The Demise Of Multiculturalism

     Even five years ago, I would not have predicted this.

     Voices are rising throughout the First World for an end to the promotion of cultures alien to that of the Christian Enlightenment. The engine powering this surge was ignited by the distaste ethnic Europeans have for the arrogance and aggression of Muslim immigrants. Their governments imposed Third World immigrants upon them by mouthing pieties about “low birth rates” and “the economy.” Europeans soon discovered that those millions of Muslims would have effects far more significant than an increment to the GDP.

     Much the same has happened in Australia, Japan, and America, though the effects of those immigrants have been slower to become visible, and the official defense of them leans more on “diversity.”

     Law enforcement, particularly in the United Kingdom, has deferred to Muslims and Islam. Clashes between Muslims and other Britons have almost always been “settled” in favor of the Muslims. London is now under de facto control of its Muslim residents. The same appears to be developing in Paris and New York. The three capitals of the West are becoming alien to it.

     But wait: there’s more! As I’ve written before, success breeds emulation. As Muslims have imposed themselves ever more on the rest of us, racial and ethnic minorities have noted it and have copied their aggressiveness. A reaction to the swell of violence and predation was predictable, though I did not expect it to be so large.

     The boil might be near to bursting.

* * *

     Questions abound. What is ethically justifiable in dealing with a querulous, disorderly, and often violent minority some of whose members are innocent? Can wholesale measures be rationalized when they’re guaranteed to sweep in the blameless? If so, where do the limits lie?

     The late Jack Vance dealt with the question several times. He, who apparently disavowed any particular ideology or moral theory, seemed fascinated by the subject. Here’s one of his emissions on it:

     Xanten made an airy gesture. “A. G. Philidor, you over-simplify grievously. Do you consider me obtuse? There are many kinds of history. They interact. You emphasize morality. But the ultimate basis of morality is survival. What promotes survival is good; what induces mortefaction is bad.”
     “Well spoken!” declared Philidor. “But let me propound a parable. May a nation of a million beings destroy a creature who otherwise will infect all with a fatal disease? Yes, you will say. Once more: Ten starving beasts hunt you, that they may eat. Will you kill them to save your life? Yes, you will say again, though here you destroy more than you create. Once more: a man inhabits a hut in a lonely valley. A hundred spaceships descend from the sky, and attempt to destroy him. May he destroy those ships in self-defense, even though he is one and they are a hundred thousand? Perhaps you say yes. What, then, if a whole world, a whole race of beings, pits itself against this single man? May he kill all? What if the attackers are as human as himself? What if he were the creature of the first instance, who otherwise will infect a world with disease? You see, there is no area where a simple touchstone avails.”

     [From The Last Castle.]

     You might imagine that he would dissent from an essentially collectivist program to deal with a difficult minority. But perhaps not:

     "Why did you decide to kill these four young people?"
     "Why does the sun shine? Why does the wind blow? I admit nothing. On the Lutwen Islands live a hundred thousand folk. At Stroma are a few hundred; at Araminta a few hundred more. If every Lutwenese still on Deucas were able to kill four woskers, there would be none left."
     "Quite so. Lucidly and reasonably put." Ysel Laverty smiled grimly. "We had hoped to terminate jobs like yours by attrition. You were trusted and might have remained here as long as you liked. It seems to have been a mistaken policy. Because of your act, every Yip on Deucas will be sent home, or perhaps off-world."

     [From Araminta Station]

     The cleavage question, whose answer determines the range of ethically acceptable measures, is Are we at war? At war, things unthinkable under peacetime conditions suddenly seem reasonable. War makes possible measures such as this one. Peoples allow their governments to do “what must be done” to avert outcomes such as this one.

     And all must live with the consequences.

* * *

     I could go on, but I think my Gentle Readers will have the idea by now. Are First Worlders at war with the alien cultures that have been imported to their shores? That’s the critical decision. Who will make it? As First World governments are complicit in facilitating the Third World’s invasion of the First, we cannot expect their luminaries to admit their errors voluntarily and strive to correct them.

     But national populaces have seldom compelled war upon their States. The opposite is far more frequently the case.

     Should a great number of Britons, Frenchmen, or Germans decide that they cannot and will not abide Muslims any longer, what would follow? Do they have anything close to the means required to expel that many invaders? Were they to embark upon it, would they succeed in imposing new terms upon their States? What would follow geopolitically?

     Americans could do so. We have the means and the numbers. But is it conceivable? What would follow for federal immigration policy and American political alignments?

     This isn’t just “food for thought.” Consider comparative birth rates. Consider Ilhan Omar, Abdul El-Sayed, and Zohran Mamdani. Consider Dearborn and Hamtramck. A time of decision will be upon us all too soon.