Cultural Segregation and the Failure of Multiculturalism

JcollinsCultural, FREEPOM8 Comments

There is a need to be direct and specific.  Multicultural globalism has failed. But a form of national globalism could emerge to take its place.

Decades of one-sided cultural acceptance policies are coming to an end.  The flood of immigration into the Western world from the third world and emerging nations has created a disproportionate multiculturalism.  This one-way mass migration of people has not been bi-directional and has in fact been a form of simulated multiculturalism.  The demand to come west has stood in contrast to a complete lack of desire for those in the West to migrate eastward.

The acceptance policies of the multicultural mandates were predominantly focused on transforming the culture and heritage of the West to accommodate this demand and endless supply of migration and immigration.  Based on the low West to East migration levels there was little demand on the cultures of the origin nations - those third world and emerging countries - to embrace the idea of multiculturalism and accept the Western heritage.

It can be argued that even if a larger West to East migration existed, the willingness in the Eastern host nations to transform their own cultures to accommodate the incoming Western culture would not be a priority.  It could even be violently resisted.

Even though Western commercialism has been exported around the world, the receiving nations have integrated those brands and styles into their own cultural identity and have discarded the Western specific ancillary side effects associated with unbridled consumerism, though they do have their own version of these human character deficiencies.

The mass multiculturalism which has held a grip on Western nations for five decades has not strengthened Western culture as it was originally sold.  The migrating cultures settled in the Western nations and did little to take on the characteristics and ideals of acceptance which those in the West were told to embrace.

Migration has been taking place since there have been humans. But most past migration has taken place through war and the need to secure resources. The abundance in the West supports the lack of eastward migration and in turn the westward migration of those in the East.

The migration of Chinese into the West began before most other cultures.  There is hardly a large city in North America which doesn’t have a China Town.  These ethnic areas were embraced by Westerners and became popular weekend destinations for fine cuisine and shopping.  The Chinese culture, and other Asian cultures, was somewhat natural in aligning with the morals and ethics of the West.

This set the stage for further migration and multiculturalism. But the expanding migration was not specific to the makeup and character of the West.  Those migrating were seeking abundance as opposed to wanting to embrace the ideals and nature of Western heritage and culture.  It would be a mistake to generalize the need for human resources and abundance with the want to embrace the identity of another culture.  Television and movies are quick to show us actors portraying immigrants who are longing for American freedom.  Though this may be true in some cases, making a broad statement regarding all immigrants should be avoided.  The lack of opportunity and abundance in the home nation is the number one cause of emigration from those nations.

The idea that the West is a culture of immigrants is true in that the immigration to the new world was predominantly sourced from Western nations throughout Europe.  Each independent migrating culture had its own specific identity depending on the nation source, but also shared the one root culture.

As an example, those emigrating from Ireland shared the same Christian root culture as those emigrating from Ukraine, even though both cultures were different and unique.

This shared root culture migration served to strengthen the developing culture in North America.  In this regard multiculturalism did strengthen the Western culture.  But what we have now is mass migration taking place where different root cultures are flooding into the West and causing fragmentation and cultural segregation.

As in previous times, those who are migrating into the West are bringing their home culture with them and are segmenting off into non-diverse regions and areas much like the China Towns of old, or even Irish Boston.  But where the China Town effect seemed to work and be accepted, the new form of cultural segregation is causing increased tension and growing violence.

The Chinese did not immigrate and start demanding that the host nations and cultures begin adapting to their ways and customs.  They were content with having their own unique areas which were looked upon fondly by the majority of those in the host culture.  As such those in the West embraced the Chinese culture.

Now we have cultures with no shared roots coming into the West, segmenting of regions for themselves, and demanding that the host culture change and adapt to the incoming culture.   There are endless examples of this, but I will use a few specific to Canada.

The Hindu (edit: Sikh - as per the polite reference from Nanook in the comments section) population demanded and received the right to alter the traditional RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) uniform to accommodate both religious headdress and ceremonial daggers.  Also within the Hindu (Edit: Sikh) population is a movement in British Columbia to change the motor cycle helmet law to accommodate the religious headdress turbans.  This would in effect create a dual-law system for those who are Hindu (Edit: Sikh) and those who are not.  A non-Hindu (Edit: Sikh) would be pulled over by the police for not wearing the legally mandated helmet, while the Hindu (Edit: Sikh) would be allowed passage for not wearing a helmet.

This brings into question the very purpose of why the helmet law was passed in the first place decades ago.  Personal safety and health care costs associated with head injuries caused by motor cycle accidents provided the core rationalization and legal argument.  Are these concerns no longer relevant?  Should the original law be retracted?  Or do we allow for a dual legal system which can accommodate the demands of a non-Western culture?

This also brings into question the growing demands for Sharia Law in Western nations.  This is more prevalent in European nations but will become more vocal in North America as the migration of Islamic root cultures increases further. In some areas already, in Britain and elsewhere, makeshift systems of Sharia Law are now functioning alongside the Western legal system.

The cultural segregation this creates is both destructive and unsustainable.  Those who think otherwise are misleading themselves into believing the manufactured false-truth that all those who oppose mass migration from non-Western root cultures are racists and xenophobes who hate all other people.  I can assure you this is not true.  Most of the people I talk with in our culture have a lot of interest and compassion for other cultures and look forward to experiencing interaction with those other cultures in their travels.

To suggest that those who want to maintain the Western cultural identity are somehow wrong and vile is one of the greatest travesties to come out of decades of left-leaning socioeconomic and cultural conditioning.  Those in the West who are attempting to protect our cultural identity are doing the same as people all around the world.  This includes the home nations of those who are migrating into the West and demanding that the culture change to accommodate them.

The labels of sexist, racist, bigot, xenophobe, and white supremacist which are thrown at those in the West who want to maintain the culture they have grown up in, are tired smears which no longer reflect the truth on the ground.  This is one of the main reasons why the left agenda is losing momentum around the world and Trump is now the American President.

Whether it’s Trump in America, BREXIT, Le Pen in France, or those right-leaning leaders who are beginning to emerge everywhere, a new modern nationalism is taking hold. This brings us back to the beginning of this article and globalism.

The planned liberal-left globalism was based on the multicultural policies which they have been constructing for decades.  As we reviewed above, the very nature of multiculturalism has created a form of cultural segregation which deconstructs and fragments the end objective of multiculturalism itself.

As such, Multiculturalism has failed.

But this doesn’t mean that globalism is dead.  We are in the early phase of a new globalism which will emerge based on nationalism and the sovereign rights of nations and individuals.  There will be challenges to this as technology and the constant human predisposition for corruption continue riding on the illusion of traditional political stage theatre.

Changes to the international monetary system and subsequent geopolitical adjustments will come about as the unipolar USD based framework is retired for a more functional multicurrency framework which will allow for abundance around the world. The disproportionate demand for East to West migration will eventually be reduced through such monetary transformations, as well as the growing awareness and desire in Western nations to maintain cultural identity and prevent cultural segregation. None of which are anything more than what people all around the world would expect.  – JC

JC Collins can be contacted at

This article is copyrighted by POM Media©2017. As non-Premium content it can be shared and reposted without further permission.

Please subscribe for Premium Content.

8 Comments on “Cultural Segregation and the Failure of Multiculturalism”

  1. JC,

    Good piece.

    Food for thought - although Sikh's are an offshoot of Hinduism, their dress, religion, and customs are different. The guys with the daggers are technically Sikh.

  2. Excellent piece JC.
    Thank you. I really like this "cultural and geopolitical" articles a lot.

    More food for thought.
    Why is all the world forced to accept multiculturalism (which yes, it has failed), except one country?

    1. That is a valid question. There are a few responses worth discussing. There are other nations who have somewhat resisted multiculturalism besides Israel, which is who I assume you are referencing. The obvious ones are Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan, Syria, etc... Some Asian nations have avoided multiculturalism, such as Indonesia, and to a lessor extent China, Japan, and a few others. Some have seen minor immigration, but nothing on the scale of the West. It can even be argued that Russia has also avoided rampant immigration and multiculturalism. So the argument that Israel somehow has special privileges doesn't hold with the facts. Yes, Israel has been the bullet proof Jewish nation but we are now starting to see the liberal-left establishment turning on Israel as well. This is why I avoid being sucked into the Israel argument. No one considers that Israel also has its left and right political parties. Human division exists everywhere. Even within the one group you would think it shouldn't. Jews, for their part, especially those in positions of political power and to have influence over culture, like to promote the idea that Jews are not divided on culture and identity, but this is far from the truth.

      1. Hi JC,
        thanks for your quick and detailed reply.
        A couple of comments from my side:
        a) You´re correct on mentioning those muslims countries.
        But who on earth would want to go and live in those shitty places, where freedom full freedom is almost non-existent, and where foreigners don´t have half of the rights that local people have?
        No wonder it´s them coming to the West, and not viceversa.
        b) Countries like China and Japan have been extremely clever when it comes to avoiding that detrimental multiculturalism that you talk about in your piece.
        How? By maintaining their national laws intact. In other words, if you want to go and live there, you live by their rules, not yours.
        And if you don´t, you´ll be deported in the flick of a switch.
        Japan and Singapur are probably the best examples of what I´m referring to.
        c) I fully agree with you that Israel has its own right/left divisions.
        I think it was on one of my previous comments to carpe-diem (if I don´t remember badly) where I stated that unless the Israeli government does something to curb the division inside Israel between orthodox and secular Jews, and among different factions of orthodox Jews themselves, the country will implode. Give it another 15 or 20 years, and you´ll see.
        Some of the top Israeli scholars are already warning about this; the question here is...
        Is the Israeli government listening or, as usual, they´re too busy with their own "dreams"?

        Finally, you mentioned something that caught my attention:
        "There will be challenges to this as technology and the constant human predisposition for corruption continue riding on the illusion of traditional political stage theatre".

        In my personal opinion, technology is going to be the biggest and most important changing factor in the world in the coming two decades.
        I´m not sure if politicians in particular and us disorganized masses in general, are really aware of the kind of revolution that we all will be facing from 2030 onwards, and how much it will impact our lives.
        Maybe, when you have the time (we all here at POM know how busy you are), you could write an article about it.

        I´m sure it will be another platinum quality one.

        And thanks again for your reply JC.

        1. Thanks David. I've been thinking about the technology challenge which is coming. I have some ideas which I may incorporate into the RPC platform and constitution. Maybe that's what I'll write about next. Hmmm.

      2. Hi JC and many thanks for yet another thought provoking article,

        Perhaps if we see Multiculturalism as the objective designed by the globalists and Islamist refugees as the tool, for this intention, things may make more sense. Multiculturalism is in essence can be likened to a food processor, whereby all the ingredients are thrown in and in the end, none of the original ingredients can be observed. Diluting the majority population of a target country is the absolute results. This is in line with Eugenicists and marxist paradigm where the very idea of human beings and the concept of national identity is challenged and deemed as a nuisance and has to be removed, by all means!

        What we should keep in mind in this regard and when analyzing Multiculturalism, is that in fact destroying all cultures using Islamism. There is a distinct difference between Islam as a beleif system and Islamism. Islam is mixed with another political and reactionary concept, that are very similar to produce another idea based on N ethos created and mixed together for eradicating the majority population.

        It is fascinating to look at the 60's and 70's era when Soviets were all over the place trying to bring down "democratic" governments and install puppet Moscow backed everywhere, including the West. There are numerous examples of the Soviets attempt and successes in infiltration, subversion and overthrow legitimate governments after WWII period. Examples such as Cuba, Afghanistan,South Yemen, two attempts in Iran post WWII in Iranian Azerbaijan and Mahabad Soviet Republic (Iranian Kurdistan), each lasting less than two years. Also, the entire West Asia was literally riddled with Marxists and immediately after 1979 and the arrival of Khomeini under guardianship of the Western Intelligence agencies, we can see clearly the start of Islamism as we know it today. Berzinsky arrival in North Pakistan and his famous speech to the ragtag Taliban "freedom fighters" was also the method that facilitated a total radicalization of both Sunni and Shia branches of Islam.

        A good question to ask is what happened to all the Marxists of the 60's and 70's in the Islamic lands? Did they grow a beard and became pious Muslims overnight?

        The intention for bringing Islamism to the forefront was a vague idea in the 70's of creating "a green Islamic belt around the Soviet Union"! This dubious claim satisfied Western nations but Soviet Union was about to collapse as early as 1980's anyway, so the fake narrative had another sinister intention, and that was to start destroying all secular nations in West Asia and ensure endless wars and misery for the people from which a wave of migration can begin and right in the middle intelligence assets can be thrown in the mix and start terrorists cells in the West.

        The truth of the matter is that up until 1979, with the exception of war torn places such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and Palestine, there were very little refugee problems. The refugees of the era, were genuine people who would leave in totally unsafe boat from these places and were appearing, if lucky in Hong Kong and other places. Many of these people settled in the West and in Asia also and returned to a normal life. By the same token, I am not suggesting that to a big part the refugees of the West Asia are all terrorists or that they are not genuine.

        Regarding refugees and the reception by various nations, Iran since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan accepted well over 5 million Afghans after the Soviet occupation and around a perhaps lesser figure from Iraq and other neighbouring countries. At one time Iran had the highest number of refugees in the world , whilst the Islamist regime's atrocities against Iranian people a figure of around 3 million Iranians left to mainly the West. Iranian refugees were and are still perhaps the most educated in Europe and are active in all areas of life in their host nation. Here in America alone as well as Canada Iranian diaspora are the most successful and most educated of all minorities. So the idea of integration and assimilation is a cultural issue for each nation.

        Another misconception regarding Iran and Iranians are not Arab/Semitic people, their lineage and language (Persian) is Indo-European albeit with a backward and reactionary Western backed Semitic religious cabal ruling over them, since 1979. The current ISlamist regime of Iran was brought to power by the same globalists, CFR, Trilateralists under a member of these secret society president Jimmy Carter! Carter along with many globalist academic of the era, praised Khomeini and Islamism as the second arrival of the messiah and to this day, Khomeini is titled "an Islamic Philosopher" in the American University text books for Western Civilization 101. Praising ISlamism is a number one objective in Western Universities and Academia! The roots of the problem is here in the West, as the Tavistock's of the West could have concocted a similar hideous ideology out of the most peaceful of all beleif systems such as Buddhism, if the plan was to subvert East Asia!

        Another misconception is that people just want to leave their homes in the East and go to the West where life is better. This may be some elements of truth here, but in truth nobody wants to leave where they belong, born and bred. MAss migration of the West Asia is caused deliberately by the Globalists.

        The next phase of the globalists which we should sincerely hope never happens is a war in Syria, against Russia or for that matter anywhere. Globalists are hard at work to bring about their onslaught against all of us, by destroying all ethnicities, national identities and any remnants of uniqueness and in this regard they have vast amount money laundered, stolen by their minions such as George Soros. What is so amazing is that nothing is done about this person.

        Sharia law is a Marxist/Globalist tactic to bring the West into submission and to gradually make all the institutions defunct, redundant and totally untrustworthy. The truth of the matter is neither Marxism nor Islamism respect or recognizes the idea of rule of law or legitimacy of the elected leaders of any nation. Both represent the cult of subversion and the only accepted law, is their law. This is how and why, the Democratic party and its minions are up in arms, they do not see the legitimacy of Donald Trump as the elected leader of the United States. To assume that either cult will ever change and respect the majority, is a fallacy.

        In order to get a glimpse of the pre-Islamism era, I would like to invite you to watch to the interview by very hostile BBC and US Fakestream news media minions and decide for yourself, how a nationalist, educated and wise ruler of a developing nation as Iran was treated and the wise and candid reply to their utterly sick and insulting interview techniques.

        Globalists removed the Shah of Iran, the legitimate King of a secular nation to install a puppet Islamist cult in charge. "Human Rights" as ever shows up in every prosecution...

  3. Taken from The Saker site: comment by Ray Fox
    Further to this discussion:
    FkDahl on April 06, 2017 · at 5:00 am UTC
    Quote from interview with Philippe de Villiers

    With Alexander Solzhenitsyn, we’re in Tambov, we’re walking. Suddenly he stops and says: “We, we will recover, [Eastern Europe and Russia] but you [the West], you’ll slip into a deep abyss, because you have the disease of emptiness. You will experience an eclipse of intelligence. You are at the last stage, the final stage of spiritual exhaustion. And one day, fireflies will come out of that great catacomb, carried by dissidents.” — The dissidents? I answered.

    Well, I’m telling you, today dissidents are in the East, they will move to the West.“ ….Two things: the dissidents, they will emerge, out of the water, because they have two unique qualities: the first is courage, and the second is lucidity. The courage: they’ll dare to cross the hygienic perimeter: forbidden words.

Leave a Reply