The ‘Multi-Culti’ Myth

“Multiculturalism is so good!” they tell us and then they point to America as an example of how ‘multi-culturalism’ can work because of the vast ‘mixing pot of cultures’ that can be found in the United States of America. However, I don’t think the US is a successful ‘model’ of multiculturalism at all. I don’t think it’s possible and I’ll tell you why.

True, the United States was founded by immigrants; founded by people who wanted to leave the monarch rule of Britain and create a country based on freedom of the individual, not a dictator based on blood. So they packed their boats and looked for a place to set up. Of course there’s more to the settlement of the US, and we’ll talk about it a little bit later; but it’s important to note the founding colonies had many different cultures in them from English to German with some Polish. A Jewish population grew in New York, and then there were the indigenous natives of many different tribes.

Many of these cultures broke off and populated areas on their own. That’s how you got heavy German influences Pennsylvania, New York, and the Midwest, Polish influences in the North East and the North West. There were many cultures that influenced many parts of the United States and they became homogeneous. Some areas spoke European languages within the city limits, but the Europeans weren’t the only ones branching off.

The Chinese Town of Lock is an unincorporated community located in California. It was built by Chinese immigrants in the early 20th century. It was built by a man named George Locke in a time where Chinese people were not allowed to own land. Here, a majority of the citizens were Chinese, the only influences in the city were Chinese ones, and they followed Chinese traditions and beliefs. In a way, it was it’s own little China Town in the middle of California. So now we have a population of Chinese living in the US, but they are set apart, they are homogeneous. Would you call this successful multiculturalism? I wouldn’t. In the same way I wouldn’t call the Germans who branched off to speak German only as successful multiculturalism. Just as I wouldn’t call Hamtramck Michigan, as it’s majority Muslim and they write Arabic and wish to follow Sharia over the constitution, as successful multiculturalism. Just like I wouldn’t call the Mexicans in California or any other state who wave the Mexican flag and refuse to learn the English language successful multiculturalism.

All these people have something in common: they didn’t assimilated to local cultures and law, but would the left’s obsession with multiculti call this a success? They do. They refer to America as the proof multiculti works because of how many different people live here, but there’s secret to what a successful country would look like.

To have successful multiculturalism, the immigrating cultures have to integrate into the local culture and share their culture as a secondary persona. The primary must be that of the home nation. To push anything else is to attempt to erase or dominate local culture. We see the eradication of local culture every day as American holidays and traditions are discouraged, condemned, or banned while foreign holidays and traditions are encouraged. This might seem like an innocent act, but it is nothing short of cultural murder. We see it happening in America. We see it happening European countries such as Germany, Sweden, Belgium, and the UK. We are told that our culture is wrong and we should be ashamed of it. We are told not to wave our country’s flag, while they wave the flag of another country in our home. In many other countries, this could have you arrested or killed, but here, it’s encouraged. You know what another flag in your country means to most? It means a warring army is trying to invade. If the country’s flag is not in your heart then the country’s interest is not in your heart. Did you know that England didn’t even celebrate local holiday George’s Day last year because it’s history was considered too ‘racist?’ Since when did immigration become about acting like the immigrants rather than the immigrants taking on local customs?

What happened to ‘When in Rome, do as the Romans do?”

What I don’t see happening with mass-immigration to western countries is the incoming people  embracing local customs. They are moving to a new place and bringing their customs, language, and sometimes laws FIRST. In many cases they’re coming from third-world countries and their culture just sucks. Their laws suck and that’s why they left in the first place. So what are they doing trying to bring dirty shoes into a clean house? Take the shoes off! I’m not saying when someone immigrates they have to forget their origin, customs, or where they come from, but they MUST embrace local ideals first. If they liked their countries customs/traditions/laws, then why leave?

Let’s use an analogy:

You’re going to your friend’s house. You both have your beliefs on how your homes should be run and when you’re in neutral space, it’s not really a problem because neither of you has rule of the land, you’re playing by someone else’s rules (like the mall’s rules). However, at your house, you wear shoes in the indoors for one reason or another and you’re very attached to the idea of wearing shoes in the house. At your friend’s house, she requests that guests do not wear shoes inside. So when you go to her house and she asks you to take your shoes off–do you adapt to her home customs or do you fight for your own? By disregarding the home’s rules, you’re disrespecting her hospitality and you’re imposing your rule on a place that isn’t yours. You’re also staking claim that your customs are more important and/or have more authority than hers. You say she has no right to want things done her way in her home because your customs don’t affect her, but when you don’t take off your shoes, you change the very fabric (carpeting) of the house. Because of this, she’s unwilling to budge on her home rules. Your choices are now: remove your shoes or remove yourself from her home.

The same thing happens when ‘multi-culturalism’ is introduced into a small space.

Diversity + Proximity = War.


You cannot have two clearly defined cultures occupying the same space. If someone is celebrating Hanukkah, they’re not celebrating Christmas (at the same time) because the customs are different and one must take precedent over the other in order to fulfill the decorations, customs, rituals, and ceremonies accurately. If one does not become passive, then you know you’re not celebrating the holiday itself.

Multiculturalism is a myth because no two cultures can actively be institute at the same time. Chinese culture cannot be engaged when American culture is because they contradict. Scottish Culture cannot be engaged while German culture is being engaged. Saudi Arabian culture cannot be engaged with Israeli culture is being engaged. One must become passive in order for the other to use the space.

Even cultures with similar traditions or celebrations cannot be considered doing it the same or expressing ‘successfully multicultural’ because the rituals are done in their way. Scots and Irish might both have a background in drinking songs, but you’d be damned to find Scots and Irishmen agreeing that their songs are the same and their celebrations are the same. ‘Successful multiculturalism’ isn’t having a Chinese restaurant between a KFC and a McDonald’s. Successful ‘multiculturalism’ would be going to the origin country and experiencing the cultures there, learning about their customs, and understanding how they’re unique to that place. By forcing customs / cultures together in the same place, you’re not strengthening them, you’re killing the weaker of the two.

Basically this:

If you moved half of China into Mexico, the Chinese ‘immigrants’ wouldn’t become Mexican, Mexico would become China because the weaker culture (in this case via numbers) would die out. I wouldn’t expect Mexico to just ‘accept’ the fate of becoming Chinese just like I don’t expect any invaded country to just roll over and forfeit when they’re under siege.

“When your ancestors immigrated to this country, did they live in harmony with the natives? Or did they systematically erase their cultures?”

This is actually a response I’ve received when I defended the right of local people to defend their countries. So here’s the thing… We have proof that the first American Settlers lived peacefully with the American Indians. Of course there were bad ones in the bunch, on both sides, because there always are, but you know where our tradition of Thanksgiving comes from? It comes from the Pilgrims and the Native Americans coming together peacefully:

Turner said what most people do not know about the first Thanksgiving is that the Wampanoag and Pilgrims did not sit down for a big turkey dinner and it was not an event that the Wampanoag knew about or were invited to in advance. In September/October 1621, the Pilgrims had just harvested their first crops, and they had a good yield. They “sent four men on fowling,” which comes from the one paragraph account by Pilgrim Edward Winslow, one of only two historical sources of this famous harvest feast. Winslow also stated, “we exercised our arms.” “Most historians believe what happened was Massasoit got word that there was a tremendous amount of gun fire coming from the Pilgrim village,” Turner said. “So he thought they were being attacked and he was going to bear aid.”

When the Wampanoag showed up, they were invited to join the Pilgrims in their feast, but there was not enough food to feed the chief and his 90 warriors. “He [Massasoit] sends his men out, and they bring back five deer, which they present to the chief of the English town [William Bradford]. So, there is this whole ceremonial gift-giving, as well. When you give it as a gift, it is more than just food,” said Kathleen Wall, a Colonial Foodways Culinarian at Plimoth Plantation.

Today’s left tries to call the Pilgrims/English settlers evil for bringing illness with them, but it’s important to note that the English didn’t know they were immune to illnesses that the Native American population wasn’t immune to. How would they have known with the knowledge and medical technology they had at the time? Without a doubt the illness that swept the Native Americans was devastating, but it wasn’t at all intentional. It was an accident based on lack of knowledge, not ‘systematic removal via chemical warfare.’

And again, I’m not saying everything the English settlers did was good, but don’t go pretending the Native American tribes weren’t fighting each other or attempting to conquer each other either. The United States, at the time, was not a solidly formed country. It was a bunch of unorganized, unconnected alcoves of tribes spread across the land.

But I digress.

The really important statement to pay attention to in that question is, “When your ancestors immigrated to this country, did they live in harmony with the natives?”

Based on that question, these people are now admitting that the immigrants coming to America are not coming to ‘immigrate.’ They are not ‘poor people from bad countries just looking for a better life.’ They are invaders looking to replace the local population and culture with their own, in which case, denying all ‘immigration’ would be completely justified, would it not?

‘Immigrants’ have as much of a right to enter a new country as a robber has to enter your home. No one has the right to move anywhere and eradicate the current population and culture. However, local populations have the right to defend themselves from invaders or domestic threats and if someone argues, “Well, America did shitty things in the past so… it deserves to be overthrown! You can’t tell people no!” then I guess by that logic, next time you’re attacked you better not defend yourself because if you’re being assaulted, you did something to deserve it.

Telling a culture/population they deserve to die because of the foundation it was built on hundreds of years ago is like demanding the child of a murdered to receive the death penalty for his grandfather’s crimes.

So tell me, are they peaceful immigrants we should feel compassion for? Are they wondering souls and families who just want better opportunities for their families or are they invaders justly sieging ‘racist’ countries? Can you condemn Germany, Sweden, and other western countries for the way America was founded? Because if you believe America or any other country ‘deserves’ to be replaced by immigrants, they’re just ‘doing what is right,’ then you have just single-handedly justified ceasing all immigration by telling us they’re invaders.

So not only is ‘multiculturalism’ a lie, but it’s actually more dangerous and more decisive to helping us understand and appreciate one another. It creates an ‘us’ vs ‘them’. It demonizes the native population while uplifting foreign ones. It weakens, if not completely destroys, the possibility of learning new cultures and customs because a house cannot be run by two different sets of rules.


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

%d bloggers like this:
search previous next tag category expand menu location phone mail time cart zoom edit close