The best magazine
But if one group becomes the arbiter of what the others get how, when and where, then the arbiter group is the dominant group. Since white liberals are the omniscient and omnipotent guardians of multiculturalism, they are the ones who have institutionalised white privilege.
Instead of encouraging people to feel welcome but to mix, share and gradually discover what unites disparate human communities rather than what divides them, multiculturalism encouraged people to celebrate their differences, not their similarities.
The end results are the Mexican ghettoes in Texas and California, the Chinese and Indian ghettoes in Vancouver, Toronto, Sydney and Melbourne, and the Pakistani ghettoes in Luton, Bradford and Oldham.
While assimilationist ideas create the very €out of many comes one€ doctrine which gradually developed in Manhattan and the East End of London with Jews, Irish and Italians in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, multiculturalism has created Balkanisation in most major Western cities.
It is has been engendered by the founding fathers of multiculturalism so that anyone who denounces it is labelled a racist, even though the founding fathers and today's guardians of the creed are almost completely racially homogenous (i.e. Caucasian).
The black American activist Malcolm X was uniquely shrewd enough to realise that the white liberals were far more of a threat to black and non-white people than the white conservatives. The latter, Malcolm claimed, were like wolves: they showed their teeth in a snarl, so one knew exactly what one was dealing with.
The foxes on the other hand, had their mouths open and teeth showing just live the wolves, but looked as if they were smiling. The minorities, claimed Malcolm, fled the snarl of the wolf for the open mouth of the fox. Put another way, they fled the snarl of the white conservative for the smile of the white liberal, but still ended up in the jaws of those who posed as their friend.
Today multiculturalism is being used to justify the transformation of the United States into a white minority nation, even though many white Americans see their forefathers as €settlors€ rather than €immigrants€. Whether this view is right or wrong is largely academic: multiculturalism cannot hide the sense of loss which many white Americans are feeling today.
South America has strangely never been subject to the same politically correct microscope as the Anglosphere countries of the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Of course this ignores the fact that many South American countries operate under a system of white minority rule. Brazil, often touted as a multiracial utopia, still favours white folks on television and in politics. Argentina berates the UK as €colonialist€ over the Falklands, even though it is Latin America's whitest country.
It is almost now forgotten that white Latin Americans engaged in the African slave trade and that Brazil brought in Europeans to €whiten€ the country, for fear that it could end up as a black majority country. But let's not get facts in the way in the multicultural age.
Returning to the Anglosphere countries, is it really justifiable for a white liberal elite to decide which nationalities can come into those countries and what political philosophy will underpin this mass movement? Surely New Zealand's Maori, Canada's First Nations, Australia's Aborigines and the U.S.'s Native Americans are the real ones to decide such matters. Has anyone asked the First Nations or Maori about how they feel regarding multiculturalism?
That they haven't been consulted is yet another example of the crass white racism which underpins the multicultural agenda, one designed to keep the white man dominant as the dispenser of the goodies and the all-knowing decider of who gets what, when and how. Speaking to people as equals, even if that means talking frankly with them, is a sign of the utmost respect. Mollycoddling minorities and patronising them with faux admiration and multicultural fawning is artificial, condescending and, in essence, racist. The former is treating someone as an equal. The latter is talking down to them.
One cannot help but think that one of the reasons why the white working class have been abandoned in many Western countries is because they are such an embarrassment to those who share their skin colour but not their income bracket. Culture, for the guardians of multiculturalism, is something that non-white people have. Notice how non-white people and their food is now termed €ethnic€ even though that term means of or relating to any group.
Multiculturalism does a disservice to every group: it cuckolds minorities and through processes such as positive discrimination, locks them into a cycle of dependency on white people; in the New World, it further diminishes the influence of the native peoples for whom those countries should be held in trusteeship, and it is also undermines a white working class who are gagged from defining themselves in cultural terms, lest they embarrass the white liberal elite.
Source: ...