#multiculturalism has failed

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Allison Pearson

Published: Mar 10, 2026

On the day the result of the Gorton and Denton by-election was announced amidst allegations of “family voting”, I took to X (Twitter) to say how sorry I was that voters had picked Hannah Spencer. I described Hannah as “a Green fruitcake who covers her hair to suck up to Islamists and had election material printed in Urdu”.

I admit I hesitated over the word “fruitcake”, having toyed originally with “silly moo”. You know the type I mean. Those dopey, delusional keffiyeh-wearers who this past week have been on marches lamenting the death of ayatollah Khamenei, a seventh-century religious tyrant and the biggest sponsor of terrorism in this country for half a century. One of the dopes carried a placard saying “Feminists for Iran”. And I thought “Dykes for Gaza” (I actually spied that slogan outside The Ritz during last year’s Pride march) would be impossible to beat. Coming soon: Piglets for Abattoirs.

The gullibility of these far-Left female politicians who pander to Muslim male voters by adopting “modest” garb never fails to annoy me. As do ministers who attend meetings in mosques where no women are present. Would they find that segregation acceptable in a gathering of Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews or even members of the East India Club? Of course not. (Bad enough Muslim women are sidelined by traditionalists in their own communities without the privileged silly moos and Starmerites conspiring with their oppressors.)

Don’t they realise their great-grandmothers fought so that women in this country didn’t have to cover themselves, stay inside the house or be marched to a polling station by a controlling patriarch who tells them how to vote? Maybe the Hannah Spencers do realise and they don’t care, believing in some fuzzy, self-satisfied way that all cultures are equal (even ones that marry off nine-year-old girls) and their own hard-won freedoms are permanent. I recommend Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale as a useful corrective to such complacency.

Anyway, I thought no more about it until I saw that my remarks about Ms Spencer covering her hair had caused a minor Twitterstorm. The former BBC and LBC broadcaster Sangita Myska appeared to call on The Telegraph to take action against me because my comments were – wait for it – “misogynist” and “racism”. Others of a similar persuasion swiftly joined demands for my cancellation.

I hadn’t mentioned any race, of course, and I was clearly objecting to misogyny not committing it. It’s a sad day in this country when you can’t call an MP who believes in the legalisation of Class-A drugs and adopts head coverings while enthusiastically supporting trans rights a fruitcake. (By the way, Hannah Spencer didn’t mention those bonkers Green policies in the Urdu and Bangla translations of her election material.) But this is how these people operate. You make a perfectly valid criticism, reflecting a concern that is shared by millions of people – for instance viewing the burka as a hideous, life-limiting garment that has no place in an equal society – and, before you can say “Islamophobia”, you are the problem.

If people are scared of being called “racist” or “Islamophobic” for wanting to protect our Judeo-Christian culture and our way of life then the extremists have won by default. That was pretty much guaranteed by Parliament on Monday evening when the media had largely gone home and the Government slyly rushed out its new social cohesion strategy, Protecting What Matters. The UK is to have a new “special representative” on matters of anti-Muslim hostility – “tackling hostility and hatred directed at Muslims and those perceived to be Muslim”. In other words, an Islamophobia Tsar, or maybe that should be an Islamophobia Ayatollah or Islamophobia Grand Mufti?

Well, he or she is going to be busy because the last thing the majority of British people want at this precise moment is the Government dishing out more favours to the Muslim community. Religion is already a protected characteristic under the Equality Act. After murderous attacks on synagogues and with British Jews living in fear, police chiefs meekly running plans past their Islamist bosses, the Sentencing Council trying to arrange a better deal for ethnic-minority criminals, and disgraceful foot-dragging over a national rape gangs inquiry, anger towards our two-tier system is close to boiling point. In fact, the new strategy – affording special protection for one faith – is almost designed to stoke the very hostility it has been created to tackle.

Clearly, Labour knows this is terrible timing because the Blair-era “diversity is our strength” mantra is unravelling at speed. A demonised white, working class increasingly doesn’t give a flying fig about being called “bigots” by the progressive fools who permitted the calamity of uncontrolled mass immigration. We didn’t need a “social cohesion strategy” before they let in so many from backward peasant provinces who hate our values as much as they love our benefits, did we?

Astoundingly, one in 30 people currently living in the UK arrived within a recent four-to-five-year period (2021-24), driven by the record net migration of 2.6 million people, mainly non-European. To be fair, Protecting What Matters does recognise that this unprecedented influx – in defiance of the expressed preference of voters – may have caused a teeny bit of bad feeling among the natives. “For many living in the UK, the changes brought about by mass migration have been too much, too quickly, leaving people feeling as though they are losing their local and national identity,” it acknowledges. “Many people feel they cannot air perfectly legitimate concerns about the change they are seeing in their local communities. There must be space for honest discussion without assuming bad intentions or policing language.”

Well, quite. I couldn’t agree more. So why bother introducing new “guidance” which, however much the authors might protest, is bound to encourage the hysterical grievance-mongers we already hear far too much from, as well as having a chilling effect on free speech? As Lord (Toby) Young of the Free Speech Union told me, the fact that Protecting What Matters seeks to define anti-Muslim hostility at the same time as laying out an “action plan” to tackle extremism is not an encouraging sign that they have the correct people in their sights.

“We know from the efforts of previous governments to counter extremism that people expressing Right-wing views are more likely to be targeted than people expressing Left-wing or Islamist views,” he says. So, it seems likely that the white-majority population is to be blamed for failing to tolerate the intolerable burden dumped upon it by a heedless elite.

The authors of the strategy insist there is no threat whatsoever to “criticism of religion or belief” or to “debates in the public interest” – while, at the same time, saying some attitudes are “reprehensible” (who gets to decide which ones?) and “go beyond free speech” (that’s not what the law says). They also call integration a “two-way street”. No, absolutely not. Respect for different cultures and good manners at all times, of course, but new arrivals fit in with the host population not the other way round. One-way, our way, or it’s back to the airport.

Contradictions abound. There is a welcome acknowledgement that Islamist terrorism is the biggest domestic threat to our country (Islamists are responsible for three-quarters of the police’s counter-terror workload and 94 per cent of all terror-related deaths in the past 25 years), yet the plan frowns on “prejudicial stereotyping”. A society would have to be hellbent on national suicide to ignore the clear profile of offenders. Should we round up a few Buddhists or a Morris dancing troupe for the sake of diversity and equity?

Are we expected to discourage prejudice towards the extremists who hate us? We know how that worked out in the decades when gangs of mainly Pakistani-origin men were trafficking thousands of vulnerable white girls with impunity because the authorities were too politically correct to intervene. Could this new guidance even be part of a cynical plan to limit the scope of “anti-Muslim hostility” in the rape-gangs inquiry when it finally gets off the ground?

Put nothing past them. “Prejudicial stereotyping” could include perfectly legitimate discussion about burkas and niqabs. Where does that leave my friend who lives in south London on the same street as an Islamic school? She has expressed growing concern that younger and younger girls are adopting the full black garb, far before an age when they might be expected to hide their faces and bodies. She strongly suspects the school is under fundamentalist influence which doesn’t want Muslim girls to integrate into the country in which they were born.

Forty years ago, my friend left her Muslim country because she wasn’t free to pursue the professional career in which she has achieved stellar success in the UK. Like many secular or moderate Muslims, Aisha is horrified that the misogynist, segregationist practices she fled have been allowed to take root here. “The British are so naïve,” she says, shaking her head sorrowfully. “They don’t understand how ruthless these people are or how much they hate freedom and the West.”

Aisha echoes the concerns eloquently expressed in The Telegraph over the weekend by anti-extremist and Tell Mama founder Fiyaz Mughal: “What we have [now] are groups like the Greens and Labour who are basically pandering to the worst parts of the ideological section of my community and entrenching them deeper into state institutions.” Yes, and they are doing it for their own electoral advantage.

I guess it is no surprise that following their embarrassing third place in Gorton and Denton – formerly a safe Labour seat with a strong Muslim vote – the Government is panicking and has rushed out this de facto blasphemy law to prevent criticism of Islam in time for the May local elections, where Keir Starmer faces an extinction-level event. At a recent Ramadan dinner for Muslims in Westminster, after being pawed and stroked creepily by the Palestinian ambassador, the Prime Minister reassured the assembled gathering that our country had not supported our allies’ attack on Iran before declaring, “You are the face of modern Britain.”

What a treacherous toad he is. In response, thousands of people – including military veterans – have posted pictures of themselves on social media saying, “I am the face of modern Britain.” You see, the British are sick of two-tier Keir and Labour and their craven appeasement of forces which, if treated differently to other religions, will end up tearing our country apart. I hope that Kemi Badenoch, who gave a blistering speech on integration last week, and Nigel Farage, or whoever forms a government in 2029, will withdraw the guidance for “anti-Muslim hostility” immediately.

Whatever the new social cohesion strategy may dictate, however chilling the effect on free speech and even if it means risking another visit from the police (sigh), I will go on protesting against the burka – banned in France, Denmark and other liberal democracies – because I believe it is a hateful, misogynistic imposition on my sex and a barrier to girls and women integrating into British society.

Nor will I stop mocking the Green fruitcakes and silly moos covering their hair to ingratiate themselves with patriarchal men who will devour them when they have outlived their usefulness, and devour us all if we let them. Protecting What Matters is all that matters, and we can’t trust Labour to do that because they will defend any culture except our own.

[ Via: https://archive.today/5mx3M ]

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Konstantin Kisin: Diversity is not a strength.

Chris Williamson: Why?

Kisin: Because I– remember this great scene from Game of Thrones. Have you seen Game of Thrones? Do you remember when Cersei and King Robert, they're discussing the potential Dothraki invasion?

Williamson: Mhm.

Kisin: And she goes, "Yeah, but we've got five times as many. We've got five kingdoms. They've got just the one." And he goes, "What's a bigger number, five or one?" And she goes, "Five." And he goes, "Five." One. Right.

Unity is a strength when you're attempting to do things. Common purpose, common values, a sense of shared identities. These are things that allow you to overcome difficulties. One of the reasons the concern about immigration is as high as it is is not just the levels of immigration. It's also the fact that Britain has become poorer.

Our GDP per capita is lower today than it was in 2008. In other words, people's living standards are being eroded for reasons we can get into.

So addressing that requires quite a lot of difficult challenges. We've got, you know, a bloated welfare sector. So you're going to have to deal with the fact that far too many people are not working and being paid not to work. You're going to have to deal with the national debt which is way too high, the deficit.

You've got like big, big challenges, right? And those challenges are quite easy to overcome comparatively speaking when we all feel like we are ultimately at the end of the day this is our country and we're going to sort it out.

But if we have become multicultural in that everyone really only cares, you know, we keep hearing from politicians we need to look at the concerns of the British XYZ community. You know, British Jewish community, British Muslim community, British Pakistani community, British– all of this stuff right, then we're no longer British people trying to sort the same thing out. We're people who are looking out for our own community. Our own community is Britain. That's what we should be looking out for.

So diversity can be a strength in one sense, which is when you bring in people of talent and drive and ambition from around the world and they all buy into the values of that place and then pull together in one direction. That's a strength. Just bringing lots of people from around the world and then not integrating them and not encouraging them to become British. And also bringing people who are probably not easily integratable into our society, that's not a strength that's a weakness.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

The Multiculturalism Paradox

How identity-affirming policies fuel the competitive group dynamics that weaken national cohesion.

By: Jowan Mahmod

Published: Nov 28, 2025

For decades, multiculturalism has been treated as the obvious solution to the challenges of immigration and cultural pluralism. Unlike assimilation, which encourages newcomers to integrate into a shared national culture, multiculturalism actively promotes the preservation—and even the strengthening—of distinct cultural and religious identities. At its core is the belief that minority cultures deserve special recognition and accommodation within their adopted countries.

As the Encyclopaedia Britannica puts it, multiculturalism is “the view that cultures, races, and ethnicities, particularly those of minority groups, deserve special acknowledgment of their differences within a dominant political culture.” The model does not merely acknowledge or accept cultural difference; it elevates it into a guiding principle of policy and social practice.

Many Western democracies have embraced this approach to varying degrees, building policies on the central assumption that affirming group identity fosters inclusion and social trust. The Department of Canadian Heritage, which funds and administers multiculturalism programs, expresses this idea succinctly: “Multiculturalism ensures that all citizens can take pride in their ancestry and have a sense of belonging, making them open to and accepting of diverse cultures.” Similarly, the Dutch National Institute of Multicultural Development insists that “The aim is to encourage group identities and mutual acceptance. If people are not prejudiced… they become a multicultural society.”

In short, multiculturalism promotes the celebration of difference on the assumption that strengthening one’s group identity naturally produces greater openness toward, and acceptance of, others. Few ideas have been more widely embraced—and more poorly understood—than this.

While diversity is an unavoidable feature of social reality, multiculturalism as a doctrine has increasingly shown its limits. The reason is simple: it rests almost entirely on ideology and moral aspiration—on how things ought to be—rather than on psychological insight into group behavior or evidence of how things actually unfold. Decades of research show that the stronger people identify with their ethnic, national, or religious group, the more likely they are to view outsiders as rivals or potential threats. Reinforced group identities tend to increase, not reduce, prejudice.

We readily recognize the dangers of strong group identity when it fuels far-right movements, yet this insight mysteriously disappears when the very same dynamics emerge within migrant or minority communities. This blind spot reflects the core creed of multiculturalism: noble intentions and moral rhetoric paired with total disregard for real-world outcomes.

How Group Behavior Works

More than fifty years ago, psychologist Henri Tajfel conducted a series of now-classic experiments revealing just how effortlessly group bias forms. He divided schoolboys into groups based on trivial differences—preferences for one abstract painting over another, or even something as meaningless as a coin toss. The boys had no interaction, no shared history, and no reason to compete. Yet they immediately began favoring their own group. When asked to distribute money, they consistently allocated more to their in-group and were even willing to accept less for themselves if doing so ensured the out-group received even less. In other words, people will willingly incur personal costs to disadvantage the out-group. Later studies have shown in-group favoritism not only in resource allocation but also in cooperation, trust, and group-loyalty measures, indicating that bias extends far beyond material decisions.

These experiments revealed something profound: mere group membership is enough to trigger bias and discrimination. Tajfel’s work became the foundation of Social Identity Theory, which shows that people attach their self-image and social status to the groups they belong to. To elevate their standing, they glorify their own group and denigrate outsiders. The emotional attachment runs deep; loyalty to the group becomes a proxy for self-esteem and pride.

Group membership does provide a crucial sense of belonging, but must that belonging rest solely on ethnic or national identity, ignoring other possible bases for connection such as shared values, ideology, or personal experience? I’ll return to that question in a future essay. What matters for now is something more fundamental: when group identity becomes the dominant frame, individuals cease to be seen as individuals and become representatives of their group. This is a form of deindividuation—seeing people primarily as group members rather than unique individuals. It is not the same as dehumanization, but it’s a step in that direction.

If people will discriminate over something as trivial as a coin toss, it should come as no surprise that identities rooted in centuries of culture, religion, ethnicity, or nationality exert far greater influence on how they perceive and treat others. And when one community asserts its identity forcefully, others typically double down on theirs. Where there is a rival “them,” the “us” only grows stronger. This reflex is not unique to any group; it is a universal element of human nature.

Asking for Unity While Rewarding Separation

Group identification is not a trivial or benign matter; it shapes whose interests people are willing to defend, even when there is no personal benefit, and even at their own expense. The stronger someone identifies with their group, the more they prioritize its interests and view outsiders as competitors or threats. Of course, not every us-and-them distinction leads to prejudice or hostility. Some differences remain benign: students and professors may consider themselves distinct groups, but few feel existential attachment to those roles in the way they do to identities rooted in culture, ethnicity, or heritage. Identity becomes volatile when it is tied to moral worth, perceived threat, or competition—a pattern seen repeatedly in conflicts involving ethnicity, religion, nationhood, and increasingly, political ideology.

These forces play out everywhere, from war zones to Western democracies, only in different guises. In places like Iraq or Rwanda, diversity and group divisions are openly acknowledged as sources of tension and conflict. When similar patterns appear in France, the UK, Sweden, Germany, or the United States, the response is often wrapped in moral appeals while ignoring the underlying psychology. Yet in both contexts the mental machinery is identical: loyalty to one’s group above all else, regardless of conduct, fueling in-group favoritism and status competition.

To be clear, social tensions are amplified by many other factors, including segregation, media narratives, discrimination, and lack of economic opportunity. Western democracies have compounded the problem by allowing isolated migrant communities to form without a shared social contract for integration, in some cases giving rise parallel societies. France provides a clear example. These issues deserve attention, but what remains largely overlooked is the group psychology that sustains divisions and reveals the core paradox of the multicultural model: it seeks unity by reinforcing the very group boundaries that divide people.

Multiculturalism has twisted itself into a contradiction: encouraging the preservation of distinct cultural identities while expecting their seamless integration into a shared national identity. It simultaneously demands both separation and unity. Explaining the challenges of multiculturalism solely through the lens of racism is no longer adequate. If group identification reliably fosters prejudice, then the problem isn’t one-sided.

The Way Forward

Despite decades of research in social psychology, these insights rarely make their way into debates on multiculturalism. Ideology continues to trump evidence. As tensions rise, the reflexive response has been to demand “more tolerance and more inclusion,” as though deep-seated social instincts can be undone by slogans. Yet forced assimilation is not the answer either; it often provokes backlash, prompting people to cling to their group identities even more tightly. If we want to reduce bias and build social cohesion, we must rethink how we understand identity and belonging.

While we do not choose the groups we are born into, we can choose how much they define us. A sense of belonging matters, but it need not come at the expense of a liberal commitment to individuality. The real problem begins when people anchor their self-worth primarily in group identity. To counter prejudice and tribalism, we must do almost the opposite of what multiculturalism prescribes. Instead of encouraging people to intensify their group bonds, we should create conditions that loosen those ties and strengthen personal identity over collective labels.

When people derive meaning and pride from their own accomplishments, the urge to root self-esteem in group identity weakens, along with the in-group favoritism that results from it. Prejudice does not fade through moral appeals; it weakens when we learn to see others as individuals with distinct personalities and perspectives. Societies that emphasize individualism tend to be more open to diversity because they allow people to form their own values and purpose, rather than passively inheriting them from group belonging. Data from the World Values Survey show that tolerance for difference—including LGBTQ rights, gender equality, free speech, and other liberal attitudes—is highest in societies that value individualism, and lowest in collectivist cultures where conformity and group loyalty dominate. This is, not least, one of the main reasons migrants are drawn to Western democracies: for their liberal freedoms and broad tolerance.

Achieving a shift away from groupthink and from viewing the world primarily through group identity requires a broader change in mindset, one with cultural and institutional implications. It means promoting shared civic values over ethnic or religious ones in public life, encouraging schools to teach autonomy rather than identity-based grievance, and challenging media narratives that flatten people into avatars of their group. It means asking Who are you as a person? not merely What group do you belong to? It means teaching how identity itself works—what activates different aspects of it, and why—rather than simply cataloguing the identities people happen to hold. Above all, it means helping individuals understand that a person’s story is never identical to that of their group, and that their needs and desires are distinct from it.

The very notion of collective identity presupposes homogeneity and sameness, erasing the vast differences that exist between individuals within any group—a far cry from reality. A Middle Eastern man may have 40 years of experience as a Middle Eastern man, but none of the lived experience of a Middle Eastern woman. Likewise, the life of a gay man or a person with a disability can differ profoundly from that of a woman of the same background. By centring identity around groups, multiculturalism obscures these differences and downplays the divergent realities that exist within those very groups.

Ultimately, tolerance does not grow out of abstract ideals. It grows from loosening the grip of collective identity and seeing others not as representatives of a category but as individuals. Societies must ensure that people of all backgrounds can develop a strong sense of personal identity. This is not merely desirable but essential for any nation that hopes to remain both diverse and cohesive. Prejudice is rooted in group belonging and in the basic psychology of us-and-them. When institutions encourage people to define themselves primarily through group identity, they inevitably reinforce the very us-and-them thinking that fuels prejudice and division.

A functioning multicultural society is not one that obsessively manages groups and their identities, but one that enables individuals to move beyond them and form connections based on shared human and civic values. Only then can we approach the kind of multicultural society we claim to aspire to, and that can be achieved only by loosening, not tightening, the hold of group identity.

--

About the Author

Jowan Mahmod, PhD, is a multidisciplinary researcher focused on how digital technologies, identity, and shifting social norms are transforming contemporary societies. Dr. Mahmod’s work challenges dominant narratives by examining the psychological and sociological forces behind polarization, perception, and collective behavior. She is currently writing a second book that shows why polarization makes more sense once the deeper dysfunctions driving it are understood. You can follow her work at wehavebeenfooled.substack.com.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

The Manipulative Meme of Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is a ‘sacred’ yet destructive leftist meme I still find difficult to criticize.

By: Michael Sherlock

Published: Oct 19, 2025

Multiculturalism is a ‘sacred’ yet destructive leftist meme I still find difficult to criticize. The difficulty isn’t intellectual, but emotional. I am an apostate from the left. Not just the left, but the hard, communist Left. I am a third-generation ex-communist raised by a card-carrying member of the Australian Communist Party. Like most children of religious parents, I was raised with our scriptures, beliefs, songs, holidays, sacred practices, but most significantly, I was raised with the leftist ideology, the seeds of which burrowed their way into my unformed mind and grew like an oak tree until I laboured to chop it down and design my own original internal landscape.

“Give me the child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.” ~ Aristotle

Overcoming my childhood indoctrination has required me to take the path of most resistance and critically evaluate the claims which formed the emotional foundations of my very identity and my biased and distorted thought processes - not that we can ever truly rid ourselves of bias as a fact of the human condition, but my attempt to do so is where the pain and emotional suffering of cognitive dissonance attempted to coerce me back into the warm embrace of my indoctrinated delusions and pre-existing beliefs. This is the psychological suffering that imprisons many of us within the bounds of existing and even self-destructive belief structures. Most of us would rather ignore information and evidence that contradicts our existing beliefs because the mechanics of belief are so psychologically persuasive and coercive. Add to these internal pressures the immense and strict social pressures on the left and a person can end up spending their whole life lost in error. Fear. It is fear that prevents us from change and true individuation (psychological emancipation as authentic individuals).

“Where your fear is, there is your task.” ~ Carl Jung

This psychological phenomenon was documented by social psychologist Leon Festinger, the creator of the theory of cognitive dissonance. Festinger studied a UFO cult in the US whose end-times prophecy had failed and he arrived at the following conclusion:

‘A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defences with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view’.

Once the intoxication of my own ego and the paralysis of social and psychological fears of blasphemy and heresy against the left subsided, I was able to rationally and intellectually see the deception woven into the manipulative meme of multiculturalism. I could see the motte-and-bailey fallacy that acts as its marketing pitch distracting us from its duplicitous and divisive cultural and political infections. I could finally read the available data on the degradation of societies who have sanctified this meme to their own inevitable and suicidally empathetic decline. I was now able to discern the inherent chaos within a doctrine that erases the overarching cohesive mechanism of society only to replace it with a sectarian social structure governed by an authoritarian state, in which divided and separated segments of the society are all encouraged to run full speed in different directions, or at each other, thereby tearing apart the very fabric of society. I could finally logically assess the false claim that all cultures are equal and deserve equal respect, which is probably the most dangerous and immoral aspect of multiculturalism.

The Multicultural Motte-and-Bailey Fallacy

The motte-and-bailey fallacy is an informal fallacy coined by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. He describes it in the following words:

A Motte and Bailey castle is a medieval system of defence in which a stone tower on a mound (the Motte) is surrounded by an area of land (the Bailey) which in turn is encompassed by some sort of a barrier such as a ditch. Being dark and dank, the Motte is not a habitation of choice. The only reason for its existence is the desirability of the Bailey, which the combination of the Motte and ditch makes relatively easy to retain despite attack by marauders. When only lightly pressed, the ditch makes small numbers of attackers easy to defeat as they struggle across it: when heavily pressed the ditch is not defensible and so neither is the Bailey. Rather one retreats to the insalubrious but defensible, perhaps impregnable, Motte. Eventually the marauders give up, when one is well placed to reoccupy desirable land.

[The Bailey] represents a philosophical doctrine or position with similar properties: desirable to its proponent but only lightly defensible. The Motte is the defensible but undesired position to which one retreats when hard pressed.

Philosopher Peter Boghossian describes the motte-and-bailey with respect to Woke words:

How is this informal fallacy employed by its proponents to gaslight and deceive both adherents and critics? Multiculturalism is sold as merely tolerance, understanding, and social cohesion through mutual respect. It is sold as something that good people promote and bad people criticize. These aspects and other marketing traits of multiculturalism act as its motte. Of course we want to live in harmoneous societies where different cultures share their positive qualities with one another. Of course we want every human being to be respected as an individual regardless of race and ethnicity. These things are very easy to defend. The bailey, however, is far more sinister and difficult to defend. The bailey is a two-tiered justice system that aggressively censors criticism of multiculturalism, demoralises and delegitimizes the majority population, infantilizes minorities and infects them with a false victimhood complex, enforces social cohesion upon pain of imprisonment and promotes immoral and barbaric minority cultural practices as being equally deserving of respect.

Multiculturalism and Islamism

It is multiculturalism’s cultural and moral relativism that causes western feminists to champion oppressively patriarchal Islamic practices in the name of feminism. It is this aspect of multiculturalism that causes the police to turn a blind eye and even assist in the mass gang rapes of 10s of thousands of British girls raped by Muslim Pakistani rape gangs. It is this aspect of the meme that causes the establishment and the mainstream media to cover up and hide serious crimes committed by minority groups and members for fear of offending this religiously venerated meme of multiculturalism, specifically, the coerced ‘social cohesion’ element of this meme. Even saying the word “Muslim” correctly and factually in this context causes me some degree of cognitive dissonance. If we are going to take the risk of criticising Islam and Muslims, we are supposed to only call them “Islamists” to avoid stigmatizing an entire and “equally valid” religious demographic, but we don’t need to apply this same caution to protect Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or any other religious group when members of these other faiths misbehave. This is because Muslims have found the gate within the meme of multiculturalism and crafted their access key of “Islamophobia” to plug into it only to steer “multicultural societies” towards a rigid and conservative right-wing form of Islamic monoculturalism.

Karl Popper’s Paradox of Tolerance

This exploitation of western tolerance by way of the meme of multiculturalism is made possible by what philosopher Karl Popper referred to as the ‘paradox of tolerance.’

“[...] But we should claim the right to suppress them [intolerant ideologies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.”

Put simply, by extending tolerance to the intolerant, we pave the way for the victory of intolerance, because the intolerant exploit the tolerance they are afforded to spread their own intolerance. Without reciprocity, tolerance is nothing less than the cowardly surrender to intolerance.

“Tolerance of intolerance is cowardice.” ~Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Multiculturalism vs Cultural Pluralism

Many leftists smear critics of multiculturalism as racists, bigots, fascists, Nazis, white supremacists, and the like. They say that critics of multiculturalism are typically white people who just want to live in white monocultural societies. This criticism - whilst holding an ever-shrinking kernel of truth because there is a nascent Woke Right fringe element in society that does want this - doesn’t explain the valid criticisms of multiculturalism expounded by non-white critics, or white liberal critics, who see practical dysfunctions with the doctrinal meme yet enjoy living in multi-ethnic societies. The easiest way to illustrate the inherent problems with multiculturalism is to contrast it against cultural pluralism, multiculturalism’s sober companion.

Multiculturalism and cultural pluralism are related concepts but have distinct meanings: Multiculturalism refers to a society where multiple distinct cultures coexist without a dominant culture, celebrating and preserving cultural diversity. Cultural pluralism, on the other hand, acknowledges the existence of a dominant culture while allowing minority cultures to coexist and maintain their unique identities. Multiculturalism emphasizes the recognition and protection of distinct cultural identities, whereas pluralism focuses on the acceptance and cooperation of diverse groups within a shared framework of core values. In summary, multiculturalism promotes a society without a dominant culture, while cultural pluralism allows for a dominant culture alongside minority cultures.

The cohesive mechanism in cultural pluralism remedies the dangerous chaos of multiculturalism whilst maintaining a cohesive brand of cultural diversity that does strengthen societies by drawing from the strengths of various cultural answers to various social problems.

I’ll finish with an analogy that will hopefully illustrate the core problem with multiculturalism and the key distinction between multiculturalism and cultural pluralism. If society is a train and each train car represents a sub-culture within a multi-ethnic society, then multiculturalism installs independent driving mechanisms in every single train car so that each car can independently decide which direction they’d like their individual yet interconnected train car to travel, irrespective of the direction the train is travelling as a whole. It is inevitable that different train cars will decide to travel in different directions, and so the train will, without fail, derail. Cultural pluralism protects the uniqueness of each train car whilst ensuring only the front car has the socially contracted capacity to drive the train in a united, cohesive and coherent direction. In a culturally pluralistic democracy, each individual member of every car is also given access to the train’s schedule and stops and can have their democratic input with respect to the direction of the train, which ensures that society stays on track and moves forward in a united and progressive direction.

If we want western democracies to stay on the tracks and not crash and burn, we are going to have to suffer the social and psychological slings and arrows that inescapably accompany the courageous endeavour of critically examining our own biases and overcome our own brainwashing and tribal indoctrination. We must learn to truly think for ourselves as individuals. There is no easier way so save society from the chaos and destruction created by the manipulative meme of multiculturalism.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

Konstantin Kisin: Now, as to multiculturalism, and I think this is really important that we get the definitions of these words right, particularly here in Australia, because I get a slight sense that you use that word in a different way to us.

Here is what I think we ought to mean when we use these terms. We are living in multithnic societies. That means that we have people from different backgrounds, different ethnicities who may have been born or whose parents may have been born in other places who look different. And those societies, I actually think, have the potential to be stronger than monoethnic societies in some ways. Even in biology is this concept of hybrid vigor. When you have racial mixing, it produces offspring that has the benefits of both sides. So the idea that we need an ethnostate that is entirely monolithic I think is excessive.

Our societies that have a mixture of people can be very successful and very cohesive if we take the best from the different cultures and the different backgrounds people. We have the talented people who've come from all over the world to our societies to contribute.

But the only way that works is that we have monoculturalism. Not multiculturalism where everyone is encouraged to stick to their own and think the way that their parents thought in the country from which they came. It works if there's an overarching identity and we say I may have been born in Russia, you may have been born in Australia. Suella Braverman was born in London but her parents were born in different parts of the world and we all come to Britain and we become British.

It does not mean that we must force people to reject their heritage at the door. But what it does mean is, as my parents said to me, you know, I remember when I came to school in the UK, my parents discovered that there was a clique of Russian speakers that I started hanging out with. And they said to me, well, in that case, we're going to have to move schools. And I, what do you mean? I've just found these friends. And they were like, look, you didn't come here to be a Russian in Britain. You came here to become part of this society.

And multiculturalism has failed because it has failed to recognize the difference between a multithnic society where everyone is encouraged to become one thing and a society where we have no desire for you to integrate. You want to speak a different language, fine. You want to practice a completely different cultural set of values and beliefs about all sorts of different issues that actually matter, fine. You want to have a a different approach to, you know, you you want to start advocating for a different legal system in our society, fine. You want to undermine the very basic values of of the way that we do things, fine. You want to live entirely within a community that looks like you and speaks a different language and and is completely ghettoized, fine.

This doesn't work. It doesn't work. And it creates tensions between ethnic groups. And so this conversation about multiculturalism is going to be become particularly strong in countries like Britain, France. I mean Sweden has gone very far down the route of allowing people simply to come and live in parallel societies.

Multiculturalism has failed because it cannot work. It simply cannot work. And in fact, it's, you know, coming back to our conversation about Russia, this is by no means me saying we should be emulating Russia, but actually this idea of, kind of having an overarching identity probably works better in Russia at this point when you have Muslim populations and populations from other religious backgrounds and ethnic backgrounds who are much more integrated in some ways. They may live in their own parts of the country historically that were theirs, but they they would see themselves as part of the Russian project. In a way that many people in some communities in the west do not.

[michaelogazie]

MULTICULTURALISM HAS FAILED, BELIEVE SUBSTANTIAL MINORITY OF BRITONS | World news | The Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/14/multiculturalism-failed-substantial-minority-britons-integration-rivers-blood-enoch-powell

MULTICULTURALISM HAS FAILED, BELIEVE SUBSTANTIAL MINORITY OF BRITONS | World news | The Guardian

View On WordPress