In tandem with the Establishment’s policy of mass immigration is its theory of Multiculturalism; the concept of the coexistence of diverse cultures within a single society being not only possible but also desirable and used, therefore, to justify mass immigration policies.
This essay will argue that multiculturalism in a single, long-established society is not possible, is undesirable and bound to fail. And in fact, has failed. Mass immigration on its own has been a disaster, but multiculturalism has turned it into a catastrophe.
Multiculturalism was the Establishment’s response to the British people’s concern that mass immigration would harm their society and lead to unrest and loss of national cohesion and identity. As ever, the theory is derived from academia, with philosophers and political theorists like Bhikhu Parekh, Charles Taylor and Will Kymlicka cited as its prophets. Also as ever, those promoting multiculturalism cherrypicked the arguments in favour of their crusade and ignored the warnings of possible adverse effects all of these theorists qualified their musings with.
Kymlicka’s 2010 report on ‘The Current State Of Multiculturalism In Canada' for the Canadian government’s Department of Citizenship and Immigration gives the flavour of the theory and its application in practice.
Multiculturalism in Britain has always been an elitist project, pushed by the political, media and cultural establishments. They have used, many say abused, the law to embed it into our society and have reinforced it by means of relentless propaganda on its alleged merits – not least in our schools and universities.
It has its genesis in the 1960s when laws were introduced to end the much-exaggerated discriminatory barriers faced by immigrants under the State’s race relations policies. To this end a series of ‘anti-discrimination’ measures were adopted outlawing what were seen as ostentatious forms of exclusion based on race.
Much of this government action, however, was based on what we now call misinformation. The photograph below was frequently, almost invariably, used to prove what a racist society Britain was and that the law must be used to change it. But the photo is of unknown provenance and now widely regarded as a fake. 
It seems to have been mocked up for an exhibition called “An Irish Experience” in Islington, possibly originating in the ‘NINA’ (No Irish Need Apply) signs common in late 19th Century USA.
Nevertheless, this dubious picture has long been cited by politicians, academics, the MSM, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and the Met police to justify changes in law and legislation and further their policy of multiculturalism.
There were, inevitably, tensions and worse resulting from the Establishment’s mass immigration policy. Some of the riots were very serious, but no matter who was rioting the cause was always presented as racism. More and more laws were introduced, and the concept of multiculturalism developed as a solution.
People were killed, some whites killed by blacks, some blacks killed by whites, but the State and MSM were mainly interested in the white killing black stories, which were used to promote the idea that Britain was a deeply racist country, deserving of repressive laws and State-backed implementation of multiculturalism to change it for the better.
Never once did it occur to those pushing multiculturalism that, even if they were right and that racism was endemic in Britain, it was folly beyond belief to carry on bringing in more and more immigrants and encouraging them to set up apartheid ‘communities’ in our cities. And the evidence that Britain was racist, or anything other than too tolerant for its own good, is very slim.
Much that does exist is either fabricated or exaggerated. This video shows the reaction of residents of Bamber Bridge, Lancashire in 1943, during WW2, when the US military arrogantly attempted to impose Jim Crow laws on the village, requiring the segregation of black and white GIs. All the village pubs put up ‘Black Troops Only’ signs. In short, the segregated American forces were appalled at the British people’s lack of racism!
It has even been said that it was black troops returning to the US who, contrasting the way they had been treated as equals by the British with the racism prevalent in much of the USA, helped generate the Civil Rights movement there. So, there is little tangible evidence of British racism, to me further proven by the fact that until now there has been very little serious, widespread trouble here, despite the influx of millions from alien cultures.
In fact, I would claim that what little real racism there is here is the product of multiculturalism and the Establishment’s evolution to two-tier policymaking as well as two-tier policing and their ignoring – indeed suppression - of valid concerns over social fragmentation, loss of national identity, and challenges to social cohesion as set out by SP Huntington in his book Who Are We? (on the challenges to America's national identity and the cultural threat from large-scale immigration by Latinos and Islamic immigrants).
Huntington is credited with inventing the phrase Davos Man, referring to ‘global elites’ who "have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite's global operations".
Another American academic, RD Putnam, did a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion, based on over 40 cases and 30,000 people in the United States, is that more diversity is associated with less trust both among and within ethnic groups. He describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as "hunkering down", avoiding engagement with their local community as diversity increases. Although limited to American data, his findings have resonance here, and coincide with most people’s gut feelings on the issue.
One of the ideas used to underpin multiculturalism is ‘contact hypothesis’, which posits that distrust declines as members of different ethnic groups interact. This, of course, can and does happen, but it starts to break down when groups feel under threat and that one group is receiving favourable treatment, a view held for some time now by many sections of the ethnic British, most especially the white working class. And again, it is evident that multiculturalism makes this ideal almost impossible to obtain, emphasising group identity over that of individual identity.
The multiculturalist Establishment has made friendly contact far more difficult, by its liaison with ‘community leaders’, hate crime laws, the preposterously named ‘positive discrimination’, the favoured status given to immigrants and the constant portrayal of Britain as a deeply racist society with a shameful past. A Muslim, especially a female, living in a predominantly Islamic area for example, would almost certainly face ostracism, possibly violence for adopting a traditional British way of life. And it is multiculturalism that has made it that way – to the dismay of many immigrants as well as the native British.
Multiculturalism has been a core policy of the ruling class since at least 1997, when Blair was elected PM. We were told that it would result in the peaceful coexistence of diverse cultures, with proponents arguing that it enriches societies by fostering tolerance, creativity, and economic growth. The result has been the exact opposite.
State-imposed multiculturalism has caused an alarming lack of integration, especially of Muslims. Instead of fostering a unified national identity, multiculturalism has encouraged the formation of isolated communities that adhere strictly to their own cultural norms and values. This segregation has resulted in a fragmented society where different groups live parallel lives with minimal interaction, often leading to misunderstandings and tensions.
Multiculturalism has undermined the cohesive national identity we have had for so long in Britain. Sensible people can see that a strong national identity is essential for social cohesion and stability. Giving multiple cultures equal standing dilutes shared identity and common values. This erosion of national identity has led to a lack of social solidarity and a weakened sense of belonging among citizens.
Multiculturalism promotes cultural relativism, the idea that all cultural practices are equally valid - despite this leading to the acceptance of practices that are at odds with the values of the broader society, such as gender inequality, child marriage, female genital mutilation and more. This has created moral and ethical dilemmas that have undermined the rule of law.
The presence of multiple, officially recognised cultural groups, each with differing values and interests has led to political polarisation. Political parties, mostly but not only Labour, have exploited cultural differences to gain support, leading to divisive, identity-based politics. This can result in a fragmented political landscape where consensus and cooperation become difficult, if not impossible.
In practice multiculturalism has inflamed tension, with every incident instantly seen through the distorting prism of race and religion. The utter absurdity of it all is the recent example of black murderers being released to make places in prison for white youths who threw bricks at a hostel housing illegal immigrants, kept at taxpayer’s expense and at a standard of living better than many taxpayers. Many of these illegal immigrants will be sent to areas of high unemployment, to further increase racial animosity and tension.
While obviously not condoning the Establishment’s policy of mass immigration, the mess multiculturalism has made of it is terrifying, but it still goes on. There has been no assimilationist approach to encourage minority groups to adopt the dominant culture, which is the only way to make large scale immigration work. Instead, the Establishment has entrenched the denigration of the dominant culture in its polices, political agenda and in the education we pay for.
Oddly, the Establishment has known for many years that multiculturalism has failed and was harming society. Arch-globalist Angela Merkel said, in 2010, that the so-called "multikulti" concept where people would happily "live side-by-side" did not work and concluded that immigrants needed to do more to integrate, including learning German. These comments came amid rising anti-immigration feeling in Germany and after a survey suggested more than 30% believed Germany was "overrun by foreigners".
Mrs Merkel said that at "the beginning of the 60s our country called the foreign workers to come to Germany and now they live in our country" and added "We kidded ourselves a while, we said: 'They won't stay, sometime they will be gone', but this isn't reality" and concluded that "of course, the approach to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other... has failed, utterly failed."
At the time Merkel was facing pressure from within her party to take a tougher stance and require immigrants to do more to adapt to German society. Even Green leader Horst Seehofer, who served as Minister for the Interior under Merkel from 2018 to 2021 said "'Multikulti' is dead".
A few months later, Britain’s then prime minister, David Cameron, endorsed her approach, calling for “a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism”. Within days France’s then president, Nicolas Sarkozy, had joined the chorus, suggesting that “we’ve been too concerned about the identity of new arrivals and not enough about the identity of the country receiving them”.
And yet in 2015 Angela Merkel opened Germany’s borders – and in effect the EU’s borders - to the world. And Cameron and Sarkozy endorsed her unilateral decision. Millions came, and the result has not been good (though we did vote Leave in part because of it). German decline is even steeper than our own. Why did she do this? What caused her to disregard her own diagnosis of the harm mass immigration and ‘multikulti’ was doing to Germans and Germany? Say what you think in the comments.
After that Merkel did face some criticism. Thilo Sarrazin, a senior official at Germany's central bank, said that "no immigrant group other than Muslims is so strongly connected with claims on the welfare state and crime". He was forced to resign.
Here, Suella Braverman said much the same, As Home Secretary, in a speech on immigration, she referred to the “misguided dogma of multiculturalism” which had allowed people to come to the UK with the aim of “undermining the stability and threatening the security of society” and pointed out that “Uncontrolled immigration, inadequate integration and a misguided dogma of multiculturalism have proven a toxic combination for Europe over the last few decades. Multiculturalism makes no demands of the incomer to integrate. It has failed because it allowed people to come to our society and live parallel lives in it.”
This piece of the bleeding obvious resulted in howls of indignation from her opponents (almost all Tory MPs, Labour, the Civil Service and the MSM). Then PM Sunak dismissed her at the first opportunity. And so, our utterly barren, utterly corrupt, utterly mendacious Establishment, now openly anti-British, carries on regardless, regardless of the damage it does to society and the blight multiculturalism has on individual lives, ethnic British and immigrants and their descendants alike.
The gravest danger to Britain’s stability and democracy is not white-British racism, it is multiculturalism and the importation of tribal ideologies, whether American-inspired racial identity politics, Indian subcontinental-style communalism or Arab-world sectarianism, all made worse by a fundamental lack of political, social, and law-and-order leadership.
To our cultural and political ‘elites’, criticising multiculturalism is now tantamount to heresy. Predictably, Braverman was swiftly denounced as a racist and her speech presented as a threat to migrant communities. One commentator went as far as to claim that Braverman’s dangerous rhetoric puts pupils from migrant backgrounds at risk in British schools, a tactic now being aimed by the MSM against anyone pointing out that it is the Establishment’s policies of mass immigration and multiculturalism that is the root cause of the recent anti-immigration protests.
In short, the violence stemming from the fragmentation of our society and many Western, especially European, societies is not mainly because they are multiethnic, it is because they are dominated by the absurd and dangerous ideology of multiculturalism. Multiculturalists have consciously divided society into self-standing ethnic-identity groups. And this has accentuated, cultivated and inflamed differences between people. In this way, multiculturalism has undermined and impeded the development of any genuine sense of solidarity among citizens.
To rectify this, we must force the political establishment to dramatically reduce immigration, institute a programme of integration for people living in the UK, require the primacy of our British culture, end the obsession with DEI and multiculturalism, and proudly teach our children the truth about our wonderful history.