UK`s Cameron Says Multiculturalism Has Failed—But His Solution Is “Muscular Liberalism”?
February 09, 2011
also by Alex Kurtagic:
Dysfunctional Motherland: Reclaiming Ancestral
Birthrights in Post-Imperial Britain
According to the BBC,
a security conference in Germany, David Cameron argued
the UK needed a stronger national identity . . .” [State
multiculturalism has failed, says David Cameron,
February 5, 2011]
Mr. Cameron even went as far as to
highlight modern Political Correctness` hypocritical
double standard, where
“racist” views are met with strenuous condemnation if expressed
by a white person, but with
timorous silence if expressed by a colored one.
This is certainly a remarkable
flip-flop for Cameron, as
his critics on the left indignantly pointed out [Did
David Cameron really mean what he said about
By Sama Yaqoob, Guardian, February 7, 2011]
Still, in a sane world, this
flip-flop would be reason to rejoice. We in Britain
could expect tight border controls, as
desired by nine tenths of the citizenry; we could
expect illegal immigrants rounded up and thrown out, as
desired by three in fourths of it; and we would
nationalism and, yes,
whiteness, emphasized and celebrated in an
education system and media freed from Political
Unfortunately, however, we do not
live in a sane world.
While, as the BBC put it, Mr.
Cameron “signaled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism”,
and while he
“suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups which
get public money” and that
should refuse to share platforms or engage with such
groups,” he also said
“Frankly, we need
a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and
much more active, muscular liberalism.”[Full
Text of Cameron Speech.]
So the reason the multicultural
experiment has failed is that there has not been enough “muscular
I am sure
Jared Taylor has some interesting thoughts on Mr.
Cameron`s extraordinary conclusion.
Completely unselfconscious, Mr.
“These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and
the presumption should be not to engage with
Am I the only one at a loss for
After all, a sincere belief in
universal human rights and equality before the law
make it impossible to exclude from a society the kind of
immigrants who are incompatible with a strong national
identity: it is
impossible to deny them entry on the basis of their
ethnic background; it is impossible
to deny them access to employment; it is impossible
to deny them access to citizenship; it is impossible to
deny them access to public office; and it is
therefore impossible in the long run to prevent them
changing their hosts` indigenous culture and society
until these are fractured by fundamental differences on
the issues that are most important to each group`s most
A strong national identity is
traditionalist, particularist, and
inegalitarian. It is dependent on localization,
specificity, and uniqueness, as this is, stabilized into
a tradition over many generations, what differentiates
the indigenous from the alien, then native from the
A strong national identity,
therefore, implies that what is indigenous takes
priority over what is alien. It is incompatible with
multiculturalism or diversity.
This is well understood by
immigrants from non-European ethnic backgrounds, which
is why they have been the first to
segregate themselves into ethnic ghettos, with their
own food, their own
butchers, their own press, their own
dress, and their own places of worship. They have
come here looking for the wealth, security, stability,
opportunities, and high standard of living Western
societies can provide; they
have not come here to become Westerners. They want
what we offer only on their own terms.
From their point of view,
Westerners are idiots for
opening their borders, their job market, and their
power structure to foreigners, in a way
they would never dream of doing themselves—for
being, in other words, so damn liberal!
The success of the liberal project
was predicated from the beginning on the destruction of
traditional forms—and by extension, in replacing what
was local, specific, and unique, with
global, vague, and generic abstractions.
In short, aggressive liberalism is
inevitably hostile to a strong national identity.
This is also well understood by
immigrants from non-European ethnic backgrounds—which is
why they have been the first to ally themselves to
aggressive liberal causes.
And it gets worse: being the last
to recognize the obvious, Mr. Cameron proposes to
multiculturalism in favor of integration, or
But . . . Wasn`t the failure of
integration what led to experimenting with
multiculturalism in the first place?
What Mr. Cameron`s embarrassing
statements serve to highlight, following Angela
remarks last year, is how far removed
in modern politics has become from traditionalism,
and therefore how meaningless it has become.
It used to be that conservatives
were identified with tradition, as tradition is
I do agree with
Richard Spencer and
Greg Johnson`s views on this matter: when we have a
“conservative” head of government telling us that the cure for a
disease that was
caused by liberalism is more liberalism—much like
those who tell us that the solution to a problem caused
by debt is
to go further into debt—we know that we have gone
beyond the point where reform is possible.
What Mr. Cameron`s statements also
highlight is that we need is a radical change of
paradigm—and this change cannot be radical unless it is
founded on traditional principles.
(email him) (follow him on
Twitter) is a U.K.-based publisher, cultural
commentator, novelist, musician, and artist. He is the
author of the dystopian novel,
Sky Publishing, 2009), the founder and director of
Alternative Right, and editor-in-chief of
Wermod Publishing Group.