Multiculturalism: The Political Schism of Our Time
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us
Multiculturalism is at the heart of significant political shifts in our world today. It is driving civilization-altering events and is directly linked to the decline of the western world. Ignoring the impact of multiculturalism means being blind to the disruptions that are shaping our present and future.
In 1992, Strobe Talbott, Bill Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State and a member of the globalist Council On Foreign Relations, penned an essay for Time Magazine titled “The Birth Of The Global Nation.”. In this article, he articulated the globalist perspective on national sovereignty as temporary and cultural boundaries as barriers that could be overcome through economic interdependence.
Talbott dismissed cultural differences as arbitrary and pointed to the formation of the European Union as an example of supranational governance prevailing over distinct cultural identities.
However, the globalists encountered obstacles. While Western nations could establish supranational connections due to shared cultural roots, they were not willing to open their borders to the rest of the world without coercion. Thus, starting around 2012, a program of multiculturalism was initiated, with mass immigration as the primary tool.
The consequences have been catastrophic. Parts of Europe are on the brink of societal collapse, a deliberate outcome. It is crucial to remember that globalism does not necessarily require the elimination of borders, but it does demand the erasure of national identities and loyalties. Western societies must be diluted, and their heritage erased for the globalist agenda of a “New World Order” to progress.
The quickest way to achieve this goal is by inundating Western demographics with masses of people holding diametrically opposed ideals. Recent riots in France led by migrant mobs and Marxist activists underscore the peril of allowing the third world to settle in the Western world. The threat is not solely from globalists but also from the migrants used as pawns by globalists against the West.
Throughout history, mass immigration, often facilitated by corrupt governments, has led to societal regression, security vulnerabilities, and cultural instability. The US, under the Trump Administration, has made strides in curbing illegal and “legal” immigration from third-world regions (Muslim immigration plunged by 96%). This success has sparked outrage among leftists and some libertarians over the drastic reduction in Muslim and Hindu migrants. Their argument in support of multiculturalism rests on the misconception that America was founded on the principle of open immigration for all.
Contrary to popular belief, the United States was never intended to be a migrant “melting pot.” This notion, perpetuated over decades in media and politics, is a fabrication. There has been a concerted effort by various organizations to distort the intentions of the Founding Fathers to sway conservatives and independent voters into believing that third-world immigration aligns with the nation’s constitutional framework.
The Founders were selective about who could enter the US. Despite claims that multiculturalism is rooted in the constitutional heritage, such arguments are based on deceit and a misrepresentation of history.
At the outset of American history, the Founding Fathers enacted the Naturalization Act of 1790, permitting only “free white people of good moral character” to become legal citizens. This standard endured for centuries until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 officially abolished it.
The Hart-Celler Act of 1965, signed by Lyndon B. Johnson, dismantled the National Origins quota system of the 1920s that prioritized European immigrants and restricted third-world migrants. The notion that the Founders envisioned America as a welcoming haven for diverse cultures is fallacious. They did not envision the US as an open marketplace for any culture to exploit what had been built over centuries.
The vast majority of migrants until the 1960s hailed from Western nations with similar cultural foundations. The concept of a melting pot is a myth.
The Founders did not anticipate cultures with incompatible religious and ideological beliefs taking root in the US. If such individuals did immigrate, assimilation was expected. While they championed religious freedom, they recognized certain groups as counter to Western ideals.
For instance, Thomas Jefferson viewed Islam as a religion stifling freedom of thought and reliant on coercion. John Adams oscillated between viewing Muhammad as a truth-seeker and a military fanatic. The Founders’ writings on Islam reflected the prevailing view of it as a political system rather than a religious one.
Contemporary Protestant writers of that era regarded Islam as a sword-spread ideology and a political system. The US ban on slave importation in 1808, signed by Jefferson, underscored the Founders’ concerns about cultural compatibility and potential conflicts.
The Founders, including Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe, advocated for repatriating slaves to Africa due to fears of cultural clashes. They understood that certain cultures would inevitably clash in close proximity and large numbers.
The Founders’ pragmatic approach to societal limits for stability distinguishes them as realists, not anarchists. They recognized the need for restrictions, including borders and cultural discernment. Adhering to their principles today would benefit America, particularly in immigration policy.
Prior to the 1960s, about 84% of foreign-born individuals in the US came from Europe or Canada. The Hart-Celler Act ushered in a shift towards family-based immigration, resulting in a surge of migrants from Asia and Latin America. By the 1970s, the majority of immigrants hailed from Latin America and Asia, not Europe.
The shift in immigration patterns coincided with escalating economic and social instability and rising crime rates in the US. It was not until Donald Trump’s presidency in 2025 that illegal border crossings plummeted to 1960s levels and third-world migrant populations began to decline.
LBJ’s welfare expansion combined with surging immigration strained US debt and infrastructure. The majority of third-world migrants in the US rely on welfare upon arrival.
The inherent contrast between pillagers and producers, as discussed in my article “Pillagers vs Producers: There’s Only Two Ways To Save The Western World”, is evident in certain cultural inclinations towards wealth creation or appropriation. The third world has a history rooted in pillaging, evident in their reliance on socialism and authoritarianism.
Westerners have historically contributed to progress, while third-world cultures tend towards exploitation. The disparity in values poses challenges for coexistence. Third-world immigrants predominantly favor leftist policies and open borders, perpetuating a cycle of increased immigration facilitated by lax citizenship requirements.
The absence of multiculturalism does not equate to ethno-nationalism. The Founding Fathers envisaged a nation and culture shaped by Western ideals, necessitating limitations on third-world cultures to prevent ethnic enclaves hindering assimilation.
America is not a blank canvas for foreign alteration; it is a nation founded by Western pioneers and their descendants. Upholding the cultural legacy and values of the West is essential for safeguarding against external threats and preserving national identity.
We present diverse viewpoints. The opinions expressed here do not represent those of ZeroHedge.