Defend Europa
Culture Ideology Islam Migrants Nationalist Movements Opinion




Theresa May said at the 2016 Tory Party conference that, ‘a citizen of the world is a citizen of nowhere’, the fact that the logical extension of this concludes that ‘multi-culture is no culture’ however, continues to allude her. Multiculturalism and criticism of its merits and alternatives, continues as the defining issue of our time.

However there was never a mandate from the people demanding multiculturalism, despite artificial attempts to broadcast its virtues. Its definition extends to permit even those cultures that directly contradict domestic values. It is because of these reasons, that it is currently unstable and eventually unsustainable.

Whoever dares question its undisputed sanctity,  as Boris did last year with comments regarding the resemblance of the Burka to the letterbox, is predictably portrayed as a malevolent chauvinist and unilaterally condemned by the Media.

The fact that such a minor joke got blown so far out of all proportion however highlighted the discrepancy between what people actually think and what the media tell them they should think about multiculturalism.
This change in discourse, a measured shift of the ‘Overton window’ into a beam of light, was most illuminating.

It got the nation talking and having a discourse that the liberal elites did not want. Questioning the assertions of the necessity of this multiculturalism structure.  

Politics is downcast from culture, and they don’t like what people have to say.

Steve Bannon

Should our freedom of speech, or our right to free expression to make a joke or draw a cartoon be threatened because some intolerant groups practice violence in their cause? Would Boris be made to apologise if he made facetious comments about a Scotsman in a kilt?

Do we want multiculturalism at all costs? Do we want more or less of it?     Do we consider the Burka a patriarchal foreign custom which inhibits non-verbal communication or a sacred and inseparable part of our culture?

If allowing the Burka encourages segregation, is it a bigger price to curb this freedom or abandon the aspiration of living amongst a monoculture and all the benefits that brings, instead of living in a hostile environment of competition, united only by an economic system indifferent to its people.
If there were a referendum on its banning tomorrow, I would not be surprised to see public opinion in favour, with the argument we should always be as liberal as possible to everyone, recognised as unachievable. There is something ironic about watching a muslim woman complain on our sympathetic media channels about how they feel alienated from Western culture while wearing a full face veil.



Where a disparity exists between the prosperity and practices of various cultures operating within one single host, and to the extent a concept of the objective good exists, we always lower our standards to accommodate the capabilities of other cultures, in practice, under a commitment to the absurd Left-wing notion of cultural relativism.

There is no such thing as ‘man’, everyone is dealt an identity and given a name which is connected to a geographical area. There are Frenchmen, Ghanaians, Israeli’s but no generic man. As such, there is no such thing as an immigrant, there are individual immigrants, from particular places.

By definition members of groups share some similar characteristics which classify them together. The Human condition’s ability to utilise deductive reasoning has helped drive our evolution. Through the considered employment of Prejudice (from Latin prae ‘in advance’, judicium ‘judgement’) we can make accurate assumptions about various demographics and predictions about wether individuals from these are more likely to exhibit particular behaviours.

When considering immigration policy,  should we not consider where the people are from, so judgments can be made about what cultural change might occur? Should we not consider their religion or its regard for apostasy, their socio-economic status, wether they’ve endured conflict and have phycological issues, their cultural standards, values, education, health and intellect? In order to establish how likely peaceful assimilation is, that is mutually beneficial.

Can we permit tolerance to the extent we allow even those hostile cultures with contradictory values, and expect harmony and prosperity?
The paradox of tolerance, as Popper points out; is that you must not be tolerant of intolerance.

We need to weigh up the cost of having Islamic immigration against the benefit of it, then be just about our interpretations…not socially just.
Because the result of not profiling in this way is to wait until the terrorism or Grooming Gangs happen because that’s all you can do. Prevention is surely a better policy.

When Trump proposed his ban on Islamic Immigration there was a media frenzy and he was condoned as racist. But is it not true to conclude that the Islamic community has failed across a variety of criteria to assimilate as well as say, the Irish community?

5% of the UK population is Pakistani Muslim, 85% of child grooming gangs are Pakistani Muslim. This makes Pakistani Muslims 40x more likely to be in grooming gangs than the rest of population. is it not significant to consider this when considering immigration from Pakistan?

Then, Trump’s son tweeted the meme that compared Islamic immigration to skittles, with the tagline “If I told you just one of a large bags was poisonous, would you take any?” A simple analogy that demonstrates that it is worth considering the merits of something against the detriments of its extremes. He was condemned for it, it didn’t matter that the analogy was correct because it was politically incorrect.

Is a blanket ban on Islamic immigration not a sensible and justified precaution to definitively avoid any hostile incidents, like you would choose to decline any skittles?  Any counter argument is based on subjective morals, not intellectual reason. Giving them a chance, amounts to giving them a chance to hurt us. Given that one life lost, in our nation to someone foreign, is one too many. Yet that number is increasing with the entering demographic wave.

Look at the intellectual dishonesty of this Left wing article about the Skittles analogy, they perform academic gymnastics in order to twist the truth to their preconceptions.

Poland has had no Islamic terrorist attacks because it has no Muslim demographic, in the same way there is very little Islamic terrorism in the North Pole. Poland does not suffer from Multiculturalism.

By getting rid of Pakistani Muslim men we would get rid of approximately 85% of grooming gangs.

But if terrorists and child grooming gangs are poisonous skittles in the analogy, what is it about Islamic immigration that is so sweet we can forgive the victims of all the terrorists and grooming gangs? Suicidal terrorism and grooming gangs are as culturally ingrained as anything else and are therefore a manifestation of the characteristics of multiculturalism. How many Kabab shops are equal to one life?

As liberals shout ‘bridges not walls’, we now have walls on our bridges and bulletproof glass around our attractions. Did anyone ever ask if this was really the strength they wanted when they mindlessly regurgitated that ‘diversity is strength’, that the type of strength that it is, is payed for by taxpayers and is manifest by policemen marching around with guns and bulletproof vests. Because that’s the kind of strength diversity gives them.

Because of this insistence on diversity we are so quick to submit the freedoms it took our ancestors so long to achieve. As once stated by Benjamin Franklin those who trade their liberty for security will quickly find out they end up with neither.

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see the River Tiber foaming with much blood

Enoch Powell on Multiculturalism



The difference between individuals of one race, another race and a different species, is a difference in degree not kind. It is quantitative not qualitative. Although we are all one family, on the tree of life,  we are more closely related to some members of our species than others. And just as it is moral to prefer your own child over another, so too is it to prefer your race over another, after all, your race is a literal extension of your family.

If North and South Korea unified under a single ideology would they not assimilate successfully in a decade at most?  Why has this still not happened in America over centuries? Culture is established by race, which is why these two peoples who are the same could quickly re-establish common cultural norms, and why under Multiculturalism with diverse peoples, this is impossible.

Unless you prefer other races, and are therefore yourself racist, the average guy next door won’t be better because he is another race, so where is it sensible to draw the line regarding each demographic? How far should multiculturalism be extended to its conclusions?

Why is it people come to the West in one net direction? Are they not seeking a more desirable culture? If so, what makes our culture so desirable in the first place? Won’t immigration from relatively inferior cultures import unwanted aspects of the culture they have cause to escape? Why don’t white people, why don’t they want to, and why have they not, gone to the Middle East or Asia and established Churches everywhere. Why would there people not permit what our people have? Is it not because our people have developed a culture with a unique profile for tolerance and is culture not a manifestation of race?

When we need brave action the most,   we realise what a bunch of cowards our politicians are    

Douglas Murray on Multiculturalism

The establishment have now exhausted all they are capable of. They have no answers for how to actually deal with these problems but to suggest superficial measures like banning a type of music or to stop selling acid, knives … or trucks. Because some people cannot be trusted we must all be punished and only through authoritarianism can this be maintained. They have nothing to say and proudly say literally nothing about how to prevent the next attack. Political correctness obstructs the courses of action that will actually prevent these incidents.

For example In 2015 the Muslim mayor of London Sadiqi Kahn banned the practise of stop and search under the pretense that it was racist. The stop and search policy before was to profile kids who looked and behaved like stereotypical ‘rude-boys’ and ‘gangsters’, who are disproportionately ethnic minorities, because statistically they are more likely than say, an old lady, to be carrying weapons and drugs or be involved in illicit activities.

The problem is not that too many innocent black children are being inconvenienced by stop and search, it is that too many black children are not innocent and they are inconveniencing the police due to the reputation they have made, for themselves. We can talk about why this is and go into detail about how it has to do with correlation towards the lower socio-economic groups, but I won’t do that in this article.

Unsurprisingly as a result, knife crime in London has reached unprecedented levels. Abandoning this policy is symptomatic of our insistence on treating the symptoms while ignoring the underlying causes.    Just as society would rather give someone a pill than address why it is they are ill or have mental health issues.

Intuitively everyone can recognise dangerous individuals because of the way they carry themselves, and people will often cross the street to avoid any confrontation with an aggressive looking tramp or a gang
of gypsies for example. Political Correctness has created a culture where stabbings that could have been prevented occur because it seeks to deny on the State level, what’s so obvious on the street level. As a result Law enforcement goes out of its way to make its job harder, dare they risk being considered racist by powerful social justice groups. Pretending old ladies have to be considered just as likely criminals, is a symptom of this pathological, cultural, mental illness.

Why is it so bad to stereotype ‘rude boys’ when they deliberately do it themselves, they are intentionally demonstrating their personality, aspirations and how they want to be perceived so you know how to
perceive them. If someone looks dangerous that are signalling to you that they could be. Why not simply take them for their word?

A fiction…

Credibility, is rooted in wether we can identify with a communicator. The more you identify with them, the more you can resonate with their perception of the world. Is it not therefore preferable to have a society which aims to be more similar than different, more unified than diverse? As these undemocratic forces drive us to multicultural dystopia, it is our duty to resist. So we can speak one language not several, so we can easily communicate and understand each other’s perspective based on a strong sense of empathy fostered by similarity, and so aspirations to be a good citizen are increased not compromised.

With a diverse populace a diverse range of opinions are inevitable, and with diversity of opinion, hostilities emerge. You simply cannot achieve equality on behalf of everyone, some people’s freedoms inhibit others, and to compromise is the best outcome. For society to prosper it is better to be built on the strong foundations of unity, from which direction can emerge,  than on the weak foundations of compromise where discontentment is inevitable.

The Right defines itself along national foundations, in contrast to the international Leftist movement, it understands laws are best suited to particular peoples, who should be in control of them and accountable to themselves.

A constitution for all men is a constitution for no man.

Ethnic-Nationalism appreciates that gangs are an urban extension of tribalism, that Islamic terrorism is a foreign problem we allowed in and could also dispel from our land. It recognises groups of people are genetically predisposed to blame other groups for their problems, warranted or not. It can be said that as Communism’s denial of greed runs contradictory to human nature…Multiculturalism’s denial of humanities inability to account for personal responsibility also runs contrary to human nature. Multiculturalism is therefore at odds with human nature, just as the mixture of oil and water is at odds with the nature of physics.

People profile people all the time, when selling an old person life insurance, when selling a young man car insurance. We discriminate all the time when we have carrots not pees or put on our favourite socks over a ratty pair.    When we go to our local shop not our local superstore. It’s not evil to do so.

Nothing now is more hated than hate, but has it not like anything else evolved to fulfil a function? Can we really claim to love what we do when we don’t hate what threatens it? Is hate not necessary to manifest sometimes in the world and be a catalyst for change? However, it can only reasonably be hate directed towards the incompetent politicians who have allowed this to occur and the treacherous middle classes who have facilitated it, like the useful idiots to the left we so often are.

Because strength emerges from unity, multiculturalism is a weakness.

Related posts

Young African Man Beats Elderly German Woman


UK: Machete Crime Moves To The Villages

The D

Algerian Beats Young German Woman After Rejection

Defend Europa

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More