(Alt-Market)—Multiculturalism as a subversive movement is the defining political schism of our time. Is is the fulcrum point for numerous civilization changing events and a direct trigger for the exponential decline of the western world. Anyone who ignores the effects of multiculturalism will be oblivious to the many disruptions coming to our lives today and in the near future.
In 1992, Bill Clinton’s Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbott (a member of the globalist Council On Foreign Relations) wrote an essay for Time Magazine called “The Birth Of The Global Nation.” In that article, he outlined the globalist view of national sovereignty as temporary and cultural boundaries as obstacles that could be subdued by luring countries into economic interdependency.
Talbott dismissed cultural distinctions as arbitrary and cited the incoming formation of the European Union as an example of supranational governance over otherwise separate and unique cultural identities.
However, the globalists ran into some problems. Westerners might have been able to create supranational ties because of shared cultural roots, but they were not going to open their borders to the rest of the world without being forced. From around 2012 onward, a program of multiculturalism was introduced with mass immigration as the primary weapon.
We have seen disastrous results ever since. Portions of Europe are facing societal collapse, and this was by design. Keep in mind, globalism does not necessarily need borders to fully disappear, but it does need national identities and loyalties to disappear. Specifically, western societies must be diluted and their heritage erased for the globalist “New World Order” to move forward.
The fastest way to do that is to overwhelm western demographics with mass movements of people who hold completely contrary ideals . In light of the plague of riots in France this past week led by mobs of migrants and Marxist activists (globalists), I thought it might be important to once again clarify why the third world should never be allowed to settle in the western world. The threat is not just from globalists; it also comes from the same migrants that globalists use as a battering ram against the west.
Like the great catastrophes of the past, from the Bronze Age collapse to the fall of Rome and the near destruction of Europe in the Middle Ages, mass immigration of certain groups (often aided by corrupt governments) annihilates progress, cripples security and erases cultural stability.
Unlike Europe, the US under the Trump Administration has seen major successes this year in blocking illegal (and “legal”) immigration from third world enclaves (Muslim immigration has plunged by 96%). So much so that leftists (and some libertarians) are outraged over the epic drop in Muslim and Hindu migrants. Their argument in favor of the multicultural agenda? They claim that America was founded with the intention of open immigration of ALL peoples.
This is simply not so. In fact, the Founders were highly selective about who they allowed into the US. Our constitutional heritage is often used as a justification for multiculturalism. However, these claims are based on deception and a deliberate misrepresentation of our roots.
The United States was never a migrant “melting pot”. This idea has been perpetuated over the past several decades in popular media and political discourse until it became sacrosanct in the minds of many Americans, but it’s not real – It was always been a fantasy fabricated by Hollywood and the political left.
There has also been a comprehensive effort among “independent” organizations to misrepresent the intentions of the Founders. The motive is to sell conservatives and independent voters on the notion that third-world immigration is perfectly in line with the constitutional framework of our nation.
I see this claim often among more left-leaning libertarian activists as much as I see it among progressives; the idea that borders are somehow contrary to the American virtues of freedom. These people simply don’t know their history, or they are ignoring history in favor of their own narratives. If the Founders’ original system was in place today, America would look dramatically different and far less liberal.
At the very beginning of America’s national history, the Founding Fathers established the Naturalization Act of 1790, allowing only “free white people of good moral character” to immigrate as legal citizens. The standard remained in place in one form or another for hundreds of years and did not officially end until 1952 with the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Then came the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 under Lyndon B. Johnson (Johnson’s liberal policies have become an enduring nightmare for the US ever since his presidency). The Hart-Celler Act ended the National Origins quota of the 1920s, which required that the vast majority of immigrants come from European nations and restricted migrants from third-world countries.
The argument that the Founders imagined America as a sprawling buffet for every malcontent in the world is utterly fabricated. They did not view the US as an open air bazaar welcoming any culture from any backwater location to take advantage of what our ancestors built over the course of centuries. The vast majority of migrants up until the 1960s were from western nations with similar cultural foundations. The melting pot claim is a lie.
The Founders did not intend for cultures with completely incompatible religious and ideological beliefs to take root in the US. And if these people did immigrate, assimilation was expected and required. While the Founders argued in favor of religious freedom, they understood that certain groups exist as an antithesis to the western ideal.
For example, Thomas Jefferson bought a Qur’an in 1765 mainly as a legal and historical text and later used Islam as an example of a religion that, in his view, stifled freedom of thought and relied on coercion.
John Adams once listed Muhammad among “sober inquirers after truth,” yet in other writings he described him as a military fanatic (this is usually the case after people go deeper into Islam and learn the ugly details).
Contemporary Protestant writers of the era commonly considered Islam an ideology spread by the sword and as a political system more than a religious system. Back then they still hadn’t forgotten the horrors of the Muslim invasions into Europe; invasions that led to the Crusades. America’s very first war overseas was an executive action without the approval of congress against the Barbary Pirates – Fanatics backed by Muslim governments that had been terrorizing European ships for centuries.
Hinduism and other Asian or African traditions received less detailed comment from the Founders and were usually grouped under “pagan” or “Gentoo.” The presence of these groups was sparse or non-existent in the US until the mid-1900s. Most slaves who practiced native religions ultimately converted to Christianity, or their children did.
The US banned the importation of slaves in 1808 under a law signed by Thomas Jefferson.
Many Founding Fathers including Jefferson, Madison and Monroe wanted to deport slaves back to Africa to a colony under American protection rather than continue the institution – Not just because they had misgivings about the practice, but because they were concerned that the slaves, even if they were freed, would ultimately be incompatible with western culture and that conflicts would arise.
Jefferson laid this out clearly in “Notes on the State of Virginia” (Query XIV, 1785). He called slavery a moral and political evil and favored gradual emancipation, but argued that freed blacks and whites could not live together peacefully. In other words, even Jefferson, a staunch defender of personal liberty, understood that certain cultures will inevitably clash if kept in proximity and in large numbers.
This is not to say that black people can’t function in the US or Europe, many clearly do just fine. But it is also clear according to the crime rates (13% of the population and 50% of the violent crime) and political stats (87% supporting leftist policies) that Jefferson was right to be concerned.
The Founders were realists who respected practical limits on society for the sake of stability; they were not anarchists. That is to say, they understood than not all freedoms are good and some restrictions must be applied, including borders and logical cultural discrimination. I would argue that if their rules were still in place today, America would be far better off. Specifically their limits on immigration.
Before the 1960s, about 84% of the foreign-born population in the U.S. had migrated from Europe or Canada. Latin American inflows existed (especially from Mexico) but were much smaller in scale than they have been in recent years.
The Hart-Cellars Act abolished country-specific quotas and replaced them with a system emphasizing family immigration. This opened legal pathways from Asia, Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere. New immigrant flows then shifted rapidly: By the 1970s, the majority of arriving immigrants came from Latin America and Asia rather than Europe.
Immigration from Europe and Canada fell from 84% in 1960 to 42% by 1980 and only 13% in recent years. Latin America and Asia became the dominant regions of origin for new citizens. It is not a coincidence that from the mid-1960s onward the US suffered increasing economic and social instability, along with skyrocketing crime rates.
It was not until Donald Trump took office in 2025 that illegal border crossings plummeted back to 1960s levels and third world migrant populations have actually started shrinking.
The establishment of LBJ’s unprecedented welfare rollout combined with surging immigration led to an intense strain on US debt and infrastructure. It’s not surprising that the dollar was decoupled from gold only a few years later; it was the only way to artificially increase the money pool to pay for so many federal subsidies. As in Europe, the majority of third world migrants in the US utilize welfare as soon as they arrive.
As I noted in my article “Pillagers vs Producers: There’s Only Two Ways To Save The Western World”, there is an inherent instinct among certain cultures to either build wealth and resources, or steal wealth and resources. The third world is largely rooted in pillaging; we have seen proof of this time and time again.
Is some cases this is because they operate on tribal methods that have not changed for thousands of years. In other cases, it is because people from undeveloped nations are conditioned to accept and even defend socialism and authoritarianism – modernized forms of pillaging. They have never lived any other way and western ideals of self reliance, independence, free markets and meritocracy are completely alien to them. The government is mother and father and if they want something they must beg the government for it, or loot it.
Pillagers cannot live peacefully with producers. It’s impossible. And for the leftists who claim that the west is “the biggest pillager of all”, the facts say otherwise. When European colonists came to the Americas, or to Africa or India, what they found was perpetually warring tribes, human sacrifice, cannibalism, genocide, slavery and little semblance of long term infrastructure. These places were wastelands.
They left these countries with the most modern technology and infrastructure of the age. And what did these people do with that inherited wealth? Nothing. They let it decay, or stripped it for temporary gains at the expense of long term stability. One need only look at what happened to South Africa in the last 30 years to see that westerners produce, and third worlders pillage.
According to polling data and voting data, third worlders lean overwhelmingly left when it comes to government power and open borders. Muslim respondents maintain some fundamentalist social beliefs which are considered conservative, but generally favor bigger government (71%), immigration openness (82%), and believe racial and ethnic diversity “strengthens” the U.S. (82%). Indian/Hindu migrants poll very close to the same numbers. Meaning, immigrants will always perpetuate more immigrants, especially when immigration is made easy and they don’t have to work hard to earn citizenship.
Is the lack of multiculturalism the same as “ethno-nationalism”? Not exactly. Ethnic dominance is not the same as cultural dominance, though the Founding Fathers envisioned both for America. At bottom, third world cultures should be largely removed from the US, or at the very least, limited enough that they are not able to organize into sprawling ethnic communities which prevent assimilation.
This is not just to thwart the machinations of globalism, it’s also to protect the west from predatory invasions.
There is nothing in the birth of this nation that requires us to tolerate foreign influx. America is not a piece of clay for them to mold as they please. It is not an “economic zone” for them to pilfer. It is a nation and a culture built by western adventurers, settlers, conquerors and their descendants. No one else is entitled to live here and if they get the chance, they should feel lucky.
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
