has a long history, and it recently re-appeared in Robert Kaplan’s bestseller Empire Wilderness. Any such system would probably collapse under its own absurdity, but that does not stop the multiculturalists trying to implement it.


Multiculturalism restates the core of biological racial doctrines, substituting words like “culture”, “identity” and “roots” for the often discredited word “race”. Yet the discredited race doctrines were themselves a biological variant of older doctrines of ethno-cultural identity. There is no agreed term for all these variants, but the best option is to include them under “nation” and “nationalism”.

There are obvious parallels with nationalism: the belief in the necessity of each culture, the loyalty demanded to it, the duty to transfer it to the next generation. Nationalists usually start with the fiction that each nation is a singular entity, but multiculturalists take their so-called “diversity” as starting point. A system which defines just 180 acceptable forms of diversity, and tells me where I belong (on a hereditary basis) – that is clearly not very “diverse”. Anti-cultural opposition to multiculturality is a form of anti-nationalism: it opposes this restrictive and limited world.

Europe Dumps the Multicult

By James Lewis

Don’t look now, but the cult of multiculturalism is finally crumbling into the vast dustbin of history. Multiculturalism is the left-wing fantasy that all cultures are equal, no matter how many millions of poor people are deliberately starved, mutilated, tortured or butchered by the Sudanese fascisti. The cult of multiculturalism is the feverish brainchild of our leftish professors, who prefer not even to read the daily newspapers for a sanitized version of reality in the Sudan, Congo, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Multiculturalism is the fantasy that Saddam Hussein had to be left in power in Iraq, but that Egypt’s Mubarak had to go for unspecified sins against democracy.
The indoctrinated left lives in a bubble of its own devising, and they are terrified to peek out at the real world. So they loved the cult of multi, because it allowed them to avoid having to take a moral stand. What evil? I don’t see no evil!
Multiculturalism denied, among other things, that humans ever practiced cannibalism. But that turned out to be false, because we now know that all humans carry genetic immunity against prions, which are infectious particles that you get from — you guessed it — eating dead people.  We carry immunity against the bad stuff that comes after gobbling up human brains, and that means that humans once practiced so much cannibalism that our bodies needed a way to protect us from flesh-borne toxins. 
So it turns out that all the Evil White Guys of history were right on target after all, and that human beings often hunted and snacked on each other, just as in those old New Yorker cartoons about tropical missionaries sitting in large cooking pots.
Why don’t you and I eat people today? Because it is a profound cultural taboo for Westerners, derived from our biblical roots. Other peoples don’t necessarily have such humanitarian taboos. The fact that we are horrified by cannibalism  shows that our culture is morally different, and that we are not the Stone Age Yanamamo tribe of Chile, who spend their weekends trying to kill each other. According to anthropologists who have studied them for decades, about a third of Yanamamo males die a violent death, in their version of Monday night football. But who are we to judge them?
In the world of reality, as opposed to the multi cult, it turns out that warfare is also a human universal. All known peoples do it, sometimes for reasons you and I would consider moral — like defending our homes and children — and sometimes for sheer cussedness.
Humans are not innately nice; we always need to be taught as children and teenagers to become truly human. In every generation we need to teach the values we cherish, and to protect them from those who would destroy them. That used to be called “education.” 
If you have any college-age kids, they have had the cult of multi beaten into their heads. That means they can no longer tell the difference between “Love thy neighbor” and “Kill thy neighbor — unless he converts to the One True Faith.” The MoBros who are now seeking power in Egypt believe in killing infidels unless they submit to their interpretation of Allah. Your friendly Christian fundamentalist neighbor believes in Love Thy Neighbor. But the left can’t tell the difference any more, because they have systematically extirpated their own moral sense. For the left, it takes a cult to raise a child.
The perverse cult of multiculturalism despises only one thing — our own deep roots in Judaism and Christianity. That is why the pop media always smear and laugh at devout Jews and Christians, while head-chopping Islamofascists are idolized. We are now seeing the media doing it again with Egypt. Go figure.
Well, the cult of multi is no more. The Cult is Dead! Long live the Cult!
How can we tell? Because the head of three important European nations have proclaimed multiculturalism dead and buried: Germany’s Angela Merkel, France’s Nicolas Sarkozy, and Britain’s David Cameron. Melanie Phillips gives us a summary in The Spectator:
“First, the Prime Minister did indeed travel a huge distance from the ruinous position taken by the previous government on both multiculturalism and Islamic extremism. The most important change he made was to end the absurd idea that the only threat comes from ‘violent extremism’. Cameron has understood instead that the source of the threat lies in a set of ideas, and not just in the terrorist actions that sometimes result from those ideas.
“…we need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of where these terrorist attacks lie.  That is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism. …
“At the (most extreme) end are those who back terrorism to promote their ultimate goal: an entire Islamist realm, governed by an interpretation of Sharia.”
Over there, the taboo against telling the plain truth is now breached. They’ve dumped the biggest mass delusion of the last thirty years.
It’s just like the children’s fairy tale “The Emperor’s new clothes,” by Hans Christian Andersen. Instead of a little boy pointing out the stark naked truth, we have three European heads of government doing it, one after the other, which can only help us to come back to sanity.
There is only one reason why all three of them are coming out with the same message. Europe is now really scared by its own suicidal open-door policy to millions of Pakistanis, Algerians, Sudanese, Somalis, and other Muslims who have been brainwashed to want to destroy Western culture. The annual burning of French automobiles in the suburbs of Paris has finally hit home. Europe now wants to teach Western values to its immigrants for fear of Islamofascist imperialism. But it’s going to be close a race against time.
When the Soviet Empire collapsed in 1991 and the Berlin Wall tumbled down, Western leftists lost their whole reason for being, their very meaning in life. Bureaucracies instinctively spin new stories when they lose their reason for being, to keep justifying their huge appetites for tax money, power and perks, not to mention their obedient squads of worshipful students.
The leftish professoriate sought a new myth for itself when Gorbachev allowed Berliners to finally tear down that wall, as Ronald Reagan demanded in public, to the hysterical horror of the spinsters of the New York Times.
Academic radicals are tenured for life. Nobody can fire them. So they needed a new myth to keep their self-esteem alive. Multiculturalism was that myth, the keystone to the whole tyrannical mythology of Political Correctness.
When a lot of people begin to spread a flagrant lie as if it were true, and to go on witch-hunts against skeptics, we have all the makings of a cult, a shared delusional system. “Political Correctness” was Lenin’s phrase for a Communist Party Line that was flagrantly false, but which would be enforced by propaganda, beatings, bullets and Siberian labor camps for any open skeptics. Lenin is dead, but Leninism is not. A few years ago the President of Harvard University was fired for questioning a tenet of the cult of PC in public.
Fortunately, after getting fired by Harvard, Larry Summers got a new job advising the Obamas on how to sabotage our economy. Summers will never, ever say any non-PC word in public again. He’s been thought reformed by the commissars of Harvard.
So it will take time to rebuild confidence in our own values, and to get really clear that other cultures really do continue to violate our Judeo-Christian morality: North Korea, Burma, the Congo, Sudan, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, Iran.  We have decades of false and malignant teachings to make up for. It will be a long convalescence.
Multiculturalism has been the centerpiece of the reverse racism that has ruled Europe and America since the collapse of the Soviet Empire. It has been drummed into millions of empty heads by leftish professors around the world. Maybe it was the left’s answer to the collapse of the Berlin Wall around 1991, and along with it, their hopes for a future as the new ruling elite. 
In Europe today the left is actually the ruling class, the ones who dominate the media, the schools and the parliaments. That’s why Norwegian politicians gave a Chicago con artist variously named Barry Barack Hussein Soetoro Obama a Nobel Peace Prize before he ever stepped into the White House. They just recognized him as one of their own, and they always wanted to rule America, anyway. Give that man a Nobel Peace Prize!
Soon after that, Obama tried to save the Copenhagen global frauding conference, but it collapsed anyway, even after Tony Blair said we should all spend trillions of dollars to “fix” the climate, even if the hysteria wasn’t true. (Yes. He said it.) Obama’s EPA still claims to still believe that people breathing out CO2 will overheat Mother Gaia, but then Obama never has a new idea. He is mentally rigid and fixed in his own dogmas. Obama is never wrong. People who are never wrong are disastrous leaders.
So Europe is turning against its own cult of multiculturalism. Behind the scenes thousands of Euro journ-O-lists are trying to figure out ways to spin their way out of this one. Now watch as millions of dazed European adults go ghost-walking through the streets of Berlin, Paris and London, rubbing their eyes and wondering why they ever believed what they said they believed. Because by now, finally, everybody over there is really scared of radical Muslims who will not learn Western civilization. France, Germany and the UK have finally seen the salivating beast that is dogging their footsteps.
When heads of governments in Europe say something about multiculturalism it’s a sign of change, because their education systems are controlled by the State. Ever since Napoleon and Bismarck they’ve had top-down control over what kids are taught in school. Every EU country has a Ministry of Education that decides who teaches what at any level. That’s why, when Sarkozy or Merkel makes a public statement like this, it means a radical change of direction all down the line.
In America our Education professors (like Bill Ayers) control what our teachers and students think — like the need to vote for Democrats no matter how destructive and harebrained they are. We have a cultural monopoly of the left, witness the fact that the media always use the same headlines on the same day, word for word. It’s a standard Rush Limbaugh schtick to play the copycat media mouthing the Party Line every day, and it hasn’t changed in twenty years. All the alphabet channels say the same words in the same headlines, day after day. But real human beings don’t repeat a Party Line. The goose-stepping conformity of our media is all you need to prove that we live in an ideological monopoly.
Because the State controls the schools in Europe, its famous Deep Thinkers always end up boot-licking the ruling class, just like Friedrich Hegel, the hero of Karl Marx. Hegel and Marx both admired the Prussian State, except that Marx was convinced that he should be Otto von Bismarck.  It’s not really complicated.
That’s why it is clear by now that Obama is not a liberal at all; he’s a Marxist, which means a top-down command guy, which means a good old goose-stepping Prussian Obersturmbahnfuehrer.
As we have just seen, Obama is willing to publicly humiliate Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak, and to order him to resign from office without the benefit of an election; and Mubarak better jump to it, or Obama’s twitter mob will throw him out.
That’s a totalitarian mind at work, folks. You elected him, now you get to watch. If he can do it to General Motors and Wall Street, he can do it to our allies around the world. It looks like Obama is going to whip up a purge of our closest allies in the Arab Middle East, while leaving the Iranian fascisti in power. Hail Obama, Lightbringer!
Barack Obama was elected by the American version of multi cult, after decades of 24/7 PC media prop. He was elected to be the “historic” first black man who also happened to be a radical Leftist. Obama is our first rigidly ideological president, ever. The left hoped that by electing Obama they finally, finally had a big stick to beat ordinary Americans with, one that was strong enough to enforce their lust for power over everything.
It almost worked. The only trouble is that Obama now has to deal with reality rather than fantasy, and, as every president finds out, reality is not nearly as forgiving as the spinners of the media. In Egypt we are really facing one of two possible outcomes: Radical Islamofascism or relatively benign military rule. Turkey chose Islamofascism a few years ago and is purging their military. Pakistan is always torn between them. Iran still has the fascists in charge.
The good news is that we have just seen the death knell of Multicultismo. Conservatives deserve to celebrate, because we have been resisting the People of the Lie for decades. That’s what conservatives do in life. We are the adults. Our job is to point out the truth.
Obama was elected by the mad logic of PC. He was not elected for his qualifications or experience, which he didn’t have. He was elected because, as Joe Biden said so well, he was a “clean Black guy.”
Obama has coasted his whole life on the myth of Multiculturalism. None of his college professors would ever dare to flunk him, because they would be witch-hunted by the left if they did.
As the ground begins to shake underneath the left, they will frantically try their usual shape-changing act. They will deny they ever believed in the cult of multi, and explain through the propaganda media whatever little smidgen of Western civilization they wants us to believe.
What the Europeans really want is for the Muslim fascists to stop attacking them. They will try to buy peace by strong-arming Israel and America to compromise with Islamic radicals. That’s what they did with the Soviet threat over sixty years. The civilized peoples of the West, led by people like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Pope John Paul II held on grimly while the sharks of the media went on one attack after another. At the end, Gorbachev was forced by his own loss of face to tear down that wall.
Today, America and a few cultural allies — Australia, Japan, India —  are the last bastions of civilization, because Europe has been attacking its own values for decades. It has raised generations of self-hating “idealists.” American professors have aped their European models. We, too, must find our own roots again, and assert our values without shame and without being afraid to speak out.
The alternative is a new Dark Age, imposed by medieval fascism and enabled by the Left.
This fight isn’t won. But we may be seeing a turning point in our generation’s battle for civilization.
46 Comments on “Europe Dumps the Multicult

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