Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
January 21st 2016 print

Frank Pledge

Multiculturalism, the Real Racism

There is a huge and entire industry -- if that is the right word for a philosophy that generates nothing but problems for all the tax dollars it consumes  -- devoted to the absurd concept that all cultures are equal. We are all the poorer for the merchandising of this toxic mythology

burqa babesAs Their ABC and the mainstream media have told us many times, Australians are racist xenophobes with a sub-civilised booze culture and little refinement in the things that really matter.  Beer, BBQ’s, beach and bogan ball games are the lower classes’ only interests, meaning they are unable to tell a Sauvignon Blanc from a Chardonnay.  No class, no civilised grasp of the cultural relativism their elitist betters have long professed to recognise as key to a happy and untroubled society. That the evidence contradicts this shiny vision bothers its advocates not at all.

Fifty years ago, I was drawn to Australia by the sun, the sand, job prospects, home ownership (an unlikely prospect in my homeland) and the opportunity to be whatever I aspired to be, provided I worked for it.  This was exactly what I found in a manly culture (PC: Red Alert!) where ‘having a go’ was all the go.  Australia was a land of opportunity, although also wary of foreigners.  This latter wariness did not and does not make Australia racist or xenophobic, not by my definition.

These days, admitting to not liking someone who is not white or was not born in Australia immediately draws all the standard and instant accusations — racism, xenophobia etc etc. So, how do we define ‘racism’?  Let me start by saying what it is not: Racism is not rudeness or ignorance. I have heard people called nigger, coon, blackie, Jacky, wog, slope, noggie, nig-nog greaser, Itie, Yid, Leb, raghead, Chink, Yank, Pom, Taffy, Ranga, Paki, Jock, Canuck, Spud, Balt, boony, ape, etc, etc.  These terms are all related to ethnicity in one way or other, though often obscurely.  I have also heard people call the users of such terms ‘racists’, which might be correct in some rare instances but, for the most part, is not the case. Rather, what they are is rude, uncouth and ignorant, or they simply can’t be bothered mastering the strange and inconsistent code that determines if a tag is acceptable or beyond the Pale.

For instance, the English are ‘Poms’ and were referred to as such for many, many years. Recently, however, cricket’s authorities decided that the term is offensive and must not longer be uttered. Most Scots wearily accept that they are ‘Jocks’ and take no great offence, if any at all. But what about Paki or Leb or Jap, three contractions and none of which is these days regarded as acceptable? Why then is Brit OK (even allowing that Pom is not)? Is it racist to contract one nationality but not others? How is man in the street to know?

I read recently that President Obama deployed his executive powers to prosecute a transport company that fired two Muslims who refused to deliver beer, even though they knew when they were hired that it was part of the job.[i]  Although Islam is not a race but a political philosophy garbed as a creed, this set me to thinking. Suppose, just for argument’s sake, I had a business and wished to recruit fresh workers. Also suppose that I had considered adding Muslims to the payroll, but ultimately decided against it. They might take time off to pray and inhibit my outfit’s productivity. Males might object to shaking hands with my female customers, perhaps even refuse to interact with them at all.  They might demand their own refrigerator in the lunchroom, lest their lunches be contaminated by close proximity to kufar sandwiches. By Obama’s interpretation, none of those reasons would justify placing Muslims at the bottom of my candidates’ list. Yet my problem would be with the complications Muslim beliefs might cause me and my existing workforce, not with Muslims themselves. It is a subtle distinction, but one only professional promoters of multiculturalism will fail to recognise at a glance.

If you are in private enterprise and ignore all of this sensible “bigotry” in your selection processes and hire a devout Muslim anyway, then complications, workplace discord and additional overhead may well be your reward. Were they to be hired and then take issue with some or other “discriminatory” practice — a refusal to install that second lunchroom fridge, for instance — how to explain that to the inevitable inquisitors from this or that equal-rights bureaucracy? No matter how cogent your explanation, chances are it wouldn’t wash. If devout Muslims choose to set themselves apart from the broader society in which they live, is it “bigotry” to recognise the barriers they have themselves erected and, as a consequence, to decide the best policy is avoid them altogether? I think not.

So, what is racism? To my mind the definition is simplicity itself: when someone takes an unjustified action purely on the basis of skin colour, ethnic background, or some other, entirely subjective factor. Over the years I have known several couples who were cut off by their parents for marrying inter-racially.  In one especially heartbreaking case, the grandparents have yet to meet their grandchildren, although I know the grandmother yearns desperately to do so. Her daughter has resisted all her mother’s overtures, demanding that both her parents, not just the mother, accept her husband as their grandchildren’s father.  As the grandfather will not relent, the stand-off has gone on for over 15 years. Soon it will no longer matter, as the children are nearing adulthood. Being fully aware of the family history, it is most unlikely they would ever agree to meet the grandparents who have spurned their own family. Make no mistake, the grandfather is a bigot and the waves of his intolerance will spread for years to come.

Statistics demonstrate that Australians have one of the world’s highest rates of inter-ethnic marriage, which should put the lie to the claim that racism is in our DNA. Where this does not apply is in certain ethnic communities, a fact illustrated by a recent SBS talk show that saw a well educated, sophisticated Muslim doctor announce that, on the whole, he would prefer if his son married inside the culture, ideally to a first cousin the lad has never met and who currently resides in Belgium.

Of course, such an exclusionary attitude would never be described as bigotry, not by the officially endorsed definition which posits that the “oppressed” and the “alienated” can never be guilty of that offence because they lack the power to impose their will on others. In America, when a black man kills another black man or a white man, it is so commonplace as to be unworthy of mention in the media. But when a white man kills a black man, that is front-page news, and not merely because such events happen so rarely. Rather, those irregular events are presented as proof that white society has its heel on the black man’s throat and will grind away forever. It is the most utter nonsense, but that is the narrative to which university solons and setters of policy adhere. It is the elevation of theory, in other words, above and beyond fact.

Here we arrive at the hollowness of the multicultural myth. As our intermarriage rates demonstrate, Australia does multiracialism very well indeed. But that ain’t multiculturalism, which preaches a brand of warm and fuzzy separatism. We’re all part of the same society, you see, just locked into the boxes of each individual’s group-inherited and racially ordained identity. It would not be drawing a long bow to note that this same attitude was once widely denounced. Surely you recall the passionate protests against apartheid in South Africa? Yet in Australia, even as multiculturalism curses society with artificial and encouraged divisions, we are told that our version of ‘apartness’ is a force for good, that only bigots could ever oppose it.

Once again, the social engineers’ theories trump fact. Note how many women who have been genitally mutilated are treated every year at Melbourne’s Royal Women’s Hospital — enough to warrant a weekly clinic, but not enough to warrant more than the rare, the very rare, prosecution. Kid-glove treatment for an appalling crime because, well, it’s part of their culture. Or, to cite another example, recall how Croats and Serbs have duked it out at the Australian Tennis Open, honouring with their fists the generations-old feuds ‘back home’ — a home very few of those combatants have visited.  I once watched a brawl in a factory between Greek and Turkish workers over the partition of Cyprus.  Admittedly, they were all first-generation immigrants, but if citizens are supported by government policy to form their own enclaves, can there be hope of the next generation being any better?

I have a particular hobby that attracts me to some ethnic clubs, not of my own background.  As a result, I have been granted associate membership of a Latvian Club, a Danish Club and the Hakoah (Jewish) Club.  I have also visited other clubs and have always been welcome.  This is good and well, because these clubs are a place where people of a common heritage can meet, speak their traditional language, eat their own special foods, talk of the old country and play games that other nationalities have no interest in.  These clubs were all self-funded and it is unlikely that they will have much influence on a next generation which attends and is educated in secular Australian schools. This is how it used to be and why, back in the days of New Australians, so many children disappointed their parents by not marrying cousins from the village back home (or, these days, from Belgium).

Two things have gone wrong: Government intervention, supported by taxpayer money, promotes separateness, plus the truly bizarre idea that all cultures are equal, no matter how barbaric, backward, sexist, indolent or, generally speaking, appalling.  Look no further than Aborigines in many remote communities, where hopelessness is state-subsidised and alcohol is the palliative for wasted lives. The next generation will face the same hopeless future, and the ones after that as well. What would happen to a genius born into such an environment, where learning is not encouraged? Victimhood as the pinnacle of ambition, that’s the real bigotry which patronising, soft expectations produces. What we get is not betterment but excuses and rationalisations, which is only to be expected when we judge others by lesser standards than we apply to ourselves.

Multiculturalism, that’s the real evil. A rational society would have strangled the idea at birth along with the people who dreamed it up and thought it was a good idea.


Comments [20]

  1. Bill Martin says:

    I am compelled, yet again, to repeat my favourite axiom: Culture is a unique concept, it can only ever be an entity of singular, untainted nature and value. Consequently, “multiculturalisms” is a preposterous oxymoron. Of course, cultures change over time for various reasons, often by accepting and appropriating aspects of other cultures which happen to appeal to practitioners of the culture. The result of such processes inevitable change the original culture but the changed culture will still be just as unique as it has ever been. Mixing paints of different colour is a good illustration of the phenomenon. The result is always a new colour, not a multicolour. There are such things as mottled, variegated, checkered, camouflage and the like, which all refer to splashes of different unique colors, appearing adjacent to one another. But there is no such thing as multicolour.

  2. [email protected] says:

    What the left refuse to recognise/acknowledge is that Australia has generated its own ‘culture’. And it’s culture that I am, and we all should be, proud of. We might [and perhaps even should be] a multi-racial/ethnic people [I even married an immigrants/2nd world war refugees' daughter] but we should be advocates and beneficiaries of Australian culture. It’s worth fighting for.

  3. Wayne says:

    Oh dear pom and yank are no longer de rigueur. The term yank is used in a famous American song “Over There”. I thought they wore the title with pride. As for Poms this sobriquet can be used like any of them in a light hearted manner or in a derogatory tone. More the former than the latter I would have thought. And the Japanese don’t like being called Japs. Diddums showing continuing sensitivity to their depiction in Second World War allied propaganda.

    So am I to take offence at being called a sandgroper? What a sad century we live in.

  4. acarroll says:

    Multiracialism. The USA is multi-racial. That hasn’t stopped there being a huge divide between the black and white communities in terms of economic and cultural achievement. The primary difference between these groups is that they evolved in entirely different environments, isolated largely for 10s of thousands of years with mating, child rearing, food gathering/production, warring and cooperation modes suitable for survival in those environments.

    The history of places like Brazil and the Caribbean shows exactly the kind of stratification of society that ensues from this multi-racial mixing: pure African at the bottom, mestizo in the middle, White and East Asian at the top. (ref: the Global Bell Curve by Richard Lynn)

    Cultures aren’t equal because their founding peoples aren’t equal.

    Any society that values its ability to survive in this very competitive world must be cautious with regards to multi-racialism. To which ethnicity do individuals raised in mixed race families belong? They’re not entirely accepted by either community. This is the reality. These couplings risk producing rootless individuals until they’re large enough as a community to form their own, separate identity (and social strata, perhaps in competition with one or more of the others).

    Is this due to “structural racism” or due to human nature? If you believe racism then we’re right back at where multiculturalism is taking us politically, culturally and economically.

    Homogeneous societies statistically have the highest levels of trust and social good will, meaning willingness to contribute to the greater good. Presumably because they consider themselves one big family (which they are genetically).

  5. Bernard Tola says:

    I left the country where I was born because it was politically and socially corrupt. The last thing that I want is government funding to recreate here this culture of corruption.

  6. Jack Richards says:

    “What we need is a great big melting pot. Big enough to take the world and all its got. Stir it for a hundred years or more – and turn out coffee coloured people by the score.”

    And so sang a Dutch Group called “Blue Mink” back in about 1969. What they were calling for in that little song was the extinction of the “Caucasian” race; the “traditional owners” of the land between Iceland in the west to the Ural Mountains in the East, from Lapland in the North, to the northern shores of the Mediterranean in the South.

    Those Caucasians, but especially the Anglo-Saxon-Celts, invented the modern world and everything we take for granted today. Nothing came from Africa, the “Islamic” world, South Asia or East Asia – though all had contributed some advances pre-1300 AD. The Americas, Australia, Africa, Polynesia and Melanesia were inhabited by primitives whose level of “advancement” in all senses of the word was thousands of years behind the Caucasian countries.

    But we’re coming up for Australia Day. Every Marxist and Socialist and self-hating white will be out with the sack cloth and ashes, the endless “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa” and telling us just how uncultured we Anglo-Celtic Australians and how we should all hang our heads in shame for having “invaded” these islands and destroyed the magnificent Aboriginal culture and civilisation. That was a civilisation that didn’t actually exist and a culture that distils to a few half-remembered myths, a handful of cave paintings and a few rubbish middens. St Pauls Cathedral it ain’t! Then we all pretend that we benefitted so much from Muslim migration and it’s so much better than our bogan culture. After all, they brought us the kebab, falafel, rape gangs and terrorism. We’ll be told how it was the immigrants arriving after WW2, especially the non-white ones arriving after 1975, who “built this country”. Before they showed up there wasn’t a road, a bridge or a restaurant in this country and all us lazy drunken wife-beating black-raping, child-stealing whites sat around under a tree waiting for these magic immigrants to turn up and do all the work while we collected the rewards.

    Multiculturalism was the bastard child of a greasy Guappo Mafiosi named Al Grasby and his drunken mates Lionel Murphy and Jim Cairns.

    I can remember this country before we became culturally enriched by multiculturalism. It was a much better society. Much better!

    • acarroll says:

      Quotes from some of “our” politicians on either side of the so-called political divide.

      “There’s already a large and growing Asian population in Australia and it is inevitable in my view that Australia will become a Eurasian country over the next century or two. Australian Asians and Europeans will marry another and a new race will emerge; I happen to think that’s desirable.

      “[We] should welcome the process of gradually becoming a Eurasian-type society. We will not just become a multicultural society – which seems to me to be a soft sort of terminology anyway – we will become a Eurasian society and be the better for it.”

      – former Foreign Minister, Bill Hayden, 1983

      “I think that if we build up inside Australia a proportion of people without White skins, then there will be a complete lack of consciousness that it is being built up … and that we will arrive at a state where we will have a multi-racial country without racial tensions – and perhaps the first in the world.”

      – former Liberal Prime Minister, John Gorton, January 1971

  7. BGD says:

    “Make no mistake, the grandfather is a bigot and the waves of his intolerance will spread for years to come.” Come, come. The idea that a person wants their descendants to retain their ancestral line is now an example of ‘bigotry’? Is the phrase ‘bigotry’, not now so debased by association with progressive accusations, thrown willy nilly at anyone who disagrees with them that it is effectively meaningless, except as a form of loaded political insult? Curiously, it’s often those who wield the phrase who are most resistant to others views. It also does not take into account the natural assortive mating of most peoples, in many cases, newer immigrant to Australia from non-Western backgrounds, to hold the same natural instincts for continuity, often to a higher degree than European derived groups. Finally, it also would categorise much of Australian history, older than the last 30 years as bigoted. That said, there was also much of value in this essay and I thank you for it.

  8. Bran Dee says:

    In the Turnbull government there is no Minister for Multicultural Affairs*. Sensible people may well rejoice over this and recall that the Howard Government initially tried to unwind the Al Grasby terminology that was used by the Labor Party to override sensible compatible immigration skill preferences [Labor preferred 'Family Reunion' and Multiculturalism]. The Abbott Government ignored this conservative issue like it ignored other grass roots issues.
    *However the Turnbull Government has an Assistant Minister for Multicultural Affairs. The Liberal Senator for NSW, the Hon Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, accepts without shame the Al Grasby mantle. Her recent public comments about the benign nature of Mohammedanism and its similarity to other ‘religions’ revealed unfortunate ignorance in one from the supposedly conservative faction of the NSW Liberal Party. The honorable senator’s weird comments prompted a detailed response by scholar and author Mark Durie.

  9. en passant says:

    Having read the comments above I had to reread the article to see if they were talking about the same article I was reading. Let me encapsulate what the essence of the article said and then I am willing to listen to those who interpreted it differently. Let’s start from what the author stated multiculti to be:
    “Australia does multiracialism very well indeed. But that ain’t multiculturalism, which preaches a brand of warm and fuzzy separatism.” and
    “Multiculturalism, that’s the real evil. A rational society would have strangled the idea at birth along with the people who dreamed it up and thought it was a good idea.”
    Unless I lost the plot somewhere the author opposed the apartheid of multiculti.

    However, multiracialism, in which all the harlequin shades and cultures accept the core values of Oz and blend together surely strengthens the gene pool and breaks down every barrier to integration into civilised society? Some ancestors of mine were massacred in my ‘homeland’ 330 years ago, but I am getting over it. Compensation would be a nice touch.

    Surely, if integration does not take place and we do not blend then we are back at the evil multiculti? As for these comments by acarroll & Jack Richards, they seem to fit very well into the definition of real racism as the author of the article stated that “To my mind the definition [of racism] is simplicity itself: when someone takes an unjustified action purely on the basis of skin colour, ethnic background, or some other, entirely subjective factor.” Hard to make it clearer, yet we have the claim that: “Any society that values its ability to survive in this very competitive world must be cautious with regards to multi-racialism. To which ethnicity do individuals raised in mixed race families belong? They’re not entirely accepted by either community. This is the reality. These couplings risk producing rootless individuals until they’re large enough as a community to form their own, separate identity (and social strata, perhaps in competition with one or more of the others).” Umm, as a first generation immigrant married to a first generation immigrant from an entirely alien culture, neither of us is rootless. We are both Australians and so are our mongrel children. The alternative is white anglos marrying other chinless white anglos and producing clones of Charles. This eugenically irrational idea is why civilisation passes laws to prevent inbreeding and a weakening of the stock. The more inter-breeding and the more culturally homogenised Oz becomes the better off our master race will be.
    and
    “… back in the days of New Australians, so many children disappointed their parents by not marrying cousins from the village back home.” Which is why we produce such fine all-Australian specimens who are champions in sport and in intellect as we evolve a better quality of people. To solve the dilemma the answer is to make multi-racialism compulsory.

    • acarroll says:

      “The alternative is white anglos marrying other chinless white anglos and producing clones of Charles.”

      Sounds like you have a dislike for white Anglos (since you saw it fit to denigrate them as a group): the culture and ethnicity that built the infrastructure of the state, its national social/communal practices and founded all its institutions of Government which you enjoy.

      Can I assume that you, as a first generation migrant, are in competition with the “chinless white anglos”? If so any dislike you have for “chinless white Anglos” is rational.

      Then you argue that comments like mine “seem to fit very well into the definition of real racism” — “unjustified action purely on the basis of skin colour, ethnic background and some other entirely subjective factor”. In summary: “chinless white anglos” who’re being subjected to such animus due to ethnic competition (whilst never having the transformation of their society or culture put to popular referendum) are irrational racists.

      Where or where have I heard this before? Answer: the ABC, Fairfax, Tim Soutphommasane, multicultural lobby groups. This is multicultural politics in Australia and abroad in a nutshell.

      “The more inter-breeding and the more culturally homogenised Oz becomes the better off our master race will be”.

      No, the more inter-breeding the less European Australia will be, and therefore, the weaker the attachment to European institutions and the way of doing things generally. This is the result of a government decree pushed by social engineers. All the “chinless white anglos” I know are quite happy with our European society and systems of government.

      “To solve the dilemma the answer is to make multi-racialism compulsory”.

      Quite a fascist position to take, but not the first time I’ve heard it. The most prominent being Nicholas Sarkozy demanding it of the French.

      Is this a huge dilemma anywhere in Asia? Africa? India? It is a huge dilemma in much of the middle east, are you arguing that their traditional homelands be flooded with forced mass immigration so that they too can be “melting pots” and lose their identity and culture? If so, why the international condemnation of colonialism?

      It was never a dilemma historically in Europe, but since WW2 it now is? Why? Point to statistics that indicate inbreeding is a problem in any Western nation other than the tiny island nation of Iceland (where it’s nothing compared to the middle-east). European genetics got all European nations to be the wealthiest the world has ever known.

      Your position is what the globalist oligarch elites (e.g. George Soros) and the UN (e.g. former Special Representative for International Migration and Goldman Sachs board member Peter Sutherland) are pushing, but only in European nations. Make every European nation “diverse”, one big “melting pot” and in the process destroy all diversity and the European people in the process. Because colonialism. Because racism. Because the Jewish holocaust. Because morals. Because unemployment. Because pensions for the elderly.

      Read my comment regarding the Caribbean to see what really happens — no or little social mobility for those who’re mestizo, with a high IQ ruling elite that never allowed their average IQ to drop by out-breeding. This is a live, real example, not ideology.

      Many, many Anglos object to being part of a social experiment where their very identity and society is threatened.

      • en passant says:

        acarroll,
        I am from the class stratified UK with an English Father and a Scottish mother. Interbred as you would say. After all we must draw the line somewhere and Scots and English diversity is as good a place as any to draw that line.
        My wife is Asian. She has owned her own business for 29-years and is fully integrated in Australia (as am I). We have friends from a wide ethnic and cultural range. No discrimination, provided they apply the same Australia-first rule.
        Our children are all-Australian high achievers with four university degrees between them and State level sports achievements. I put it down to genetic diversity strengthening their genes as they are smarter than both their parents. The grand children are even more genetically diverse and ‘top drawer’ Australians. A DNA genome swab showed the grandkids had nine ethnic backgrounds. Pure bred Oz stock and both are brilliant academically and in sport.
        Interbreeding among the chinless anglos? European royalty with its haemophiliacs is an extreme example. They demonstrate (in a negative way) that the more the population spreads its genes the more likely are the genetic improvements physically and in intelligence.
        You defeat your own argument by citing the Icelanders. Their problems are what happens when you narrow biodiversity. Watch the film ‘Jar City’ concerning that genetically introverted society.
        The more Australians interbreed across the ethnic and cultural divides the more we create a unique Australian culture. The more you impose your eugenically founded intra-breeding the more the clans and tribes will remain separate and the more you are supporting the retention of the multiculti madness.
        My whole family consider ourselves Australians. Period. Not outsider Anglo-Australian or Asian-Australian, yet I note that you say “No, the more inter-breeding the less European Australia will be, and therefore, the weaker the attachment to European institutions and the way of doing things generally.” So, you are really just a colonist with an attachment to Europe? Surely that view that we are inferior and must look to others for our cultural norms makes you less of an Australian than my wife as she is Australia first, second and only?

        • acarroll says:

          “I am from the class stratified UK with an English Father and a Scottish mother. Interbred as you would say. After all we must draw the line somewhere and Scots and English diversity is as good a place as any to draw that line.”

          Scots and English are very closely related peoples. In fact you probably couldn’t isolate a Scot or an English person based on locality using one of the commonly available tests. Same applies for English and Irish, as the root stock are related.

          “Our children are all-Australian high achievers with four university degrees between them and State level sports achievements. I put it down to genetic diversity strengthening their genes as they are smarter than both their parents.”

          Note that there is evidence supporting this outcome with this particular coupling: East Asian and European Caucasian (Richard Lynn I believe discusses this in the Global Bell Curve). It’s not the rule however.

          “You defeat your own argument by citing the Icelanders. Their problems are what happens when you narrow biodiversity. Watch the film ‘Jar City’ concerning that genetically introverted society.”

          Note that I ask for a society other than Iceland with its well known genetic introversion. Having said that, even Iceland is sourced from Scandinavian and Irish founders. It has low genetic variability which makes inbreeding unavoidable, but still isn’t as bad as places like the middle-east and North Africa where Islam favours consanguineous coupling.

          “They demonstrate (in a negative way) that the more the population spreads its genes the more likely are the genetic improvements physically and in intelligence”

          Sub-Saharan Africans have the highest genetic diversity of all peoples. Every population outside of Africa suffers from a genetic diversity bottleneck. Having said that, no people in Sub-Saharan Africa ever discovered the wheel let alone created high civilisation. IQ tests consistently indicate that Sub-Saharan Africans are at least a standard deviation lower than Europeans and East Asians. Inbred Ashkenazi Jews though have been reported to have a higher IQ than both. Therefore genetic diversity does not support an increase in intelligence. The consequences of average intelligence on the type of society possible I’ll leave for you to research or contemplate.

          “The more Australians interbreed across the ethnic and cultural divides the more we create a unique Australian culture”

          We already had one. Australia with Anglo-Celts doesn’t exist. Australia without any other ethnic group is still Australia, this is a fact.

          “The more Australians interbreed across the ethnic and cultural divides the more we create a unique Australian culture. The more you impose your eugenically founded intra-breeding the more the clans and tribes will remain separate and the more you are supporting the retention of the multiculti madness.”

          The clans in Australia were all related, shared the same culture and values and even then there was competition and coalescence into groups based on historical background. This finally started to die down in the 1950s. If people from southern Europe hadn’t shown up then we could speculate this divide might still exist but in the end Anglos and Celts realised they’re more alike than they’re different. Ultimately the numbers of new European arrivals were insignificant in the scheme of things. Finally, what’s wrong with the clans remaining separate? Speciation is the way nature hedges its bets: populations adapt to their environment and through gene flow and limited cross-population mixing the successful genes from one area can sometimes make another population more successful in their home territory. The problem we’ve introduced in Australia is that the original Northern European population is now competing with foreign groups. This happens everywhere, but usually by acts of war. Survival of the fittest in that sense. NOT by social engineering on behalf of an elite who think they can domesticate the population. We know what their tools of “persuasion” are.

          “Surely that view that we are inferior and must look to others for our cultural norms makes you less of an Australian than my wife as she is Australia first, second and only?”

          It’s not my view that we are inferior, not by a long shot. What have I said that would make you think that? The whole concept of cultural cringe was introduced to demoralise Anglo-Celt Australians in support of multiculturalism. Paying homage to your forefathers isn’t cultural cringe. The European culture we inherited is the greatest the world has ever known. Why would any right-thinking person discard or denigrate that?

          How would your wife feel about the Chinese culture and ethnicities being dissolved off the face of the Earth due to domestic and international undemocratic policies involving massive forced assimilation?

        • acarroll says:

          “Australia withOUT Anglo-Celts doesn’t exist”

  10. en passant says:

    acarroll,
    This is going on too long, but a couple of your points require an answer and a question. However, I would point out that the Scots and mongrel English are genetically and culturally different, as are the Welsh and Irish. In fact, there is empirical evidence (called the IRA) that the Irish dislike the English enough to kill them when the opportunity arises.
    Firstly the question: are you a supporter of eugenics? This is the pseudo-science that considers improving of the human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics. I presume you must be a believer given your comments on the IQ of Africans ” IQ tests consistently indicate that Sub-Saharan Africans are at least a standard deviation lower than Europeans and East Asians.” When I was in PNG the locals were thought to have lower IQ’s because they scored lower in ‘IQ’ tests. When a psychologist devised a culturally appropriate test they scored well and the whitefella scored less. In short, there is no single test that measures intelligence. I know, because my embarrassingly high IQ scores far exceed my real life practical ability.
    As to your cultural subservience to the Motherland “… we are inferior and must look to others for our cultural norms makes …” & “It’s not my view that we are inferior, not by a long shot. What have I said that would make you think that?” How about: “… the more inter-breeding the less European Australia will be, and therefore, the weaker the attachment to European institutions and the way of doing things generally” I cannot help you interpret your own words about our need to maintain our Europeaness.
    “Can I assume that you, as a first generation migrant, are in competition with the “chinless white anglos”? If so any dislike you have for “chinless white Anglos” is rational.” You got that completely wrong, didn’t you? I am British born, but have no admiration for that declining culture, its brutal past or its stratified society. That they are allowing the barbarians to displace them without a fight says it all.
    “The European culture we inherited is the greatest the world has ever known. Why would any right-thinking person discard or denigrate that?” Really? Europe is self-destructing. Whatever it once had that lead to two (actually four) of the most destructive wars ever fought it is long gone and their culture is following. This is something I would like to learn from and avoid.
    I have found much that is equally admirable in the civilisations of China, India, Vietnam, Cambodia and Persia (before the current insanity of Islamic cultism). Well, if you know your history and if you strip away the sentiment then ‘Butcher’ Cumberland did Britain a favour by massacring my Scottish Highland ancestors. The constant threat of the barbarian clansmen ravaging the South & East plus the feudalistic powers of the clan chiefs held Scotland back for centuries. After the sodden Charles was driven out of Britain for the last time the Clan system was destroyed and Scotland blossomed. Stevenson, Watt, McAdam, Hunter, Miller (Geology), Napier, Smith, Ricardo, Hume – need I go on? The peasant crofters evicted by their chiefs (as sheep brought more money than their clansmen) sent the Scots diaspora everywhere to build the world. What is there about my cultural history I am supposed to long for with dewy eyes? The serfdom, the violence, the grinding poverty?
    “How would your wife feel about the Chinese culture and ethnicities being dissolved off the face of the Earth due to domestic and international undemocratic policies involving massive forced assimilation?” We were not forced to marry, but we chose to. I made the statement to point out that we must break down the multiculti barriers to prevent ethnic ghettoes arising. As she is fully assimilated I doubt she would care as we have done little to teach our cultural histories to our children. They are irrelevant. We have placed no restriction on who our children or grandchildren marry and there is no hint-hint involved as to their choice. As I like cappuccinos the colour of their kids is of no concern. They will be all-Australian.
    As one person has emailed me: “It is multiculturalism that is evil, so we should be aiming to be multiracial and monocultural.” Sounds about right to me, but a culture that should be a uniquely Australian.

    • acarroll says:

      “I would point out that the Scots and mongrel English are genetically and culturally different, as are the Welsh and Irish. In fact, there is empirical evidence (called the IRA) that the Irish dislike the English enough to kill them when the opportunity arises.”

      Micro structure exists in all regions. The genetic distance between all peoples of the British Isles and Ireland is smaller compared to say English and Poles which is smaller than English to Han Chinese, etc etc.

      “Firstly the question: are you a supporter of eugenics? This is the pseudo-science that considers improving of the human population by controlled breeding to increase the occurrence of desirable heritable characteristics.”

      To be honest I’ve never really thought about the politics of it that much. All people have practised Eugenics throughout history. Iceland for example, to avoid consanguineous marriages. The Catholic Church banning cousin marriage in many countries is another. Eugenics as a pseudo science though? When it’s animal or plant domestication it’s science but when it deals with humans its pseudo science? This feels like we’re bumping up against Left wing ideology again.

      “When I was in PNG the locals were thought to have lower IQ’s because they scored lower in ‘IQ’ tests. When a psychologist devised a culturally appropriate test they scored well and the whitefella scored less. In short, there is no single test that measures intelligence.”

      The numbers are in en passant. Have a look at the twin studies, cross race adoption studies, all controlled for income, the US army data, the disparity reflected between Africans and Europeans/East Asians present also in multi-racial America, etc. More and more companies use the tests to filter candidates because although not perfect they’re pretty good at recognising those with potential. Either that or perhaps they just like wasting their share-holders money on the tests.

      “I know, because my embarrassingly high IQ scores far exceed my real life practical ability.”

      You’re confusing potential with skills competency perhaps.

      “As to your cultural subservience to the Motherland”

      I’m Australian, and our culture is British, with a small amount of Irish, adapted to the unique environmental conditions found here. It’s the culture of my ancestors and its the culture of Australia. Can you explain how appreciating and respecting the culture of ones ancestors is subservience to it? I urge you to argue that with a group of Australian Aborigines, Orthodox Jews, Middle Eastern Muslims, Indians, Chinese, and report back your findings.

      “I am British born, but have no admiration for that declining culture, its brutal past or its stratified society. That they are allowing the barbarians to displace them without a fight says it all.

      “Europe is self-destructing. Whatever it once had that lead to two (actually four) of the most destructive wars ever fought it is long gone and their culture is following. This is something I would like to learn from and avoid.”

      Every society has a brutal past, so why single out your people’s for particular scorn? Britain and Europe’s “brutal” past also includes the agricultural and industrial revolutions, the information age, the banning of slavery, arts, science. What’s more for all the killings committed in colonies by mercantile adventurers the British taxpayer has enabled (via medical and agricultural technology) thousands of births for every individual killed by disease or slaughtered by colonisers and the mercenaries of the aristocracy.

      The “barbarians” that are displacing the peoples in Britain and Europe are being brought in against the popular will of the natives by their politicians who’re subservient to globalist business interests, ethnic and political lobby groups and social engineers who want to create a new people in Europe (“mongrel race” as Coudenhove-Kalergi — father of the EU — stated it) where “the diversity of peoples is replaced by a diversity of individuals” (– Coudenhove-Kalergi) and ruled over by an elite that mixes only with its own. One can observe the same pattern of policy being enacted in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA.

      Those people in Britain and Europe who aren’t fighting back have been totally demoralised as they’ve seen their jobs off-shored and their culture slandered in the education system and by the state broadcasters for 40 odd years. Those who are fighting are demonised, slandered and imprisoned for the accusation of feeling the emotion of hate for someone in public or indeed deliberately hurting feelings.

      I see it as Europe being poisoned to death.

      If Britain is driven to civil war so that the English, Welsh and Scots can claim their native lands back (wouldn’t native title be nice in Europe!), will you admire them then?

      The wars you’re talking about were promoted and instigated by internationalist business and political elites, not the vast majority, not the average person living and working in a village, on a farm or working on a factory floor. Their sense of patriotism and attachment to their nation and country was exploited to fight wars for which they received only psychological and physical injury and suffocating national debt. The only people who benefited were the arms makers, industrial and banking robber barons.

  11. en passant says:

    ‘acarrol
    You win.
    Not the argument/debate, just the last blind belief word. Go back to your anglo-ghetto and close the door of inbreeding behind you. I prefer an integrated society where outsiders (such as myself) are regarded as equals by those lucky enough to have been born here before Whitlam commenced the slide to economic oblivion, followed by Fraser when he commenced the multicultural disaster by importing those who will never assimilate or intermarry in the way the Italians, Germans, Balts, Greek, Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese and many others have successfully achieved to the benefit of this country.
    Sir Peter Abeles, Larry Adler, Frank Lowy and the thousands of small businessmen and women who have worked harder and longer than their hosts deserve our thanks, not a snide look down the nose past the weak inbred chin.
    The massacre of Chinese diggers are Lambing Flat was about jealously as the Chinese took over a supposedly worked out goldfield and made it pay. http://www.britannica.com/event/Lambing-Flat-Riots. How dare they! Naturally, the Chinese were killed and punished by the civilised white men and their government.
    Why are so many doctors, surgeons and IT specialists from the inferior, unintelligent races? We brought my niece to Australia many years ago with barely a word of English. Two years later she was dux of one of the high achieving schools. Four years later she was an Honours graduate (second to a Chinese in the graduation results). She immediately was snapped up into a job, was granted citizenship and is now a fully-fledged Australian. As evolution demonstrates the more vigorous push out the weaker and take over.
    If you are right, then why are the superior cultures of the EU and the USA in such decline? I might ask Neil de Grasse Tyson, (but not Obama). Never forget that the people democratically VOTED in the EU national leaders you claim have betrayed their nations. Geert Wilders is leading the second largest party in the Netherlands? Given all that has gone on there, how can that be? Frankly the culturally moribund EU is getting exactly what it wanted, voted for and deserves.
    I would suggest that Oz must forge a different future by (let me repeat): “… aiming to be multiracial and monocultural.” It also means being very un-Christian and un-Western as it will mean ruthlessly sending back (or elsewhere) those who cannot or will not integrate into a truly Oz culture and open society. That will depopulate about 80% of the muslims and some ethnic, political and cultural groups. I would include white supremacists in that last category.

    • acarroll says:

      Is it possible that you are one of those people who denigrated your own culture and people back in the UK for its insularity, promoted the big melting pot idea and then, when that got out of hand, left them for dead, slagging them off for being weak for not standing up to the “barbarians”? Now you arrive on our sunny shores and want to continue the experiment under slightly more controlled conditions?

      You’re parroting all the Left’s usual ad hominem attacks: racist, white supremacist, etc. I.e. all those slanders that’re thrown at Britons who want to protect their culture and way of life. Who defines those terms?

      “not a snide look down the nose past the weak inbred chin.”

      Hey, don’t like it? You could always try living somewhere else like somewhere in Asia or India? I get the impression you think their societies are somewhat more enlightened than ours and by extension yours back in the old-country.

      “Why are so many doctors, surgeons and IT specialists from the inferior, unintelligent races?”

      Which races are *inferior* and unintelligent? I’m all ears.

      “Never forget that the people democratically VOTED in the EU national leaders you claim have betrayed their nations. Geert Wilders is leading the second largest party in the Netherlands? Given all that has gone on there, how can that be? Frankly the culturally moribund EU is getting exactly what it wanted, voted for and deserves.”

      All that is also happening in Australia. What’s the commonality? Western culture or a political and economic elite in cahoots with a controlled mass media determining what is acceptable to think and discuss and make public knowledge?

      The truly Oz culture is the one founded by British and Irish settlers and their offspring.

      Respect that.

      The last thing we need is the fleeing British elite pushing their failed agenda here.

  12. en passant says:

    acarrol,
    You make so many assumptions – all of them wrong. But that is normal for those who long for the ‘old country’ that never existed. Life was good if you were a Lord, not so much as a lower class worker. In fact a single end (one bedroom) tenement was not much good at all. What was there to like?
    “… you are one of those people who denigrated your own culture and people back in the UK for its insularity, promoted the big melting pot idea and then, when that got out of hand, left them for dead, slagging them off for being weak for not standing up to the “barbarians”.
    Actually, I was not as I only met two non-Brits before I came to Oz. Why did I come? I researched and saw a land of opportunity rather than a whisky soaked, football obsessed society. That’s what I am told we are now in Oz, but then it is a matter of the friends you choose here. There were no barbarians anywhere when I left so wrong again – as usual. Promoted the melting pot? Umm, no, not until I travelled and met other civilisations and found out they were not the inferior barbarians I expected. An open mind is a wonderful thing, but you will never know. I believe we have a uniquely open Oz culture and that is the one I have adapted to and adopted. I believe others should too and be accepting of all people of whatever background who try to fit in here. Sometimes difficult for the first generation, but the second should be all-Australian. Let me repeat:
    “… aiming to be multiracial and monocultural.” It also means being very un-Christian and un-Western as it will mean ruthlessly sending back (or elsewhere) those who cannot or will not integrate into a truly Oz culture and open society.” Are you Australian, or British Australian? If the latter, then go back to where you came from.
    “You’re parroting all the Left’s usual ad hominem attacks” – wrong again (once more) as I am very right wing, but not bigoted. Time for you to reread the article above as I agree with the ideas in it.
    “Which races are *inferior* and unintelligent? I’m all ears.” – The inbred ones. As you want to preserve the white anglo-islands of special breeding then (it is my turn to presume that) you must think the others inferior. After all you said they score less in IQ tests. It is hard going explaining your own words to you.
    ” You could always try living somewhere else in Asia or India?” – Congratulations! You finally got something right as I do live in Asia 6-months of the year at present, but this will increase as time goes by as I still have commitments here.
    I cannot save Oz from its political elites and its madness, so I have moved to somewhere more relaxed, yet more vibrant and positive. They have concerns about pollution, but none about CAGW, LGBTI or angst over economic growth. I am also welcomed into their society. You know, the sort of place Oz used to be when it welcomed people it chose because they could fit in, not those who could not assimilate and yearned for the old country they created in their dreams.

    • acarroll says:

      Thanks for the reply.

      Note that I ask questions. I’m trying to avoid making assumptions, unlike you it seems. That’s ok though, I understand how conditioning leads one to conclude certain things about people based on the topics they talk about.

      I myself have travelled widely and respect the cultures of the places. That doesn’t mean I want to impose my culture (or people) on theirs or vice-versa. I find it upsetting to see the encroachment of Globalist American culture in many of those places. I believe in diversity, universal nationalism perhaps. Not melting pots.

      All the evidence suggests homogeneous societies are the most stable and high trust, long term. It can be argued that limited immigration (though how much?) works as that allows the migrants to be absorbed and changes the society over a long period of time. This is arguably the reason you’re accepted in your new land in Asia.

      Massive immigration the likes the whole Western world is experiencing will lead to the destruction of Western culture, civil/race war and permanent ethnic animosity and quite possibly the extinction of Western Europeans. If two hundred thousand Europeans were colonising the place in Asia in which you’re currently residing 6 months of the year, every year for decades, how do you think they would then react? Look at the relationship between the Chinese and host populations in South East Asia for an example. Holding hands and singing kumbaya it ain’t. It’s the exploiters and the exploited.

      My reading of history, particularly the actions of the Assyrian and Persian kings with regards to relocating whole nations into new lands and the social consequences of that, informs this opinion. The purpose behind that was — as I believe is the intent now — to make rule by the Elite easier by causing competition amongst ethnic groups, averting their attention from the yoke around their necks.

      In regards to IQ and “inferiority”. We’re talking about populations here. Within every population there are highly intelligent people. It’s a question of how many there are. How can you get a population to agree to do or change anything for the greater good if they’re unable to comprehend the change and how it benefits them? It’s hard enough in Western societies where 50% of the population are under the average IQ. In low average IQ populations it’s even harder, and low IQ populations correlate with poor economic and social outcomes. Is it causation? Not 100%, but genes are the most significant factor influencing our behaviour according to the studies I’ve read.

      By the way, yes Europeans are genetically inferior to West Africans when it comes to sprinting, and many other sports. There’s nothing controversial about that, so why is it controversial to link genes and ethnicity to performance in other areas like cognitive ability? Double standards abound so that feelings don’t get hurt and the playing field is “levelled”. Well tough, we’re not all equal, nor are our families, nor are our nations and cultures by extension.

      So inbred races are inferior according to you? In what sense? Again I present to you the Ashkenazi Jewish population (the group from which all the exemplary immigrant business people in one of your previous posts come): well known inbreeding, yet make approx 40% of the USA’s billionaires. On the measure of economic performance and political power, far from inferior.

      I agree with you in regards to the plagues of CAGW, LGBTI, and minority rights at the expense of the majority generally, for which you’re fleeing Australia. I choose not to run away from this war against my nation by International Leftism. Likewise my ancestral nations in Europe, I refuse to abandon them to the same fifth column rabble causing its decline. You might find my position extreme but as they say, every action has an equal and opposite reaction.