Benedikt Beckeld is a writer and philosopher, a native of Sweden who has lived for long periods in Paris and London, and now — most gratefully — lives in the United States. He is the author of the 2022 book Western Self-Contempt: Oikophobia in the Decline of Civilizations, which Cornell University Press published.
The Muslim invasion not just of his native land, but of so much of Europe, alarms Beckeld, and he is sounding the tocsin here in his new country. His latest article presents the case for monoethnic societies. What he means by that can be found here: “Ethnic Memory: Why Societies Should Be Monoethnic,” by Benedict Beckeld, European Conservative, August 25, 2026:
The title of this article may immediately invite accusations of racism. Since nothing could be further from the truth, in my case, than such an accusation, let me begin with a crucial distinction, which I shall then explain: that between racial realism and what I will call ethnic memory. This distinction can help clarify a number of political disputes. Leftists will argue, for instance, that the United States and even European countries have always been multicultural. There is some truth to this in the American case, but ‘multicultural’ meant something different in the late 18th century than it does today. In those times, ‘multicultural’—the physical reality, not the later term—might mean Englishmen and Frenchmen, rather than Englishmen and Pakistanis, living side by side and creating a new nation. So one must be precise in one’s use of terms.
This then leads to the question of what it means to be an American, Englishman, Australian, and so on. And here we find that there must be, in these cases, a dominant Anglo culture for such identities to have any meaning. But that is not all: one must also understand the role that ethnicity plays in the formation and maintenance of national identity. People may acknowledge the importance of culture but wonder what the color of one’s skin could possibly have to do with it. In and of itself, it ought to have nothing to do with it, but de facto it does, and for quite cogent, defendable reasons. An example of the confusion caused by unclear use of terms took place recently during a discussion in the UK between journalist Julia Hartley-Brewer and Restore Britain spokesman Charlie Downes, which made the rounds on social media. Hartley-Brewer, while sharing Downes’ concern about the Islamization of Britain, seemed to reject the notion that whiteness was a part of British identity, while Downes felt that preserving the white nature of Britain was important. When Hartley-Brewer wondered why whiteness would be a determining factor in who should be a part of the British fabric, Downes seemed incapable of offering a clear answer. Had Downes been able to explain the philosophical basis underlying (one may hope) his position, Hartley-Brewer might have been more receptive. Instead, the exchange devolved into the usual insults. The subject has become increasingly topical, especially as waves of immigration have transformed Western societies, particularly in Europe.
So let me explain the philosophical distinction. Racial realism is the racist notion that a person’s race is the deciding factor of his character, that it makes him in some way intrinsically better or worse than a person of another race. Defenders of racial realism will sometimes point out, for example, that the average black person scores lower than the average white person in the United States on IQ tests (although the average white person scores lower than the average American of Asian or Jewish Ashkenazi extraction). The answer is that, although the IQ scores of some ethnic groups cluster higher or lower than those of others, there is considerable overlap between them. Many individuals in a lower-scoring group will score higher than many individuals in a higher-scoring group. This is why, for example, the black ethnicity in the United States, while having a lower cluster of IQ data points than many other ethnicities, still produces men like Frederick Douglass, Thomas Sowell, and Clarence Thomas. And so regardless of differently located clusters of data points, one should still treat people of various ethnicities as individuals and reject the racial realism that would seek to definitively define them….
Food — not pabulum — for thought. Please read the whole article here take the time it takes to digest it.
Rick Gordon says
To me, multiculturism is the death knell for a nation. It says that we can all live together BUT not assimilate – keep separate communities and not understand or respect others.
I was raised with the concept of America as a ‘melting pot’ of peoples – meaning that people with a variety of backgrounds were welcome – according to our immigration laws BUT were expected to assimilate – to accept America’s creed, values, language, and culture. For some immigrant families that may take a generation, but it seemed to me that it worked superbly.
somehistory says
Rather than deciding by *culture* or race, it should be morality.
People get along best when they get along. One can have a neighbor of the same background in his schooling, his work and skin color. But, if the neighbor has an immoral mindset, the two won’t get along
very well.
muzzies are brought up with a mindset so different from others who are taught to be kind to their neighbors.
.. muzzies are taught to believe and behave as if any muzzie is better than any non muzzie and the non deserves to be robbed, beaten, raped and murdered. Or live in total subjugation to the muzzie….until such time as he is robed, beaten, raped and murdered.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
Except that it’s kinda hard to herd moral people together vs immoral people together in their own countries. Since every family has its share of moral and immoral members – there is a wide spectrum even within families of what is considered acceptable
I do agree w/ you on muslims, but beyond that, within a society, it’s impossible to create an “apartheid” system segregating moral people from immoral ones. I’m not sure how often in history it’s been tried
࿗Infidel࿘ says
No. This was one of the many issues on which I agreed w/ Tucker, before he went rogue. If people have less in common w/ each other, how does that make them more likely to work better together?
Unlike in past centuries, people today do have a better idea of how to create successful economies and societies, and can turn their countries around – look at Argentina or El Salavador – to the point where people would want to move there, rather than leave there. If every, or even most countries, became that way, the only reason to migrate would be if people already shared the values, culture or language of the countries they wanted to move to
Westman says
There is one chosen common practice that will absolutely damage the future of many children in the next generation of any ethnicity – first cousin marriage. There is no scripture where Allah orders the genetic damage of future Muslims by this practice.
There is no excuse for this practice of cousin marriage in the age of science. In a nation with welfare it places a burden on the taxpayers and parents. It should be outlawed(in most Western nations it is) and enforced on Muslims living in infidel nations.
China and Japan are successful monocultures that plan to stay that way. China has quite pointedly shown the world what it thinks of Islam. Strangely(?), unlike the US and Europe, Muslims are not demanding entry. You don’t suppose Islam chooses the nations which take immigrants and have the best free goodies?
Where are the Chinese signs declaring that China will live under Sharia? And the Hamas flags?
Islam is in serious need of reform yet locked into the 7th century.
Walter Sieruk says
Some of the many politically Correct ideas which is tragically alive in the different countries of Europe and the United States and the United Kingdom is the of the politically correct philosophy of that ideology of Multiculturalism and Cultural Relativism which includes WOKE and CRT, many Westerners are infected by that worthless , sick and unrealistic philosophy.
With its teaching of the concept that all cultures are equal, because this multiculturalism concept teaches the foolishness that all values derive their meaning within the specific social content. This folly of thinking leads, or misleads, many people to view every position as only “opinion” and that truth is only relevant to the person or society holding that view. In other words, discovering actual truth in impossible.
Multiculturalism and Cultural Relativism are absurd, nonsensical and contradictory. For example, to say “finding the truth is impossible” Is a statement of contradiction. For in making that statement that is saying, in essence, “I have found the truth which is finding the truth is not possible.” It should be obvious that this “Cultural War’ needs to and should have a solidly based in and on truth and not by a worthless “war of opinions.”
With the Left Wing, with their mindset of multiculturalism, they claim that there is no absolute truth but only “opinion.” On every subject. Of course, the leftist who make that claim do so as an “absolute truth.” What a flip –flop!
Two other examples of the falseness of multiculturalism. with its teaching that everything is only “opinion.”
First is in the late 1970’s two guys said “There are so many different religions that no one can ever know the truth about religion.” They were really saying that statement so dogmatically that they were self-contradicting. For they were saying that they know the truth about religion that is not one can know the truth about religion.
Second, a shallow man in the 1980’s said when asked the question “Why do you always small talk ? You don’t ever talk about a topic that might have some value, as politics? After ll. all things are related “ That shallow man replied “There are so many different political ideas that finding the true one is unattainable and all things are not related.” The wisdom-less man was saying that he obtained the truth which is the he can’t obtain the truth and who does can is really truthfully say that all things are not related in he can’t find the truth. How foolish, an obvious contradiction. What is needed to counter this nonsense multiculturalism is the concept of “Absolutism.” Which a definition of this, with the scope of the topic, is “An absolute standard or principle .”
In this cultural war it’s the Bible with its absolute standards and principles to stand firm against the extreme folly and foolishness of the multiculturalism and Cultural Relativism concepts of WOKE and CRT.
In conclusion, in this War of Ideas a firm foundation for truth may be found in the Bible and not the weak folly of Multiculturalism and Cultural Relativism in which everything is “opinion.”
The Left is the problem says
The Left have always promoted Multiculturalism, because they perceived an advantage of importing a welfare dependent voter base, with who they could establish a symbiotic, often rent-seeker, relationship.
In almost every English-speaking country, the introduced non-English speaking Multicultural immigrants vote Left.
The same in German-speaking, French-speaking, Dutch-speaking or Swedish-speaking countries, the introduced Multicultural immigrants likely vote Left.
For the Left, Multiculturalism equates to votes and power. The Left will always defend Multiculturalism.
But there are some on the Right who also support it. The “Chamber of Commerce ” or Establishment Right or Globalist Right types just consider the benefits of additional customers and extra workers resulting from increased immigrants. The increased supply of workers helps place downward pressure on wages. So, some on the Globalist Right (who have low affinity with a Nation) support Multiculturalism, regardless of the damage it does to the social cohesion of their Nation.
That’s why eventually, populist Right Wing politicians and parties emerge to save their respective Nations.
Tim gallagher says
I think it can work fairly well where people have a live and let live attitude. Where I go to church the congregation is probably 70 percent Asian, Chinese, people from the Philippines and people from an Indian background. I think Buddhists and Jewish people are fine. It can’t work with Muslims because the bad, hate filled attitude they have towards non Muslims. They are intolerant and always want to thuggishly impose Islam on all of us. You want to wreck a country, just let Muslims in. Peace will disappear because of rotten Islam.
Voltaic says
He is a White Supremacist.
And for an academic he is a bit sloppy.
In quote 1 below, surely an Englishman’s culture is by definition Anglo. And what about an Englishwoman’s culture ? Or is he somewhat old fashioned and we are supposed to understand that Englishman stands for any male or female citizen of England? Or did he mean Englishman to stand for any British citizen -the kind thing you get with: In 1940 Hitler drew up plans to invade England and conquer its people…so did Hitler forget about those in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland?
Maybe he meant to write American, British, Australian…because saying an Englishman has an Anglo culture is like saying a triangle has 3 angles.
But does there have to a dominant Anglo culture for someone to be American, British, or Australian or a citizen in the “and so on”?
And then “skin color”? Ever since a disorderly Italian Prime Minister said that Obama had a nice tan, nobody talks about skin color. What would anchor-baby Badenoch (leader of the British Tories and of Nigerian parents) think? Skin colour? Did you say skin colour!? No, I said “skin color”. Ok, that’s all right then, we make allowances for Americans who cannot spell.
As for quote 2, yes of course multiethnic entails multicultural. But look at the Union Jack. For centuries it signalled the difficult union of 4 countries with cultures more or less at variance with each other. But if you considered America, Britain, and Australia in say 1959 they were each a monoculture without being contradicted by, for example, the Queen and Duke up in Balmoral Castle wearing kilts yet speaking in tones of Received English (the Queen’s, no less).
[Wales is not on the Union Jack because it was already “joined with ” England.]
Multiculturalism in Britain is the mild diversity that existed in 1959 (after centuries of conflict) getting unmanageable and no flag can accommodate it. But that’s not the proximate cause of the existential problem facing Britain. The cause is what blew in with the crowd and which we know as Islam.
Islam is the problem.
Islam is the Devil.
They kill men and woman in the streets -and children at play in or out of the house. Talking about skin color, while Islam is crawling through society, is like that other philosopher Heidegger talking about Being and Time (Sein! und Zeit!) while gas chambers were being primed to take in other actual human beings.
Quote 1:
“This then leads to the question of what it means to be an American, Englishman, Australian, and so on. And here we find that there must be, in these cases, a dominant Anglo culture for such identities to have any meaning. But that is not all: one must also understand the role that ethnicity plays in the formation and maintenance of national identity. People may acknowledge the importance of culture but wonder what the color of one’s skin could possibly have to do with it. In and of itself, it ought to have nothing to do with it, but de facto it does…”
Quote 2:
“So when politicians say that they are fine with multiethnic or multiracial communities but want monocultural one…they miss the fact that multiethnic communities lead to multicultural communities.”