The political doctrine of Multiculturalism enjoys its current supremacy due to the confluence of commercial interests and those of the transnational governing oligarchy.
Large corporations — call them “corporatists” rather than “capitalists”, since capitalism as it is generally understood is not what they practice — benefit from cheap immigrant labor and from the downward push on regional wage rates caused by the influx of poor immigrants to wealthier countries.
The transnational oligarchy benefit from the shifting and churning of populations, which tends to dilute national identities and atomize the population. This makes central political control easier and less accountable, and the practice of forced ethnic heterogeneity provides the oligarchs with further incentives to erase formal national borders. The long-term goal is to replace the nation-state with supranational entities such as the EU, the UN, and various regional subgroups. This much- ballyhooed process is currently in vogue as “global governance”, made urgently necessary by the looming disaster of “climate change”.
Both the oligarchs and the corporatists have a vested interest in weakening the middle and lower-middle classes, since these provide the breeding grounds for political awareness and resistance to their rule. Mass immigration is the most useful tool available to accomplish this purpose, which is why it is pushed so relentlessly in the face of public opposition by the oligarchs and their allies in media and the academy.
Behind it all there is, of course, a corpus of true believers. Not everyone is a cynic, and there are many sincere communicants at the altar of Multiculturalism. I remember them from when I was a kid — they got all starry-eyed over UNICEF and the Peace Corps and exotic foreigners in quaint costumes. Later on, in the seventies and eighties, they celebrated diversity from positions of influence in government, the media, the universities, the charitable foundations, and private corporations. These well-meaning busybodies eventually delivered to us the culturally enriched rainbow tapestry that almost all Westerners are forced to endure today.
Somehow all of this occurred without the consent or approval of the vast majority of the people whose lives it so grievously affects. And now that a large proportion of the populace has awakened to what has been inflicted upon them, the essential question emerges: What can be done to halt and then reverse the multicultural juggernaut?
Our Austrian correspondent AMT sends the following essay concerning the experience of ordinary Austrian parents with the much-touted advantages of Multiculturalism in primary education.
The Joys of a Multicultural Education
There is cultural enrichment and there is Cultural Enrichment. To explain this, my friend told me the following story:
Vienna is the city of multiculturalism in the old, positive sense. It was a melting pot, heartily inviting those who wanted to settle in this city in order to work, enrich it — again, in the old meaning of the word — and a great majority of them did. “They” being Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Hungarians, refugees from neighboring countries when Communism was at its most threatening. The war in Balkans altered this enrichment dramatically: in the 1990s, the face of Vienna started to change. It wasn’t yet noticeable except by the most watchful people. And this is when Cultural Enrichment began. Crime rates roared, as did rape rates and “honor” murders.
My friend told me this story because her daughter, Marie, started first grade a couple of weeks ago. Marie cannot attend the public school near her house ever since her mother — on her way out from the voting booth located in a first grade classroom — saw that school children were taught Arabic. As a result, Marie’s parents chose a nearby Catholic school, which charges a hefty €145 a month, but which, according to the headmistress, does not accept non-Christians, with miniscule exceptions made for atheists.
Imagine my friend’s surprise when on the first day of school she heard the names of Marie’s classmates during roll call. Imagine also her surprise when she heard some of the parents talking with their children. The languages she heard included English, French, and Dutch. Henry’s parents are from Connecticut; Viktoria’s mom is from Texas, her father from Germany; Lily’s parents are Dutch. This is what she calls enriching: Viktoria is sitting next to Marie, thus allowing Marie to practice her English. Viktoria’s German is flawless. And this is what separates cultural enrichment from Cultural Enrichment: some these kids may be considered “immigrants”, but they speak the local language, as do their parents, and this allows the teacher to teach the curriculum without any “language” problems.
Contrast this story with the following recent newspaper article:
“Interpreter” needed to help out in school in [culturally enriched Vienna district] Meidling
Parents of children attending a junior high school in Meidling are upset. Not only was the school building still a construction site, but the number of migrant students was so high that one class needed an interpreter to be present during class.
Just last week, there were still workers on site in the school. However, more problems are evident in class 1A, where — according to parents — of the fifteen students with migrant background, a mere four have rudimentary German skills.
Two children speak no German at all, another student can write only capital letters. This class thus needs an interpreter to help out. Accordingly, the learning speed is slow.
The parents are desperate and worry about their children’s’ future. “This cannot go on. The classes must be redivided so that local children don’t go to rack and ruin,” says FPÖ Vienna council member Herbert Madejski.
To paraphrase Ralph Giordano: “As long as this cultural enrichment continues to stare us in the face on a daily basis and the politicians tell us that this is what we want and need; as long as schools need interpreters for nearly all children of non-Western background when they enter school; then for so long Sarrazin, Wilders, Sabaditsch-Wolff and all others are right.” And for so long parents like Marie’s have to work even harder to earn the money to send their children to costly private schools rather than tax-funded public schools.