The cult of multiculturalism is regarded by its devotees as the pinnacle of Western achievement and the end of European history. After the thesis and antithesis of domination and enslavement, the warring of clans and machine-gunning of millions, the populations of Europe will transcend their inglorious arrogance and be at one with the enlightened nations of the world. The despotic superstructures of Europe shall be subsumed by the unblemished ‘global majority’—the black, brown, and ‘indigenous’ populations of the world—and there shall be no oppression, no hatred, and no poverty.
In short, ‘We multiculturalism and then we die.’
But devotion to diversity and multiculturalism is a luxury belief, championed by those who are able to isolate themselves from the consequences of their own liberal attitudes. It is a theology of sorts, with its saints and its devils. Despite the bloodshed and the bankruptcy, the torture and the tears, its disciples continue to believe that ‘diversity is our strength.’ Their faith endures and has only grown deeper in the face of adversity because of this core conviction: ‘It is better to be dead than racist.’
If one can understand this self-annihilating rationale, one can combat the suicidal empathy that drives Europe’s political class to import the rampaging Third World onto our streets.
Anyone who attempts to explode the lie of multiculturalism’s virtues and expose the rates of violent crime among immigrant communities will be excommunicated from liberal and tolerant society and accused of the original sin of racism. Crime statistics are met with knee-jerk whataboutism: ‘What about Jimmy Savile?’ and ‘White people can commit murder, too, you know?’ These observations are supposed to support the argument that rape, gang rape, people trafficking, and paedophilia are moral offences which cannot be seen as the unique purview of members of any one particular race or religion. This happens to be true at the level of the individual. This truth does not, however, prevent one from being able to identify and describe patterns between populations. Progressives understand it is passable to say, ‘Not all men are violent’ and still maintain that the majority of those in prison for extreme violence are men. Why the difference?
Britain’s Shame
There may be no better recent illustration of the elites turning a blind eye to the dark side of multiculturalism than the ‘grooming gang’ scandal shattering Britain. Thousands of vulnerable, underage white girls have been groomed, abused, exploited, trafficked, and raped by gangs of foreign men in the United Kingdom. These girls often emerge from care home placements, poverty, or unstable families and were targeted specifically for their vulnerability by organised gangs of men who are (almost exclusively) from a Pakistani-Muslim migrant backgrounds.
Photograph: West Yorkshire Police.
It is a modern-day atrocity which spans several decades with reports emerging as early as the 1980s. Official inquiries and whistleblower testimonies routinely cite a fear of being accused of racism as a factor in the inadequate response. Police departments have been worried about naming ethnic groups for fear of “stoking racial tensions” and “rocking the multicultural boat.” Years after these gangs were exposed, the atrocity continues with law enforcement and politicians prioritizing “community cohesion” over justice for victims.
It is also in the name of cultural cohesion that the public was told to shut up when a violent teenager of Rwandan parents murdered three young schoolgirls at a Taylor Swift dance class in the north of England. ‘Do not notice the characteristics of the killer!’ they were told. ‘If you notice, you are far-Right.’ When the public continued to rebel, the political and media establishment told them that the massacre must be attributed to the online accessibility of knives, drugs, and garden-variety misogyny.
Inconvenient truths
Figures from the Crown Prosecution Service reveal that prosecutions for rape in 2006-2007 equated to a 2:1 ratio between white and non- white ethnicities. At the time, the non-white population accounted for 13% of the people living in the UK, suggesting the non-white population was overrepresented in rape cases by a factor of 2.56. In 2022-2023, that ratio was to 1:1—which is to say that the number of prosecutions for rape between white and non-white ethnicities were near equal. At present, Britain’s non-white population is around 19%, and yet this demographic is prosecuted for half of the rape cases.
In 2013, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Command published a study—which remains the most recent one available—finding that 75% of offenders in “sexual offenses against children targeted for their vulnerability by non-related adults” were ‘Asian’ (typically meaning South Asian, e.g., Pakistani, Bangladeshi heritage in UK policing terminology),whilst the Office for National Statistics estimates that 7.5% of the UK’s population were Asian. White offenders for the same crime accounted for only 17% of prosecutions whilst making-up 86% of the population.
Eerily similar sexual violence statistics have emerged across Europe. Anyone serious, therefore, about reducing the total instances of rape in the West as soon as possible would get serious about immigration. To be clear, immigration is a women’s rights issue. If you care about the women and girls in your life, your politics needs to reflect the need to slam the door on the developing world and to promote mass deportation.
The ruling elites are beginning to lose elections over this issue, so why won’t they do as the public demands?
Sacrifice
To answer to this question, one must avoid looking only for political reasons, such as the ‘diversity vote’ and GDP. Instead, one should think of devotion to multiculturalism in theological terms. There are several reasons one might offer up a sacrifice to God, but the following three seem to be most apt: thanksgiving, atonement, and appeasement.
A sacrifice can be a show of deference or gratitude: a people paying thanksgiving to their god for the unearned kindnesses and bounty he has bestowed upon them. In the context of multicultural Britain one interprets this as something like, ‘Thank you for bringing diversity to our bland and beige land. Here is your passport, free phone, free house, and free girl.’ Cheap labour, instant Ubers, and a wide range of exotic takeaways sweeten the deal. If the ‘diversity’ misbehaves, well, those people are the exception to the rule. We will look the other way because ‘diversity is still our strength.’
But the thanks-givers believe multiculturalism has no consequences. As surmised by writer Connor Tomlinson, when liberals think about multiculturalism, “they think of their second-generation Nigerian GP friend in leafy Surrey. They do not have to live cheek-by-jowl in a Pakistani enclave in a deprived northern mill town.” This is to say the strongest defenders of multiculturalism are the people who live with a sanitised version of it.
Their neighbours’ habits do not differ much from their own. They are quiet, and polite. They engage in the customary conversations about the weather and Strictly Come Dancing. If their neighbours partake in any of the rituals or customs of their motherland, these rituals are small and unobtrusive. Their neighbours are not—as is becoming more and more common—aggressive, faceless figures in an insular community. If their high-street Marks & Spencer’s were to be replaced with a coterie of cramped and dark minimarts and they were startled into their half-aliveness by the call to prayer each morning, these multiculturalists might begin to feel differently about their neighbours.
But it is not only gratitude that prompts people to offer their treasure at the altar. Sacrifices are often proffered to atone for sin. In the context of multiculturalism, the West’s ‘sins’ are war, colonialism, slavery, white privilege, racism, islamophobia, and various other real or imagined transgressions. The apparent price for ‘forgiveness’ is giving the aggrieved class whatever they want. So far, this has included tearing down statues; destroying our patrimony, our neighbourhoods; sacrificing our security, daughters, sisters, mothers; and inviting antisemitism back onto the streets of Europe.
The final kind of sacrifice, and perhaps the last stage of the diversity delusion, is the bargain. Those who have the nous to recognise that the great multicultural experiment is not going as well as had been hoped, try to placate the vengeful god they have invited into their communities. This is the Danegeld—the paying off marauding barbarian in the hope they will leave you alone. The colonised have come to seek revenge, and those prone to feeling guilty will surrender whatever is necessary to appease them: ‘I will let you traffic people, launder money, and marry your cousin. Just don’t hurt me.’
Why the girls?
Sacrifices must be freely given, otherwise they are not true sacrifices. This is to say: a tactical choice is being made as to who pays the price for multiculturalism. When faced with making a sacrifice, one first surrenders that which is the least valuable in the attempt to preserve one’s status and bargaining position. One would hardly offer up one’s own daughter first, but if a vulnerable girl from a care home background is the target, perhaps one might just look the other way. It is sensed, if not discussed, that had the majority of the victims been middle or upper class girls, this horror would have been brought to an end a long time ago. Why is it, then, that white, working class girls are expendable? Or, to be more brutal, why do the British not value their white, working class girls?
It is not that Western nations are incapable of seeing that men raping adolescent girls is bad. Across the West, child marriage in other parts of the world is recognised as an abomination for a number of reasons: the girl cannot consent, the age difference is a perversion, the girl is not prepared to engage in the sex acts that will be demanded of her, her body is too small, her mind is not yet mature.
Yet, the same is not said of white, working class girls in Europe. To an extent, it is a question of perceived autonomy. Immigrants from the developing world are seen as adults in their motherlands but conceived of as child-like—a romanticized, ‘noble savage’—in the West. If a thirty-something year old man takes a child as a wife in Niger or Bangladesh, there is a palpable injustice in the act. But if a thirty-something year old man from Pakistan takes a 12-year-old ‘girlfriend’ in Bradford? ‘Well,’ the relativists say, ‘it’s a grey area, isn’t it? She’s mature for her age and he is like a child. It is much like a 16-year- old boy dating a 15-year-old girl. Of course the law recognises the need for some vigilance, but mostly it is fine. After all, these 12-year-old girls are almost women.’
But, as Mary Harrington has argued, it is our own fault. The deconstruction of the meaning of childhood has left young women more vulnerable than liberated. Progressives champion children being cast in the role of “rational, choosing autonomous subject” but their vision of liberation “leaves little space for partial, coerced, ill-informed or pseudo-‘consent.’” These adolescents—not quite ‘girls,’ not quite ‘women’—‘consent’ to painful and degrading sexual acts because they crave love and affection.
But does this perception of ‘consent’ account for the apathy seen in the police officers and social workers who should have been protecting these girls? What about the girls who went to the police station bruised, bloody, and crying for help? Greater steps are taken in the country to protect dogs from abuse than some children. Is this because a dog is considered to be more human than a working-class girl? I don’t think so—but somehow the dog is seen as more worthy of help or more able to feel suffering.
This order of sympathy also applies across classes. Much like the third-world migrant, there is an innocence ascribed to the middle-class child that the working-class child seemingly lacks. The middle-class child is considered to be autonomous in their successes and a victim in their failures and exploitation. In contrast, the working-class child may receive praise for their successes or their success may be attributed to general success of a ‘system.’ When something goes wrong in the rearing of a working-class child—he or she breaks the law, suffers abuse, or falls in with a gang—it is generally accepted that the child is (at least in part) responsible for what happened.
The time is now
National governments and local authorities may pontificate about ‘failures’ and ‘lessons to be learned,’ but reform never seems to take place. This is perhaps the best indication that such authorities do not actually believe themselves to be at any major fault.
These unholy priests who sit around candle-lit dinner tables in Richmond, Notting Hill, and Camden proclaim in breathless rapture the horizonless virtues of diversity, but they are playing fast and loose with our lives and the lives of our children. The artists who moralise about opening the border from behind the walls of their gated communities, they think nothing of you. The politicians who seek to rule the world despise you. ‘Don’t look back in anger’ is a mantra designed to keep you subdued. Do not be subdued. The time of Europe is now. The time of England is now. Diversity is not our strength—it may even prove to be our greatest weakness.
This essay appears in the Winter 2024 issue of The European Conservative, Number 34:20-23.
