Multiculturalism: the Engine of Genocide

Multiculturalism, the naive idea that people of different races and cultures can live effortlessly together and 'enrich' each other with their 'diversity,' sounds like something from the drug-fueled hippy idealism of the 1960s. But the fact is that multiculturalism has been causing chaos and sowing the seeds of hatred, war, and genocide at least since the early 20th century, when the state of Yugoslavia were created.

The word itself was first used in 1957 to describe Switzerland, a white European federal republic composed of 26 cantons, with 4 separate languages and religious affiliation divided between the Catholic Church and several Protestant sects. The term then came into common usage in Canada in the late 1960s, where it was used to refer to relations between French-speaking and English speaking communities.

In both these cases, multiculturalism meant respecting and tolerating the linguistic or minor cultural differences that existed between overwhelmingly White population groups with a high degree of racial, cultural, and religious affinity. From here the idea was hijacked by globalists and the hard left, and was expanded to become a justification to force incompatible groups to live together, and as a tool to undermine traditional ethnic White identity and demographics.

Given enough time – and it has already had several decades to work its poison in the UK – multiculturalism has the potential to create dangerous internal ethnic divisions that could lead to brutal and bloody wars of ethnic cleansing, like those seen in the 1990s in Yugoslavia.

Yugoslavia was created in 1918 when the Croatian, Slovenian, and Bosnian provinces of the Hapsburg Empire, which had been defeated in World War I, were grafted onto the kingdom of Serbia. All these peoples, as Slavs, shared a similar ethnic and cultural background and even spoke varieties of the same language, Serbo-Croat, but ultimately their minor differences and their history of enmity led to the break up of this state, resulting in the worst atrocities committed in Europe since World War II. This tragedy occurred because the Allied powers after World War I failed to give enough weight to the separate identities of the peoples of Yugoslavia and instead encouraged the foundation of this early multicultural experiment.

If we are to learn anything from the horrors of the break-up of Yugoslavia, it is that multiculturalism has the greatest difficulty in overcoming even the smallest group differences. How much harder, then, to overcome the differences of people who come from different continents and completely different racial groups, as is the case in Britain's multicultural experiment!

But it is wrong to see multiculturalism as solely a problem for the White race. In fact, multiculturalism has caused and is causing much greater devastation among the populations of the Third World, and in most of these cases, the perpetrators of the misguided policy of multiculturalism were the decolonizers of the British Empire, who recklessly drew borders on the map with scant regard for historical traditions and ethnic and religious realities.

Consider the former British territory of the Sudan. This vast country, ten times bigger than the UK, has two main population groups – Arabic-speaking Islamic Hamites in the North and Black Nilotic tribes in the south, like the Dinka, who follow Christianity or indigenous tribal beliefs. Because of their cultural, religious and racial divisions these two groups have been continuously involved in bloody civil war. In the first Sudanese Civil War (1955 – 1972) approximately half a million people were killed, while in the second civil war, which started in 1983, when the government in Khartoum tried to impose Islamic Sharia law on the South, and which continues to the present day, it is estimated that almost 2 million civilians have been killed in the South.

If the British government had had the good sense to draw a sensible national boundary between these two groups when independence was granted in the 1950s, much of this bloodshed could have been avoided.

A similar story is told by the case of Nigeria, yet another former British colonial territory. The differences here are smaller than those that divide the people in the Sudan, but they are still considerable, with large competing tribal groups and a similar religious division to the Sudan – Islam in the North and Christianity and indigenous beliefs in the South. Recently communal riots erupted between Nigerian Muslims and Christians, caused by the controversy over publication of cartoons of the 'Prophet' Mohammed in the European press. This resulted in hundreds of deaths and highlighted the tensions between these groups.

It is only through military dictatorship or the threat of military dictatorship that the country has managed to remain united. For most of the period since independence in 1960, the country has been under the jackboot of military control, while the current elected leader, President Olusegun Obasanjo, is an ex-military strong man. The role of the army in keeping the disparate populations of Nigeria united was displayed in the Nigerian Civil War (1967 – 1970) when a government and army dominated by the Northern Islamic Hausa and Yorobu tribes waged a brutal and bloody war against the Christian Igbos who briefly established the breakaway state of Biafra. This horrendous and unnecessary war resulted in an estimated 2,000,000 deaths.

The foundation for this tragedy was laid by the British government's refusal to recognize the importance of race, culture, and religion in this part of the World when it decided to abandon its responsibilities in Africa. This was nothing less than multiculturalism, mixed with the arrogance of Britain's governing elite, even though it wasn't called such at the time. At the very same time that the British government was creating these new, artificial, hotchpotch African states, destined to be consumed by war, tribal conflict, corruption and chaos, a similar disregard for ethnic realities was governing Britain's immigration policies, creating our own present day multicultural problem.

The same governing elite that thought it could import millions of Asians and West Indians into Britain without any serious consequences for our culture and society is the same one that saw the tribal divisions between Zimbabwe's Shona and Ndebele as irrelevant. This didn't stop "President for life" Robert Mugabe massacring tens of thousands of Ndebele in the 1980s, or threatening millions more with starvation because of his equally intense hatred of Zimbabwe's Whites and his seizure of White-owned farms. As in many other cases, much of the conflict between these groups could have been prevented if each group, including the Whites, had been allowed to govern its own area.

Britain's policy of multiculturalism can even be seen in the decolonization of India. Initially, the British government wanted to grant independence to India as one country, despite the intense divisions and mutual antipathy of the county's Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs. It was only after the Muslim League threatened to take direct action and riots broke out in which thousands died that the last British Viceroy, Viscount Lord Louis Mountbatten, announced plans for partition of the British Indian Empire into secular India, and Muslim Pakistan. This announcement came on the 3rd of June, 1947, a few weeks before independence on the 15th of August.

If the decolonizers had realized earlier the common sense of different racial groups having their own secure territories, much trouble could have been avoided. As it was, there was no adequate preparation and provision for the relocation of population, leading to tens of millions of people being rudely displaced and communal riots between Sikhs, Hindus, and Muslims that claimed between 500,000 and 2,000,000 lives. Along with wide-scale rape and murder, one of the most horrendous aspects of these riots was the mass amputation of women's breasts, which proved fatal in most cases.

Subsequent conflicts between India and Pakistan have all stemmed from the ambiguous status of the province of Kashmir, the result of Britain's failure to draw a clear and mutually acceptable border between the two new states of Pakistan and India. All this stemmed from the assumption of Britain's ruling class that racial differences in India were an irrelevance, an assumption that was only overturned at the last moment by the people of the Subcontinent themselves.

Perhaps the most interesting case of misplaced multiculturalism inflicted on the Third World is the case of Iraq. Before its creation in 1932 by the British, Iraq had never existed as a country, having formerly been part of the Ottoman Empire and previous Middle Eastern empires for thousands of years. The fact that Iraq's population was made up of three separate, conflicting groups – Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds – was again disregarded as irrelevant. The result of this decision was that Iraq was, and remains, extremely unstable.

It was this instability and the constant threat of chaos and civil war that helped Saddam Hussein rise to power. Only through someone as dictatorial and brutal as Saddam could these mutually distrustful groups be kept together. If the British had realized this in the 1930s and had created three ethnically cohesive states, then, it's even possible that, with the right encouragement, three flourishing and peaceful democracies could have been created. Instead these three ethnic groups were forced together in an unholy union in which Kurd hated Sunni and Sunni feared Shiite and vice versa, creating the tensions, divisions, and passions that fueled extremism, tyranny, and terror. Only through someone as tough and thuggish as Saddam could this artificial country be kept together.

Saddam's aggressive foreign policy, including his invasions of Iran and Kuwait, which were responsible for over 1,500,000 deaths, was determined by a need to unite his internally disunited country through making external enemies.

Because of the unstable nature of Iraq, we should either have left Saddam in power to maintain the unity of Iraq (after clipping his wings), or, having kicked him out, we should have divided the country into three ethnically cohesive new countries, one each for the Shiites, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. As most of them live in areas where their group is predominant, this would have been comparatively easy to do. By failing to do this neatly and then promptly leaving, we are now witnessing Iraq doing this by itself in a very messy and bloody way, while British and other Western troops remain stuck in the middle.

As communal violence between Sunnis and Shiites escalates, our troops are increasingly sucked into policing towns and streets, looking for an enemy who can hide among the populace, an almost impossible task. By dividing the country into three, this could all be avoided. Instead of our troops being on the ground, we would be able to police the three new states using air power and economic sanctions alone, allowing them to police themselves internally. This would mean Sunnis policing Sunnis, and Shiites policing Shiites. Instead of this we have Shiite death squads massacring Sunnis and Sunnis committing terrorist outrages against Shiite shrines and mosques.

It makes such sense to break Iraq up that one wonders why we don't do it. The answer is very simple. To admit that Iraq has never worked as a country would be the same as admitting that Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Yugoslavia, and any other multiracial country has never worked. In other words, to divide up Iraq in order to save lives would be the same as admitting that multiracial multicultural Britain was ultimately doomed to failure. The Americans have exactly the same problem. Rather than admit this, however, Blair and Bush prefer to add thousands more to the millions who have already been sacrificed at the blood soaked shrine of multiculturalism.

Other Notable Examples of the Failure of Multicultural and Multiracial States

THE CONGO/ ZAIRE – Ethnic divisions in this vast multiracial African country have led to repeated inter-communal violence that is estimated to have led to about 3,500,000 deaths since independence from Belgium. The country remains in a state of chaos and war.

RWANDA & BURUNDI – Instead of creating two states with two different populations when they decolonized the area, the Belgians created two states with mixed populations of Tutsis and Hutu, creating one of the most brutal killing grounds in the World. Since independence about 1,500,000 people have been massacred in inter-communal violence in these two tiny states.

ANGOLA – About 800,000 died between 1975 and 1995 in a three-way ethnic civil war between the Marxist MPLA, with its base among the Kimbundu people and the mixed-race intelligentsia of Luanda, the FNLA, with an ethnic base in the Bakongo region of the north, and UNITA with an ethnic and regional base in the Ovimbundu heartland in the country's center.

MOZAMBIQUE – About 1,000,000 died in civil war fueled by ethnic divisions between upcountry border tribes like the Shangana who supported the RENAMO group and coastal tribes who supported the Marxist FRELIMO government between 1975 and 1992.

THE LEBANON – It is estimated that 150,000 lives have been lost in this small Middle Eastern nation, divided between Druze hill tribes, Christian Maronites, and Muslim Arabs, in a bloody civil war that raged between 1975 and 1991. The country remains divided into ethnic enclaves.

IVORY COAST – After being regularly touted as an African success story, in 2002 the Ivory Coast fell apart. Its relative economic success had drawn in large numbers of Muslim migrant workers, upsetting the delicate ethnic and religious balance between its different tribal and religious groups. The country is now divided into two mutually hostile camps of Northern tribes and Southern tribes that are only prevented from committing genocide against each other by the presence of French and UN peacekeeping forces.

CYPRUS – Following independence from Britain in 1960, relations between the 60% Greek population and the 40% Turkish population rapidly deteriorated leading to fighting that killed hundreds. Widespread looting of Turkish Cypriot villages led to twenty thousand refugees, relying on food and medical supplies from Turkey to survive. This all ended when Turkey invaded the North of the island in 1974 and set up a Turkish enclave. Since then diplomatic efforts by the USA and the EU have centred on returning the state to its former unstable multiethnic condition.

MOLDOVA – Following the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, Moldova emerged as a new multiracial state, comprising 76% Moldovans, 8% Ukrainians, 6% Russians, and some other groups. Fearful of domination by the Moldovans, the Russians and Ukrainians in the East of the country asserted their independence in a brief war in 1992 that has led to an unresolved standoff between the different communities, which in turn has seen the country's economy decline, leading to gangsterism and an increase in sexual trafficking.

Colin Liddell
Identity Magazine
May 2006

Share on Google Plus

About C.B.Liddell

This is a short description in the author block about the author. You edit it by entering text in the "Biographical Info" field in the user admin panel.


Post a Comment