Some Questions on Multi-racialism

 Multi-racialism, more commonly know by its politically correct euphemism “multi-culturalism”, is a social policy which has been implemented in Europe without the consent of European peoples. More relevant to Ireland First it appears to have been implemented by the Irish Government without any forethought as to the consequences. Without any study of places such as the United States in which the policy has already been tried. This, implementing a political policy which involves social change on a massive scale, the consequences of which could be good or bad for generations, perhaps for ever, to any thoughtful mind, is recklessness on a magnificent scale. May I be so blunt as to say that only an idiot would put in place multi-racialism without any forethought, without any consultation with scientific experts or more importantly, without even asking indigenous people? Yes, only a magnificent idiot would do that.

Anytime I have come across questions of multi-racialism being raised I have heard those questions immediately dismissed by liberals. This breed of despicable and intolerant individual holds that anyone who is opposed to multi-racialism is “racist” but this view is a naive one for the issue is far more complicated than they realise and opposition, at least my opposition, is not about so-called “racism”.

There are many questions which need to be asked about this important subject and when we are finished asking those questions we will find that multi-racialism is a) right for Irish society or b) wrong for Irish society. I will begin this important questioning process which thus far has been ignored by our society. I am not attempting to cover all the ground rather I am just trying to stimulate thought and discussion which has thus far been stifled by naive journalists and politicians.

What happens to multi-racial societies?

First we should ask ourselves what happens to multi-racial societies; more specifically: do they flourish, decline or totally collapse? Liberals usually don’t even get to this point because they dismiss discussion of the issue off the bat as “racist” but I think more intelligent readers will agree that this first question is an important one and one which should have been asked many years ago. For the answer perhaps we can look across the pond.

The United States has been a multi-racial society for a while now and hasn’t yet collapsed but for all we know it may collapse in the future as a direct result of multi-racialism – this is something we must keep in mind. So has it declined or flourished in any way? I have no idea but as I wrote, this is a good question and it should have been asked before implementing the policy. Maybe it would be wise to pose this question to the Americans? The liberals reading will no doubt be yelling “racist!” at this point.

Another question we can ask is this: do multi-racial societies divide in any way, along racial lines for example, and is that a bad thing? It is reasonable to presume that such societies do divide along racial lines. Organisms, including humans, instinctively seek out organisms which are like themselves and thus form groups of similar individuals. Any teacher will attest to the phenomenon in which students sort themselves into groups of quiet studious students, rowdy class clowns and out-casts and so on in the class room. Given all this it is reasonable to assume that people will sort them selves into racial groups in a multi-racial society. I would expect to see racial groups assorted into geographic units in a long established multi-racial society and if I were to look at the U.S. I am confident that is what I would find. From this we must wonder if there are any negative consequence of that sorting and we must also wonder if, because of those negative consequences, a multi-racial society is best avoided. This is not a “racist” question. It is a wise question and I will attempt to demonstrate that.

Suppose we were in an Ireland of the past in which there were no immigrants and one day an idea struck us. The idea being the creation of a multi-racial society. The wise among us would consider the consequences of introducing such a change to our traditional homeland. They would reflect on the idea and discuss it. Now suppose we could not imagine the consequences of the change no matter how hard we tried and had no evidence from other countries which already implemented the idea, of the following two options which should we choose?

1) Implement the change and just blindly hope for the best or
2) Leave things as they are just in case there are negative, irreversible and devastating consequences

I would invoke, as any sane man would, the precautionary principle and choose option two. The precautionary principle is thus: If the consequences of an action are unknown do not take that action because the consequences may be devastating. This is simple, common sense, prudence.

I have asked the Government if they investigated the state of affairs in multi-racial societies like the U.S. or Britain before allowing immigrants from all corners of the globe flood our homeland and in response I received an email which did not answer the question. From this I must assume that our Government did not consult those who knew about the consequence of multi-racialism. It thus seems our Government is unfamiliar which the common sense notion of prudence. They have it seems, implemented a social policy without any idea as to the ramifications – this I believe has been an act of magnificent stupidity.

What characterises multi-racial societies?

Not long ago I read a paper (Gerald McCallister et al.) written by political scientists from a U.S. university which found that societies which our not racially homogeneous have an increased incidence of within-state conflict compared to racially homogeneous societies. I bet the powers-that-be do not know this and I suspect they would not care if it was pointed out. Personally I do not wish to live in a society which is characterised by racial conflict and I must object to multi-racialism on this one thing alone. As I have asked myself this question so must the rest of society.

Sentiment towards Culture

There are those who see the building of mosques and the introduction of other elements of foreign culture offensive or at the very least, deeply saddening. These people see their culture eroding before their very eyes and they have a right to feel regret this but unfortunately, liberals immediately shoot these feelings down, calling such people intolerant and hateful. I find it abominable that people who have a love of their culture and are saddened to see it changing drastically have their feelings ignored and I feel it is time their sentiments were acknowledged. So another question is this: Do we want our culture influenced substantially by the culture immigrants bring with them? And with this question may we remember that it is acceptable to resent our culture changing – I insist on this being so.

In Summary

Liberals dismiss those who object to multi-racialism as “racist” but this is naive because there are many questions which need to be asked some of which are:

1. Do multi-racial societies flourish, decline or totally collapse?
2. Do multi-racial societies divide in any way, along racial lines for example, and is that a bad thing?
3. If we cannot conceive of the consequences of multi-racialism should we invoke the precautionary principle?
4. Do we want to live in a society characterised by racial conflict?
5. Do we want our culture influenced substantially by the culture which immigrants bring with them?

I more or less just posed these questions without probing too deeply but that was my intention. Importantly we decided that resenting the influence of other cultures is acceptable. Perhaps more importantly we decided that implementing a multi-racial society without knowing the consequences is imprudent and magnificently stupid.

Ireland First