A commenter named Flavia posted a link, within her comment of my previous post, to a video of a Jewish woman Barbara Specter who claims that Europe must become “multicultural” in order to survive and that it cannot be the “monolithic” society it was in the last century. The video is painful to watch, much as it is painful to watch a retarded person give a speech in front a large audience. Specter’s ignorance is breathtaking* and it is difficult to know where to start. Many would say that there is no use debating fools, but I did want to debunk a common misconception that Specter parrots: That Europeans lacked diversity prior to the massive influx of non-Europeans.
One way to measure diversity, and by extension, “multiculturalism”, is by looking at dialects. Here is a map of Italy showing dialects of Italian, some of them considered separate languages by some linguists:
The associated Wikipedia article states:
The TV’s widespread adoption as a popular household appliance in Italy was the main factor in helping all Italians learn the common national language regardless of class or education level. At roughly the same time, many southerners moved to the north to find jobs. The powerful trade unions successfully campaigned against the use of dialects to maintain unity among the workers. This allowed the southerners, whose “dialects” were not mutually intelligible with the northerners’, to assimilate by using Standard Italian. The large number of mixed marriages, especially in large industrial cities such as Milan and Turin, resulted in a generation that could speak only Standard Italian, and usually only partly understand the “dialects” of their parents.
As a result of these phenomena, dialects in Italy remain in use mostly where less immigration occurred; that is, in the South, North-Eastern Italy, in rural areas (where there has been less ethnic blending and influence from trade unions), and among older speakers. Being unable to speak Standard Italian still carries a stigma as it presents a barrier to writing official documents, performing business, or carrying out any kind of legal transaction (all of which use Standard Italian as the dominant language). Even strongly pro-dialect political forces such as the Northern League rarely resort to anything else than Standard Italian to write or speak publicly.
Similar maps exist for the other political nations of Europe, most of which were very recently formed. The fate of dialects outside of Italy is similar to that of Italian dialects. Intermarriage and television have the same effect on regional dialects practically everywhere. The mass immigration that Specter advocates will erase Europe’s traditional diversity and replace it with a much more dangerous diversity – based on race and religion.
With the exception of French, regional dialects have prevailed until very recent times. Anybody who is familiar with European culture and history should realize that Europe is a very diverse place. The rise of cities brought various regional cultures into contact with each other for centuries. If this is not “multiculturalism”, it is hard to say what is.
What Specter claims is, strictly speaking, true. If we were to erase regional differences within Europe, “Europe” as we know it would indeed cease to exist. But this is not the type of “multicultural society” Specter is speaking of. What she wants is for ethnic Europeans, in all their varieties, to become minorities in their own ancestral lands. The “multicultural society” she envisions will be dominated by Africans and Asians. If Europeans fought bloody wars over the relatively minor differences between them, we can expect even greater bloodshed in the future thanks to non-white immigration. When the ethnic differences are more visible, then conflict is even more likely.
To hear Specter talk, we would think she is overly concerned with the long-term welfare of Europe. Her claim is that the Jewish role in advancing “multiculturalism” (I.E. diluting the native populations with non-Europeans) is for Europe’s own good. But what is the “Europe” of which she speaks? If she is referring of the continent of Europe, it is difficult to see how a lack of immigration could cause it to dissolve into the sea. Perhaps she is referring to the economic entity now known as “Europe”. If so, we should ask her to explain how an economic unit can change hands and still be accurately described as belonging to the original owners. If my bank account is taken over by another individual, would it be any comfort to me to know that “Jewamongyou’s account” still exists? Would I rejoice if, under these circumstances, it is growing? Would I take comfort in the fact that it is still called “Jewamongyou’s account” even though it is, by any measure, no longer mine? She should certainly be asked what she means by “Europe”. I am certain that we will never get a good answer.
It is clear to me that this women, and those who support her, do not have the best interests of Europe in mind; if the policies they favor were good for Europe, then they would advocate the same policies for Israel. Their fake good intentions should fool nobody.
* Here I am giving her the benefit of the doubt and assuming she is, in fact, ignorant.