David Cameron: his Munich speech on Multiculturalism

This speech is worth listening to in its entirety:

Part 1:

Part 2:

19 Responses to “David Cameron: his Munich speech on Multiculturalism”

  1. CodeSlinger Says:


    Well, well… discrimination against white people is beginning to be an acceptable thing to be concerned about, even for a main-stream politician:

    “So, when a white person holds objectionable views, racist views for instance, we rightly condemn them. But when equally unacceptable views or practices come from someone who isn’t white, we’ve been too cautious frankly – frankly, even fearful – to stand up to them.

    “… Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream. We’ve failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We’ve even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run completely counter to our values.

    “… I believe it is time to turn the page on the failed policies of the past.”

    In fact it’s long past time, but better late than never! And, refreshing as it is, that isn’t even the best part of the speech. This is the best part:

    “I also believe we should encourage meaningful and active participation in society, by shifting the balance of power away from the state and towards the people.”

    Music to my ears!

    Now, if only Cameron can be counted on to walk his talk, then Stephen Harper will have some serious catching up to do! And if Harper rises to the challenge, he will have plenty of support, because Canadians are waking up from their collectivist-multi-culti-white-guilt trance and they are mad as hell about the indignities they’ve been subjected to while under the influence.

    The age of the angry white man is just beginning!

    Xanthippa says:

    I doubt Mr. Harper is going to go there. However, I suspect Maxime Bernier would…if he grows up, he’d make a good leader.

  2. CodeSlinger Says:


    Well, if Harper doesn’t, somebody will. Perhaps someone who is more of a loose cannon than Bernier ever was.

    Political sentiment in the West is swinging to the right, as it always does in difficult times. And there is no shortage of politically ambitious young Turks who are quite ready to ride that wave.

    Handled properly, this trend can restore our rights, our freedoms, our prosperity, even the value of our currency.

    But if we’re not careful, we could easily find ourselves repeating the part of history that should have taught us that times like these can easily give rise to Brownshirts…

    Xanthippa says:

    Unfortunately, the type of ‘right’ we see rising is of the religious bend – and at least as oppressive as what we have now.

    Makes one sad – I really don’t see much good on the horizon: things will get much, much worse before they get better.

    • derek Says:

      yeah, that’s the problem. The right is the lesser of two evils, but unfortunately it is too often attached with religion and intolerance.

  3. derek Says:

    yes, the speech was certainly worth listening in its entirety as you said.

    i wasn’t going to say this before codeslinger, but yes, the staunch left is implicitly or unwittingly instilling in society, gradually, a double standard between whites and non-whites. an all-white college, for example, is unpalatable (not that i am requesting for one), but an all non-white college would be perfectly okay.

    the problem with liberalism is that the schools that my generation attends (from birth until adulthood) are left-wing propaganda centers. far left became slightly liberal. moderate became conservative. somewhat conservative became reactionary. it’s all shifted to the left. in addition, the media, the television that most children watch every day leans to the left. and every year we get a crop of innoculated leftist adults who think they are being moderate.

    liberals always have that archetype of a racist white supremacist to pull out whenever they want to. and if you dare question they left, they will. cameron is correct, many ethnic groups sometimes do things that would be considered racist if a white person did it. and there is a stigma against questioning it.

    i simply want all races to be treated equally – not made equal. there is no need for ethnic division. we should all not be considered black, white, asian, hispanic, etc., but we should all be seen as only 1 race: human. that’s the solution to our problem. i believe we should be considered as individuals rather than parts of a collective ethnicity.

    this problem was not created by a few brief gusts but by a million breezes. it has been created gradually, over many years, subtly. its the little things, that seem too small to be a concern, that are the problem. we see them as individually insignificant and we ignore them. we fail to analyze and inspect them, and as a result they all clump together, subtly and subconciously, over time. and as a result, society has become unfair without realizing it.

    xan, please reply your thoughts of what i just wrote.

    Xanthippa says:
    Yes, you are correct.

    A million breezes is the right description.

    It’s the whole ‘frog in hot water’ thing: Since not one of the ‘increments’ is big in itself, it is not reacted to.

    Another good description would be ‘the death of a thousand cuts’ …

    The question remains: is there a way to fix this?

    I am beginning to loose hope… It might just be too late for our society. It seems like we’ll have to wait for it to fully collapse before there will be a critical mass of people willing to re-build it.

    I hope I am wrong. Truly.

    • derek Says:

      I proposed the solution: we are not all different races but one race, human.

      though I do not expect people to rise above their cultural biases to accept this.

      Xanthippa says:

      Yes, treating everybody as equal in the eyes of the law is indeed the ideal, as I see it.

      Unfortunately, multiculturalism is still legally entrenched in much of the formerly free world – and multiculturalism is defined by the law treating people differenly, depending on which group they belong to. In other words, it is an ideology where group rights trump individual rights.

      Unfortunately, this tool – multiculturalism – is useful for unscrupulous people whu wish to hold power: it facilitates the whole ‘divide and conquer’ methodology of grasping and keeping power. By pitting various groups against each other in an effort to gain more rights for one group at the expense of all others, the whole power struggle is no longer about who should be in power but about how to gain favour for your group from those in power…

      Our elected officials are just the puppets – the actual power lies in the hands of the government bureaucrats who preside over government departments and ‘arm’s-length-agencies’ which are increasingly less accountable to anyone other than themselves. Elected officials are not in office long enough to even grasp the mechanisms through which these behemoths function, much less learn how to control them.

      In order to consolidate their power, these large bureaucracies work to make individual citizens more and more dependent on them for their very survival – by either regulating or being the only method of delivering essential services to the citizen, from policing to education to healthcare…

      The more we permit the state do do for us, the more depedent we are on the state – and the more we loose our individuality.

      • derek Says:

        I agree with you xan, 100 percent

        I think the issue is even more fundamental. Conservative, generally and historically, means order, stability, rule of law, but liberalism is grounded in changing the law for short term benefit. The left protects the mob rule majority. The right protects the individual.

        the problem with liberalism is that it results in a special interest government. When one makes law to their benefit, others make it to theirs. We all take from each other and it is tragedy of the commons.

        race is a way to separate people, and unfortunately,it is working.

        Xanthippa says:

        So, we must work towards restoring the rights of individuals.



        But, there is a chance. And it would be irresponsible for us to give up.

        The real question is, HOW?

      • derek Says:

        How do we solve the problem? We don’t.

        Perhaps in hundreds of years humanity will learn from its mistakes. We’ll be long dead, and the universe will still continue just as it had.

        There is so much injustice, unfairness, ignorance, and harm in the world. We can try to stop it. We can devote our whole lives to try to stop it. Few people are able to rise above their cultural biases and view the world objectively with reason, which is why we are outnumbered. All of our efforts may have a local effect, but won’t make a dent otherwise.

        There are many problems in the world that we cannot solve no matter how hard we try. Ultimately, we just have to care for ourselves and the few people close to us. If humanity does ruin itself, there is nothing we can do but protect ourselves.

        We are incapable of solving these problems, and therefore it is fruitless to try. Thats a sad truth we simply have to accept.

        Xanthippa says:

        I disagree: not doing anything is abdicating our civic duty.

        Since this thread began, I have come accross an excellent speech by THE John Robson (OK – I think he is one of them exceptional individuals who are as close to ‘god’ as one can get). He gets asked the same question – and he has a good answer.

        We tell our story.

        That is where we must start.

        Because – and this is my wording, not his – culture defines the laws, not the other way around. And culture is defined by the stories we tell.

        So, let us talk about Alfred the Great and the cakes, about Magna Carta, about who we are!

        Because our cultural backgrounds are much more an indicator of our future behaviour than any genetic heritage we may carry.

        So, let’s build it right!

      • derek Says:

        I respectfully disagree. We don’t have any deontological civic duty. Duties are manmade and subjective.

        Is it worth crusading without progress? Is it worth punching a steel wall?

        Xanthippa says:

        Yes, it is.

        Not because it will improve others, but because it will improve us, as individuals.

        It’s about ‘the journey’, after all…

        I’m not suggesting being self-destructive, but I am saying that working to improve our society affirms our humanity.

        Oh, and I do object your usage of the term ‘crusading’ in this manner – mine is a secular cause. Words matter!

  4. CodeSlinger Says:


    I agree with most of what you said but I strongly disagree with the notion that “we should all be seen as only 1 race: human.”

    First, because the left has sowed this conceptual ground with so many ideological land mines, let me be clear about one thing: all individuals have equal rights and therefore should be equal before the law. This is why Justitia wears a blindfold.

    However, it is a mistake to take this principle of jurisprudence out of the courtroom and attempt to apply it in everyday life. In real life, survival depends on learning from experience, that is, the ability to estimate cause-effect relationships based on subtle statistical regularities – precisely the sort of thing that is inadmissible in court because it doesn’t prove anything.

    Sometimes these statistical regularities are not so subtle. If you are a woman walking alone at night in an American city, and you meet a black man, you are 4 times more likely to get raped than if you meet a white man. And if you are a white woman, it’s 17 times more likely.

    But, telling as that is, it doesn’t even begin tell the whole story. From 2003 to 2008, the average number of white women raped by black men was 22,932. The average number of black women raped by white men was… less than ten.

    This result is based on figures obtained directly from the U.S. Department of Justice website. You can download them yourself from here. The documents you are looking for are called “Criminal Victimization in the United States, XXXX Statistical Tables,” where XXXX is the year. Go to table 42 of each one and multiply out the percentages.

    This is just one example. The point is that whites, blacks, asians, hispanics, semites, etc. act and react quite differently in similar situations, and these differences correlate strongly with race. Ignoring or denying these facts is not at all virtuous. It is foolhardy. And it is grossly unfair.

    In real life, we don’t get far if we are forced to live blindfolded. But this is exactly what multi-culti political correctness does to us. And just to be sure, it adds earplugs and a gag.

    Xanthippa says:

    So, let’s start by shedding the earplugs, the blindfold, and let’s defy the gag!

    I have an idea for a set of stories….

    OK – it’s not much, but it is a concrete place to start!

    • derek Says:

      Codeslinger, it is good that we agree mostly, but I will just clear up this disagreement. You raise the distinction between the theoretical and the empirical. Those statistics are because of racism, which I am against. In a world where there is only one ethnicity: human, there would not be race-on-race violence. Of course, this result is unachievable.

      • CodeSlinger Says:


        Not only unachievable, but undesirable. It would be a real drag if we were all the same.

        The answer is not to eradicate differences, but to accept them. In practice, that means respecting freedom of association (including the freedom not to associate), and recognizing the wisdom in the old saying, tall fences make good neighbours.

      • derek Says:

        accept the inherent unchangable differences, i agree 100% and do not deny that. but the differences society fabricates are unnecessary.

      • CodeSlinger Says:

        trouble is, I don’t know how to tell the difference reliably…

        Xan says:

        I don’t think we’re meant to.

        I suspect we successfully evolved precisely because we can’t ‘tell the difference reliably’!

    • CodeSlinger Says:



      Ripping off the blindfold, pulling out the earplugs, spitting out the gag, and refusing to take any more crap is what the angry white man is all about!

      It’s time to be loud, proud, and unbowed!

  5. CodeSlinger Says:


    Yes, the religious right leads to fascism just as surely as the secular left leads to totalitarianism.

    Both sides drive towards authoritarian collectivism. Both sides believe that morality is dictated, and rights are granted, by a higher power. The only difference is whether they call that higher power “God” or “State.”

    But the realization is now widespread that left vs. right is a false dichotomy. The true battle is the individual vs. the collective. And this is a perspective that fits very naturally with the mindset of the angry white male. All that is needed is someone to step forward and offer an alternative to the false dichotomy.

    And that alternative rests on the realization that all good and evil, rights and responsibilities are inherent in the individual, and follow directly from human nature. Religions and philosophies that contradict this basic truth result in tyranny and oppression, but those which embrace it lead to prosperity and freedom.

    This is the world view that will transform the angry white male into a force of good. His anger will give him the strength to rise from his knees and shake off his oppressor. But it is the acceptance of natural morality and natural rights that will give him to courage to resist the temptation to trade one tyrant for another and remain on his feet, standing tall as a free man.

  6. CodeSlinger Says:


    You say, “we are incapable of solving these problems, and therefore it is fruitless to try.”

    I say, go ahead and lie down like a whipped dog, if that’s all you think you can do.

    Me? I will continue to be loud, proud and unbowed!

    Why? Well, because of what you said:

    “I wasn’t going to say this before CodeSlinger, but …”

    I hear that from a number of people. Every day.

    • derek Says:

      Codeslinger, I have no shame or fear. I am above the problems that afflict society. I will not deign to fight other people’s battles. I safeguard myself and a few others, but I am not going to sacrifice myself to become a servant to the masses. If society spoils itself because of its own ignorance, it deserves the consequences and not my help.

      I am not whipped supine, and I am not crusading either. I am above it, Codeslinger.

    • CodeSlinger Says:


      Do you live absolutely self-sufficiently on an island somewhere?

      If not, then you can’t afford to consider yourself above it.

      The time is long gone when you can just sail over the horizon to escape oppression. The world isn’t big enough for that anymore. So the only way to be free is to stand up to the oppressors. To stand together with like-minded men and take your freedom.

      But there is a deeper reason, that goes far beyond simple pragmatism: a man does the right thing, simply because it is the right thing to do.

      That’s what makes a man worth more than an ape.

  7. Steynian 437 « Free Canuckistan! Says:

    […] rudderless in their desire to “salvage” Western civilization“; David Cameron: his Munich speech on Multiculturalism; ‘British PM cured of blindness!’ …. (melaniephillips, […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: