"The Thunder from Down Under"

October 8, 2001

The Dangers of Multiculturalism
by Antonia Feitz

For the past two decades, the European and the English-speaking nations have substituted the social policy of multiculturalism for the previous policy of assimilation.

Most states and nations have departments or offices of multiculturalism whose brief it is to champion the alleged benefits of cultural diversity, and to assist ethnic communities to maintain their cultural identities.

Anybody with an ounce of common sense knows that such a policy is a recipe for social disaster. It's the complete reversal of the hitherto normal process of gradual assimilation, perhaps over a few generations.

The multiculturalists' vision of a harmonious, tolerant and culturally diverse society is classic elite, Pollyanna-ish, politically correct, internationalist drivel. And dangerous drivel at that.

Nations that are multi-racial and multicultural have to work extremely hard to maintain the peace between the various groups. The slightest disturbance - economic or political - can spark riots. Sadly, examples are legion - from the race riots in Britain and the US to the tribal savagery in Rwanda where the Hutu and Tutsi still slaughter one another given half a chance.

There's nothing wrong with migration. But the social fabric of the English-speaking and European nations is fast unravelling after decades of multiculturalism. Thoughtful people should ask themselves the question: why persevere with such a bad policy? Who benefits from multiculturalism?

In short, the globalists benefit. The people who are working towards world government are using multiculturalism to fragment formerly harmonious and culturally homogenous nations. Multiculturalism is just a fancy name for the ancient Romans' old divide and conquer strategy, and it still works like a treat. A 'nation' of competing tribes is too fractured to make a united stand against the ever-looming threat of global government.

The English-speaking countries particularly - many of them formerly monocultural - presented an obstacle to world government because of their proud heritage of freedom.

Unfortunately for the globalists, migrants have a very natural and healthy tendency to assimilate into the dominant culture, even despite policies to discourage them from doing so. Typically the second generation is anxious to be accepted as a local.

Given that, is it really just a coincidence that millions of mainly Islamic people are on the move globally? They have been driven from their countries more by years of harsh UN sanctions than by their governments. Surely if they had the chance of a decent life they would prefer to remain in their own countries. So why drive them out? Is it to provide a steady stream of foreign migrants to further raise tensions in the West?

The overwhelming majority of Middle Eastern migrants to the West are undoubtedly decent people anxious to provide better opportunities for their children. But in Australia, relations between the Islamic people and white Australians were strained, even before the September 11th attacks.

Relations soured when it was revealed that gangs of Middle Eastern youths were targeting Australian girls for rape. The youths regarded Australian girls as prostitutes because of their allegedly immodest dress, so they 'punished' them by brutally raping them. Using mobile phones, the youths invited their friends to join in. They racially taunted some of their victims and wrote degrading comments on their bodies.

Australian police have expressed grave concerns that the rapes are becoming "culturally entrenched." French police have expressed similar fears about ethnic/religious (!) gang rapes in France.

The rapes illustrate the futility of the globalists' clappy-happy multiculturalism. There can be no respect let alone tolerance between such divergent cultures. To their credit, Islamic community spokesmen condemned the rapes but the point is: they are happening around the world, fuelling social discord.

After the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington relations between the Arab/Islamic community and the wider Australian community deteriorated further. Women wearing headscarves were abused and one mosque was burned down. Christian churches in a predominantly Arab suburb of Sydney were fire-bombed, presumably in retaliation.

That's the reality of multiculturalism. But there's worse.

In Britain, an Islamic 26-year-old university educated Islamic man openly admitted he had trained in Afghanistan and would fight for the Taliban. "My support for my brothers in the Taliban will be verbal, financial - and physical if necessary", said this 'Londoner'. He added, "My allegiance is to Islam, not to Queen or country - if I have to shoot British soldiers, then so be it."

At least he's honest, unlike the multiculturalists off in their fairyland. And in the US, a 14-year-old New York-born boy whose father is Algerian and whose mother is Palestinian said, again in perfect honesty, "You're Muslim first and American second."

It doesn't get clearer than that.

Migration, yes; multiculturalism, no. Migrants can preserve their own languages and heritages as they have always done. But a strong nation will be united under one flag and one culture. ***

© 2001 Antonia Feitz