Recently Breitbart released information on a study undertaken by the Cathie Marsh Institute for Social Research at the University of Manchester. This study was the culmination of 18 years of data from more than 10,000 people. The findings? Multiculturalism = depression and isolation. According to the study,
[A]n increase in ‘diversity’ makes existing residents of an area feel unhappier and more socially isolate, while those leaving for more homogenous areas populated by their own ethic group often get happier…. “With immigration at historically high levels across many European countries, research suggesting ethnic diversity negatively impacts social cohesion has engendered alarm”, begins the paper. However, the report found little to dispel such concerns, as it purported to “demonstrate a negative association between community ethnic diversity and indicators of social cohesion (especially attitudes towards neighbours and the community), suggesting diversity causes a decline in social cohesion.
This is hardly the first time such a study has been undertaken. Robert Putnam’s now famous study from 2007 found much the same thing. People also lost trust in society as a whole and even lost trust within their own groups. People became more isolated and autonomous; community values died.
Diversity does not produce ‘bad race relations’ or ethnically-defined group hostility, our findings suggest. Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours, regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.
Multiculturalism leads to something which is perhaps worse that interethnic distrust: distrust within groups and a distrust towards societal institutions in general. Putnam’s research only looked at the short-term. In the long-term, being the liberal that he is, Putnam hoped that multicultural societies would see greater integration and harmony. However, he fails to realise that there is a huge difference between the massive immigration to the US prior to the 1920s and that which has occurred since the 1960s. We are seeing people of incredibly different cultures and ethnic backgrounds being brought together and it is expected that this will all turn out fine. I highly doubt it.
Given the Cathie Marsh study I would say that yes diversity does produce interethnic distrust though that doesn’t necessarily lead to violence. But it certainly can. This is especially true when we see massive influx of people in a short time and especially when said people have a proclivity towards violence. A great example of this is what we are seeing happen now with Muslims in Europe. In the long run the effects of diversity could also lead to violence if enough people grow tired of say rising housing prices or heightened competition for scare number of jobs. I’m not saying that multiculturalism will lead to violent collapse but it doesn’t have a good track record ex: Lebanon, Iraq, former Yugoslavia. Why take that risk? Especially given that multiculturalism and diversity are unnatural and manufactured. We humans are naturally inclined to prefer our own kind. And guess what? There is nothing wrong with that. It is because of the unnatural qualities of multiculturalism that it is has to be enforced. Globalists have to coerce people into accepting it via propaganda and shaming tactics.
Moreover, multiculturalism is relativist which means that all cultures are equal and it is wrong to pass judgement on a particular culture for its practices. Thus multiculturalism leads to the toleration of horrible practices like child marriage and “honour” killing because to oppose them would be an affront to the inherent egalitarianism of the multicultural ideal. An example of this would be how in Canada the government was attacked for calling certain practices “barbaric” in immigration pamphlets. Funnily enough the Putnam study showed that diverse and multicultural societies were less egalitarian.
Multiculturalism comes out of an egalitarian falsehood and the whig view of history as a progressive trajectory. Whiggism has since given way to more extreme variants of liberalism which have since been able to infect the entirety of society. While many laissez-faire types have promoted multiculturalism, mass migration and the like the fact is that the “progressive” left is the real force behind these cults. As Dr. Duschene notes,
The narrative of the Left on globalization runs along the following lines: Globalization is about bringing people into contact, together, whether through the social media, travel, or migration. It is a process that brings us together and “teaches us” to view such “challenges” as global warming, the worldwide spread of diseases, conflicts between nations, global poverty, terrorism, as problems of all humans sharing a “common home”. Power has become “deterritorialized” with the spread of transnational corporations, IGOs and INGOs, and so there is a need for global governance and the breakdown of nationalism. As members of this increasingly transnational world, Europeans must think of their civic responsibility not in terms of their national interests, but in global terms as global citizens, identifying themselves as members of “the international community”. They have a “moral obligation” to respond to violations in the human rights of all the members of the globe, assist those threatened by famines in Africa, tsunamis in Asia, floods and earthquakes.
The left is a huge promoter of multiculturalism because they desperately want to break down traditional culture and community (at least in the West) and impose their values. They are dogmatic like religious fundamentalists. Capitalists are big promoters of globalization and multiculturalism because it enriches them but as Dr. Duschene notes, “the only reason George Soros and Peter Sutherland are knowingly using Leftist ideals is because these ideals do have a hold over the moral conscience of Europeans.” If we lived in a healthy society which didn’t promote multiculturalism than the right wouldn’t kow-tow to it. Instead, because of the social capital associated with it, multiculturalism is supported by the mainstream right. No doubt both they and the left can rationalise their support for multiculturalism because by destroying communities it becomes a hell of a lot easier for the people to be controlled.
Nationalism, ethnic solidarity, etc. are seen as wrong by the left and thanks to cultural marxism they control the universities and are everywhere in the media, business, politics, and even in Vatican City as recently pope Francis said that border walls were “un-Christian.” Then again let us be honest here the targets of internationalist thought are not humanity as a whole but Europeans. Granted there are those who condemn Japan and other non-White countries for having strict immigration laws or not being accepting of multiculturalism but as a general rule all this falsehood and vitriol is targeted at us. The massive influx of foreigners and the manufactured system of multiculturalism has led to so-called ‘White flight.’ In the end Whites can only run for so long. Eventually there will be no where left to go and ‘White flight’ will lead to some sort of resistance. Already in the EU we have seen this occur.
In the end multiculturalism is balkanization and a destruction of traditional communities and values. To hell with it.