Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
June 15th 2017 print

Babette Francis

Multicultural Mythology

When a Senate committee sought perspectives on the future of multiculturalism I shared the thought that, given some of the odious and appalling customs and beliefs made immune to criticism by official policy, it shouldn't have a future. Here is what our elected representatives refused to accept

thuggeeThe recent atrocious behaviour of the Saudi national team at the World Cup football qualifying match in refusing to observe a minute’s silence in remembrance of Australians killed in the London terrorist attack has rightly been criticized  in our media.   However the issue goes beyond the Saudi team’s insult to  innocents who have been killed.  During the apartheid era in South Africa, that country was not allowed to participate in international sport because of its racial discrimination.  Many Islamic countries practice total gender discrimination — their women are not allowed to participate in international sport, indeed in some  of these countries women, particularly in  Saudi Arabia,  are not allowed to participate even in domestic sport but spend their lives in any public area encased in all-encompassing black burqas.

Why are men’s teams from these countries allowed to participate in international sport?  Isn’t gender discrimination as serious as racial discrimination?

International sporting federations need to examine this issue. And that brings me to the issue of multiculturalism and the myths surrounding this latest cult of the Left’s intelligentsia. Yes, I know “Left’s intelligentsia”  is an oxymoron, but let it pass for the moment.

Recently, an Australian Senate Committee, dominated by ALP and Greens, called for submissions on strengthening multiculturalism.  I put in a submission expressing the view that multiculturalism should not be promoted; rather, it be rejected as it implied promoting a number of obnoxious cultural practices alien to Australia.

My submission was initially accepted, but I was informed it had been rejected as it did not comply with the terms of reference.  The rejection is, I suppose,  technically correct because the Senate Committee had called  for submissions on strengthening  Multiculturalism, and my submission rejected the concept.

Now that my submission is rejected, I am free to circulate it so here it is:

To: the Senate Select Committee on Strengthening Multiculturalism
 
Dear Committee,
This is a submission on behalf of Endeavour Forum Inc. which is a women’s NGO having special consultative status with the Economic and Social Council  (ECOSOC) of the UN. We are opposed to the “strengthening” or promotion of multiculturalism. This does not mean disrespecting ethnic groups other than those of British origin, but it does mean that the unsavoury aspects of some other cultures should be acknowledged.

1/  I was born in India and lived there until my marriage to an Australian, after which I came to live in Australia.

2/ India is a fascinating “laboratory” for multiculturalism because it is probably the most multicultural country in the world.  India has 15 main languages, about 150 dialects and several religions. This has not created harmony; and, in fact, led to the Partition of India in 1947 into India and Pakistan, because the Muslim-majority provinces could not tolerate the idea of living in a secular democracy.

Islamic culture does not give priority to democracy, freedom of speech or freedom of religion, with death sentences prescribed for apostates and blasphemers. Currently there are several prisoners, both Muslims and Christians, on death row in Pakistani jails on spurious charges of blasphemy.

3/ Even nearer to home, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, also known as Ahok, the popular former governor of Jakarta in moderate, supposedly secular Indonesia, has just been sentenced to two years in jail on a charge of blasphemy. Similarly in Turkey, a member of NATO and supposedly democratic and moderate, has arrested and jailed hundreds of journalists, generals in the army, and civilians from all walks of life, on charges alleging treason.

4/ All this should enable you to understand that that the culture of Islam is simply incompatible with democracy and basic human rights.

Islam mandates death for infidels, apostates, homosexuals, and for Christians and Jews who will not convert or cannot pay an additional tax. Some of the “multicultural” aspects of Islam include polygamy, child marriage (following the example of their “Prophet”), female genital mutilation, requiring rape victims to produce four pious male witnesses to the assault or if unable to do so, be stoned for adultery, and sex-slave taking by the victors in any tribal war.

Saudi Arabia  and Iran are the main examples of Sunni Muslim culture and Shia Muslim culture respectively.  In Saudi Arabia women are forbidden from driving cars, and women in Iran  are forbidden from cycling in public as these practices will allegedly damage their “virginity”.

5/ The culture of Hinduism also contained major abuses — such as suttee, the burning of widows on the funeral pyres of their husbands bodies, the dowry system (if insufficient dowry was paid, the hapless wife could be abused or discarded), and the caste system.  The British colonial system (so despised by our multiculturalists) abolished suttee, and the Indian government, which is secular and democratic,  has made the caste system and the requirement for payment of dowries illegal, but these “multicultural” practices still persist under the radar and are difficult to eradicate.

May I humbly suggest that you stop promoting “multiculturalism” and instead promote the Judeo-Christian culture of Western democracies which have given the world outstanding examples of freedom and prosperity.  I am willing to give evidence to the committee at any public hearings and I hope you will call on me to do so – I have the unique experience of having worked on all five continents.

Babette Francis,
National & Overseas Co-ordinator, Endeavour Forum Inc.

There seems to be a dawning realisation among  some media commentators that, maybe, Islam is not compatible with democratic values.  Peter Kurti in Tackling deadly beliefs” and Jonathan Cole in “We need to talk about theology“  (Weekend Australian, June 10-11, 2017) are to be commended for explaining how Islam, the Koran and the life of Islam’s Prophet, underpin the activities of jihadists.  Western democracies  need to understand  that Islam is a totalitarian ideology akin to other totalitarian ideologies which they defeated in World War 11 and the Cold War.  Columnists Janet Albrechtsen and Melanie Phillips (The Australian 7/6/17) have  also  pointed out that jihadist violence is clearly based on Islam’s scriptures. By contrast,  Muslim apologist and political commentator, Waleed Aly,  refuses to acknowledge that the incitements to murder,  as in London and Manchester, by Islamic terrorrists are directly inspired by the Koran.  Here, for his information,  is a direct quote: Koran 8:12

“Strike terror into the hearts of the disbelievers. Cut off their heads and cut off all their fingertips”.

Mr. Aly has many opportunities in the media and academe to deal with such incitements to the killing of innocent human beings, so what is he going to do about it? And please don’t tell us that the quote is out of context.  What is the context in which it is legitimate to behead innocents?

And  what is our government going to do about this incitement to violence?  No citizens should be allowed to distribute a book calling for the beheading of all those who did not share their  views, so why are imams, sheikhs and mosques allowed to proclaim that the Koran is the unalterable teaching of  Allah?

Muslims are not our enemies; indeed they are the main victims of Islam. Currently, Muslims are killing each other at a much higher rate than they are killing non-Muslims: bombs regularly detonated  in mosques in Pakistan; the killing of 132 student, the children of Pakistani army officers in Peshawar in 2014;  the  continuing Taliban atrocities in Afghanistan;  the war by ISIS in Iraq and Syria; and the latest attack, only last week, on the Iranian parliament.  This is all Muslim-on-Muslim violence. The theology of Islam provides the reservoir for jihadists and de-radicalisation programmes will not suffice until – to borrow from Donald Trump, “the swamp is drained.”

Muslims need to be freed, liberated, evangelised — call it what you will – from the pernicious ideology of Islam.

(editor’s note: the thumbnail illustration atop this essay is a poster detail for the The Stranglers of Bombay, a 1959 British film concerned with the thuggees of India. The cult of stranglers was suppressed in the 1830s, which is fortunate indeed. Otherwise the word thuggeephobia would by now have entrenched itself in the multicultural lexicon, and the Human Rights Commission would be that much busier.)

Comments [38]

  1. Tingle says:

    So refreshing to hear from someone who is in touch with reality and is not afraid to tell the truth. Thanks Babette.

  2. chuckp61 says:

    I have been saying for many years now that ‘multiculturalism’ is a complete impossibility both physically and culturally. A multiethnic society on the other hand is entirely feasible – we have had one in Australia for a very long time. The difference between the latest influx and that of the 1950s and 60s is the immigrants who came here in waves after the second world war were culturally compatible and easily assimilated – indeed fell in love with everything Australia stood for.

    What we have now and have had since the 70s is immigrants who, for the most part, will not and cannot assimilate because there ‘religion’ forbids it.

    I lived in Brunei for the best part a decade and spent more time each month than I care to think about in Jeddah and Dubai – I’m an airline pilot. If a westerner dared behave in those countries the way Muslim immigrants behave in Australia you would be arrested and deported IF YOU WERE LUCKY. If you really pissed them off you might be lashed between ‘arrested’ and ‘deported’. As is regularly reported westerners can’t even behave in ways that are considered completely normal in western society without risking severe sanction.

    A Canadian Emirates pilot I know was arrested and deported after giving another driver ‘the forks’ after being cutoff in traffic in a particularly dangerous manner – it was an off duty Emirati policemen – scratch one career. I could go on for paragraph after paragraph with similar examples.

    I flew with highly educated Muslim pilots who on the surface were quite ‘civilised’ having received, often, their advanced education in UK, Australia etc. Scratch the surface however (as I did from time to time) and they held the exact same beliefs about women, jews etc as the most ignorant graduate of an Afghan Madrassa.

    You can’t help but wonder at the agenda of the Green Left – it must indeed be to ‘wreck the joint’. How else to adequately explain their wilful subservience to this latest ‘ism’.

    Until the west re discovers its balls and deals with this ism the way we dealt with German Nazism, Italian Fascism, Russian Communism and Japanese Militarism we are doomed.

    • Bushranger71 says:

      If you mean multi-racial in lieu of multi-cultural chuckpi61; I agree.

      I also lived in Kuwait and Brunei (airlines).

      Born 1937, I grew up with the post-WW2 immigrants who were very proud of the ‘New Australians’ title that we bestowed upon them. But, since then, we have created a breed that prefer not to be identified as Australians.

      A daughter married an Australia-born son of Italian immigrants, who really did not bother too much with English language competence. They had one son (now unmarried at 28) and during his upbringing, his father sometimes would say to him: ‘That is not being a good little Italian.’ His parents have since divorced.

      Since Grassby, Whitlam, Fraser, Vanstone, Andrews et al enshrined so-called ‘multiculturalism; we have entertained a proliferation of languages in Australia in media and for official purposes. This of course only encourages newcomers to retain their former allegiances. It also creates an impossible situation for security agencies who probably have no bloody idea just what material is being propagated in the country in many languages.

      Although Australia’s present immigration intake is presently primarily from the UK (retirees) and India, the Anglo component of our heritage is fast diminishing and being swamped by younger generations from other cultures. British settlement began in 1788; but by 300 years hence (2088), Australia will likely no longer be recognizable as predominantly an Anglo culture.

      Over the past 50 or so years, Australian Governments have progressively forfeited control of the nations destiny.

      • chuckp61 says:

        No actually. With respect there is only one ‘race’ – the human race – made up of many ethnicities.

        • Willw says:

          And many of those ethnicities hold themselves and their cultural traditions above and superior to others.

          Multi-ethnic nations only work if the peoples within them share similarities, both ethnic and cultural. The post war immigrants were European and therefore fit quite quickly and easily into Anglo-European Australia.

          It’s way past time the traitorous political class focussed on maintaining and strengthening our cultural and ethnic integrity through a properly designed immigration program rather than the current U.N inspired, globalist, ‘non- discriminatory’ farce.

          Like every country on Earth, we have the right to protect and maintain our cultural and ethnic make-up.

        • acarroll says:

          Forensic scientists and geneticists would disagree with you. There’s enough difference between races to more accurately – or more consistently at least if we compare to biological classifications – describe them as subspecies.

          The “only one race” claim is a product of Marxist ideology in support of the multicult and invasion agenda of all European and derived nations.

    • whitelaughter says:

      If you recall, the west had zero balls when dealing with the Nazis and Fascists…until it was nearly too late. The Italian invasion of Ethiopia could have been stopped dead by closing the Seuz Canal (yes, I know, illegal. “Oh noes, a battleship has lost control and sunk in the canal!How could this have happened? Dreadfully sorry about you supply line Musso…” Hitler could have been stopped by simply snarling when he rolled into the Ruhrland.
      Instead, we had to pay in blood for the failure to act in time. We will it appears have to do exactly the same thing again this time. Hopefully, we can think about how to prevent that happening *next* time.

  3. Warty says:

    The underlying principle of multiculturalism is fine: that your culture can enrich that of Australia as a whole. The problem is in the practice, not the theory, in that it has encouraged cultural enclaves. Added to this has been the fact that governments of all persuasions have done little to promote any understanding of just what Australian culture is.
    As you know, Turnbull had great difficulty articulating just what it was, other than coming out with all the cliches held by most countries anyway. I mean, are we the only country to support ‘a fair go’? Just change the idiom and then the French believe in fairness, as do the Scandinavians, the Brits, the Germans and the Israelis. The ones who don’t are some of those you’ve outlined anyway. And a love of sport and the outdoors, well even the Finns do despite sub zero temperatures. But had Turnbull started talked about rule of law, fine literature, our musical heritage, fine art, the slow, step by step development of our democratic system, all of which help define who we are, he might have achieved some traction; because each nation has a different history, a history that makes them unique . . . but perhaps these things are difficult to understand for a left wing merchant banker (sounds like a contradiction in terms, left wing and merchant banker, but not in this day and age).
    Unfortunately there are even Quadrant readers who feel we need to negotiate our way out of the situation we find ourselves in, and discovering the balls to ‘deal with’ the host of isms we are assailed by is considered too confrontational, even barbaric.
    I find a good many contradictions within myself, in that I uphold Christianity, I love fine music, literature and art, and yet I believe in fighting fire with fire, when all other options have failed. I believe that sort of spirit was very much that of the Battle of Britain; of the Wilson Patrol in my own country, where a group of British South African Police fought till they ran out of ammunition and continued to fight with bayonets and rifle butts until they were all killed. Such was their extraordinary courage, their Matabele foe gave them a royal salute and refused to mutilate their bodies (as was the custom). They were as they lay when the were discovered a day or so later by another patrol.
    We have been so long between wars, we have lost the will to fight.

    • ianl says:

      > ” … to negotiate our way out of the situation we find ourselves in, and discovering the balls to ‘deal with’ the host of isms we are assailed by is considered too confrontational, even barbaric”

      Not so, Warty, just another of your straw men. The politicians have the police, the courts and in extremis, the army. So standing in the middle of Lakemba is just *futile*, not too confrontational or barbaric. Your sleazy imputation of cowardice is dishonest.

      Apart from arm waving about past history, as heroic as that was, what useful, practical suggestions do you actually have ? So far, none, zip, zilch. We’re waiting.

      • Warty says:

        Being opposed to appeasement is not the same as encouraging others to commit suicide by wearing a T shirt saying ‘Mohammad is a pedophile’ whilst walking down Haldon Street, in Lakemba. The latter is plain stupid. So leaving aside the ad hominem attacks, I’ve have consistently spoken about describing a situation as I see it, without resorting to political correctness, without apologising for myself or my culture. When talking about The Battle of Britain, or the Shangani Patrol (back in the late 1800s) I was talking about a certain spirit sadly lacking in this day and age. I specifically wrote ‘that sort of spirit’ was part of the mix in the Battle of Britain and the Shangani Patrol, and though I feel it is something worthy to emulate, should the occasion arise, it is hardly a call to arms now, though that may yet be called on.
        I am heartened by the fact that you have the confidence in our politicians, our police, our courts and ‘in extremis, the army’ despite the gender diversity prevalent in the latter. When the push comes to a shove I don’t have the same confidence in them, particularly with the pathetic sentences being given to the worst of the worse in Victoria and the leniency of the parole and bail conditions. But such is the venom in your response, clearly you are content to put your full trust in these atrophied institutions. My appeal to the spirit in the individual has obviously pushed a few button for you. I can’t explain it other wise.
        A straw man is one who makes all sorts of brave pronouncements, but when tested is found wanting. I cannot for the life of me know how you might know me so well.

        • ianl says:

          > ” … you have the confidence in our politicians, our police, our courts and ‘in extremis, the army’ ”

          That’s another straw man. My point is precisely the opposite – I have confidence that those institutions will be used to quell civil disobedience of the sort you tacitly suggest; organised resistance to violent cultural conflict will be put down using those institutions. It is no accident that authority first removes as many guns from the populace as it can and then attempts to take most of the money. That you missed that point tells me this discussion is taking place in a concrete mixer, no subtlety allowed.

          Understand, thank you, that a “straw man” argument, far from the self-serving definition you suggest, is a deliberate ruse wherein a silly statement or idea is falsely attributed to the opposing side (ie. an argument *not* made) allowing a dishonest free kick at a position not held. Your comment in reply excels at this.

          Detail the “ad hom” you accuse me of.

          And then meet the real challenge – the one you keep avoiding. What useful, practical suggestion do you have for the current situation of violent cultural/ideological conflict ?

          • Warty says:

            ‘Ad hominem’ literally means ‘to the man’, in other words a vociferous argument that is directed at the individual. So, on examining the response I am currently replying to you state: ‘Understand, thank you, that a “straw man” argument, far from the self-serving definition you suggest, is a deliberate ruse wherein a silly statement or idea is falsely attributed to the opposing side (ie. an argument *not* made) allowing a dishonest free kick at a position not held. Your comment in reply excels at this’. Apart from being rather tetchy, it appears to be directed to the individual, and there is the suggestion that this same individual made a ‘silly statement’ or and idea which he ‘falsely attributed to the opposing side . . . allowing dishonest free kick at a position not held’. All part of the definition; followed by another statement ‘your comment in reply excels at this’.
            I hope this satisfies your request for an example of an ad hominem attack.
            Now, should you courteously wish me to present an argument, one entirely removed from a concrete mixer, then I’ll offer one. I assume we are adults here.

          • acarroll says:

            Yes of course they’ll be used to quell civil disobedience. The disobedience of the Anglo-celts when they start necessarily behaving barbarously.

            The trajectory of Australia is a multi ethnic empire ruled over by an oligarchy with a battered and persecuted Anglo-celt minority. Prime setup for a nice ethnic cleansing, promoted through approved propaganda outlets.

            To be honest, I don’t think there’s a future for liberal democracy at all in non homogeneous former European nation states. Dictatorship is the future. It’s our choice if you want to be a part of the group with its boot on the throats of the other nations of the empire or vice-versa.

        • Jody says:

          Totally agree, Warty, about the pathetic sentencing and the infiltration of the Left in the courts. Those judges were connected in some way with Liberty Victoria – an extremely partisan activist organization – which would be enough in itself to recuse themselves from these positions. We are going to hear more about this issue whether or not the politicians are found to be in contempt. The community won’t be silenced when its legal officers fail to be accountable to the community and issue sentences which are, on the face of it, entirely risible at best and dangerous at worst.

          • Warty says:

            Yes, we may hear more of this, but there seems to be a constitutional bind here (in the separation of powers). The withdrawal of the statements of the Federal ministers, through the Solicitor General, barely mollified the judges, who are apparently reserving their judgement. But the ministers’ supposedly inflammatory statements about these appeals judges being ideological and left wing activists have been made and reported in the media, and will have their effect. The fact that the public have a pretty poor perception of the rats’ nest has already been established, but the fact that they have been accused of being divorced from reality, may in fact mean they haven’t a clue the way the rest of the plebs regard them. They have their judicial rods so far up their rhododendrons they may be oblivious. But there are mutterings, though we may not yet be French enough to revolt, revolting though we may well be.

        • Lawrie Ayres says:

          The politicians do have the police, the army, the courts however they seem to use them against conservatives more than using them to protect the public. Witness the uselessness of police to facilitate workers crossing picket lines, the attack by say the HRC on students and cartoonists expressing an opinion but ignoring signs that exhort followers to behead those who insult the prophet. How many examples do we need of the agencies created to protect us doing the exact opposite? Needless to say I have no confidence in the system.

      • CarerP says:

        One possible solution to the unacceptable threat to our hitherto “lucky” Country would be to challenge the 99% of peace loving Muslims to elect a group of leaders to represent them in talks with a bipartisan Senate Committee with a view to composing a 21st Century Australian Koran.
        Its aim would be to remove all the barbaric verses that are so abhorrent in our modern civilised Country and amend the ones of a less controversial nature. It should read as to do no harm to any Australian Citizen and be consistent with the Laws of Australia. Any harmless verses as in any other religion could stay and any decent Muslim would be free to worship guided by this new Koran. As from now all Muslim immigration should cease until an agreement is reached. Once a consensus is reached each Muslim Family could make up their own minds if they wanted to stay here worshiping the new Australian Koran or go back to their old country and worship the old 7th century Koran. Possibly then all Australians might have the chance of leading a peaceful and happy life again. Surely that is what attracted decent Muslims here in the first place. Just a thought.

        • ianl says:

          > ” … challenge the 99% of peace loving Muslims to elect a group of leaders to represent them in talks with a bipartisan Senate Committee …”

          And if this challenge was simply refused ?

          Same problem as with Warty and others … not practical.

          The only useful action I can see is along the lines suggested by Jim Molan, in that immigration from Muslim countries be far more stringently managed. Perhaps it is vaguely possible that our bureaucratic/political/MSM denizens could be persuaded to do this, although it will take quite a few more atrocities yet, I expect.

          This doesn’t deal with the incumbent issues, I know that (bleeding obvious). I have no suggestion for that, at least not one with even a modest chance of success. Nor has anyone else.

          • Lawrie Ayres says:

            For a start we could take deny Waheed Aly a platform and stop the ABC promoting Islam. The former might happen when Ten goes belly up and the latter when we have the nous to simply defund/shut down the ABC.

        • Ian MacDougall says:

          Its aim would be [for the leaders] to remove all the barbaric verses that are so abhorrent in our modern civilised Country and amend the ones of a less controversial nature.

          It would probably be like herding the proverbial cats.
          Better IMHO to require each individual Muslim to personally black out all the exhortations to violence in their own personal copy of the Koran before a citizenship application can progress further.
          Failing that, apply for citizenship in Saudi Arabia.

          • Jody says:

            It’s hard to disagree with you here Ian. However, to all practical intents and purposes (cats notwithstanding) there is a snowball’s chance in hell of having this protected minority adhere, at least in some visible respects, to the Australian culture and way of life. With an army of fifth columnist activists and lawyers enshrining their very rights to special treatment, and the courts in tacit agreement, the rest of the community has effectively been told to go jump.

        • Jim Campbell says:

          CarerP – there will be no Australian Koran – Allah will not allow it. The Koran has no place in Australia – see Application at http://www.ttwsyf.net. You are correct however, when the Koran is banned Muslims have a choice.

      • Warty says:

        Incidentally, it has just dawned on me that you seem to be attributing the quote (that so incensed you) to me, when I was simply responding to this same quote ( ” … to negotiate our way out of the situation we find ourselves in, and discovering the balls to ‘deal with’ the host of isms we are assailed by is considered too confrontational, even barbaric”) from Bushranger’s response. Do look above and re-read Mr Bushranger’s rather sensible argument.
        There was a delightful response a fellow teacher often used whenever an unruly student was doing his ‘nanna’. He’d ask the said boy whether or not he’d taken his pills that day. A rather humorous way of disarming a potentially heated exchange, don’t you think?

        • ianl says:

          > ” … that so incensed you …”

          Oh dear, you are incapable of grasping the meaning of “straw man”. I’m not incensed, nor doing my nana or whatever else you concoct. These are your own puerile projections. And you still haven’t addressed the issue, golly and gee.

          So far: useful, practical suggestions *nil*. Arm-waving, childish rhetoric *mucho*. Ho hum. No point in derailing the thread. Looking for practical, useful resolutions is not appeasement, although it may be pointless.

  4. Bill Martin says:

    It is disappointing, although understandable, that the Muslim issue ended up dominating the comments, whereas the article was about multiculturalism, per se.

    Even the expression “multiculturalism” is an oxymoron. When cultures come together, as per immigration, they blend into a hybrid, so to speak, and that hybrid, the culture of the whole is always of a unique, specific variety, while always evolving. Muslims aside (if only!), there are no segregated islands of different cultures flourishing independently of one another, even in spite of financial assistance from governments encouraging such. Multiculturalisms exists only in the deluded minds of “activist” politicians of the Al Grasby variety. They also believe that Islam is a “religion of peace”, CAGW is real, gender is a social construct, and so on.

    • Warty says:

      I suspect the Muslim issue is dominating the whole multicultural issue, because that particularly ideology by and large refuses to accept to come under the jurisdiction of any secular state. Scratch the surface, as Chuckp61 suggests and most Muslims adhere to much of the ideology of the so called extremists. We all know what Erdogan said, that there is no such thing as ‘moderate Islam’, and Turkey was a Caliphate prior to WWI.
      What this does is throw the whole concept of multiculturalism into crisis, and there seems to be an appetite for assimilation, well certainly amongst conservatives.

    • Jody says:

      “Blend into a hybrid”? Yes and no. I wouldn’t use the word ‘blend’ because multiculturalism is, for me, oil and water. They remain discreet parts which cannot be blended. The ‘hybrid’ bit is right, but who wants that? I no longer recognize the places I’ve visited in Europe because of it’s ‘hybrid’ nature and I equate what I see to Claude Debussy’s “Children’s Corner Suite”. The composer wrote this when his daughter lay very ill in her bed, surrounded by busy wallpaper of animal images. But the wallpaper would have gone around the entire room conferring a sameness which wouldn’t appeal to me and that’s why I dislike wallpaper. That’s my metaphor for multiculturalism; everything is so mixed that it all has a monotonous sameness about it and few singularly defining characteristics that are worth anything at all to me. Certainly none worth spending 20 hours in a jet to experience.

  5. Wayne Cooper says:

    Here is a question I have never heard a credible answer to: Why is it that some people proudly say – “Australia is one of the most successful multi-cultural societies in the World”?

    Inherent in the statement is a sense of accomplishment, as though something difficult has been achieved by doing no more than maintaining the peace. It also hints at problems with other, less “successful” countries, which have failed to accept and/or accommodate diverse racial/ethnic/religious groups to the same extent. The obvious existence of these countries clearly goes to show that there is nothing inherently “natural” in trying to form or maintain a single society out of groups of incompatible members.

    Despite this, our country makes legislation which outlaws any attempt to acknowledge difference, unless it is to confer benefits on minorities. Doesn’t seem like much of a “success” to me.

    • Bill Martin says:

      Excellent comment, particularly the penultimate sentence!

    • Jody says:

      The answer is simple: it’s called PROPAGANDA and this is supported by agitprop and an activist media. When I lived in Vienna I used to watch Q&A on my computer the next day and my husband and I were able to look at Australia from a distance. The posturing, self-congratulation and smugness about ‘tolerance’ (I agree with Jordan Peterson that it is pathological!) and multiculturalism had me cringing. And Grace Collier alluded to this Australian characteristic of self-serving congratulation last week on “Outsiders” when she said “Australians think they’re pretty good and that it’s great doing business here: that’s not the truth”. Bravo Grace.

  6. Keith Kennelly says:

    I once supported multiculturalism and in fact published an article in Grahame Young’s On Line be Opinion, stating that view.

    I’m a radical right wing thinker.

    I’ve since changed my mind and see its practise in Australia as quite opposite to what was intended.

    What changed?

    I came to realise both left and right introduced and supported this policy and even now both still support it with the notable exception of Peter Dutton… recently.

    Did left and right change? No.

    We have now a new paradigm. Since reading James Burnham I’ve come to accept we have been hoodwinked and led up the garden path by a new class. His managerial elites. In the past the group he identified over sixty years ago are the same group I’ve referred to as ‘the educated elites’. I came to this conclusion long before I heard of Burnham.

    I’ll now refer to them as the Managerual Elites.

    It is they who have given us the breakdown of our society, our cohesion and our beliefs.

    They gave us multiculturalism, claimaye change, political correctness and tolerance of intolerance. They gave us a belief in Human Rights rather than rights with responsibility. They gave us dependence on government.
    They gave us debt and deficit. They have given us big government and the nanny state. They are unabashedly increasing all these things in our lives. They take the side of big business where managers excell and form part of this elite.

    Both left and right now form this managerial elite.

    Who suffers? Two classes; the wage earner and the entrepreneurial class.

    Trump, Brexit and Corbyn are the combination of those class s defeating the managerial class.

    The days of this class is finished shed.

    Pgang is another of this class. He’s sees in here the influence of the Managerial class. So do I.

    If you want a modicum of understanding of how we’ve come to where we are and how to change the many ills … read Burnham.

    Thenll you’ll all see how your solutions and behaviours are influenced by the managerial class.

    I think nearly everybody in here is good hearted and supports equality and egalitarianism and would dump the totalitarianism and ‘know best’ belief of the managerial class.

    It’s just few people understand the persuasiveness of its thought , development and dominance. Gain an uns in standing of that and our society will regain its intolerance of intoleranc, dump the misnamed Human Rights, multiculturalism, regain smaller government, destroy PCism and the nanny state.

    Cheers

    • acarroll says:

      It’s just the Fabian slow march through the institutions bearing fruit.

      You should read The Bell Curve by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein if you haven’t already. The way they’ve described the selective sorting, post war, of so

      • acarroll says:

        (Fat fingers)

        … of society into IQ classes is I believe, the genesis of this managerial elite to which you refer. Recall I posted a quote elsewhere by Willi Muenzenberg in regards to corrupting academia in order to make Western civilisation stink and be unliveable. Since the end of WW2 the smartest have been pushed through this ideological meat grinder and gas-lit (cf the movie Gaslight) into believing and evangelising the worship of man and his perfectibility, that biological realities don’t matter or are social constructs that can be deconstructed, that man is born a blank slate, etc.

        This new class is isolated behind their gated communities/suburbs from the reality of regular folk.

        When we look at the madness of the modern university environment – even the prestigious Ivy league and OxBridge schools – it shouldn’t come as a surprise since the leftist madness has been operating there longer than anywhere else and we’re now into the second or third generation of untethered-from-reality professors steeped in Frankfurt school dogma.

        I’m not religious but the intergenerational viciousness of this attack on the foundations of our society is… demonic.

        From the movie Constantine:

        Angela Dodson: Well this has been educational, but… I don’t believe in the devil.
        John Constantine: You should. He believes in you.

  7. Keith Kennelly says:

    Oops pgang is a member of the wage earner/entrepreneurial class.

  8. Keith Kennelly says:

    CarerP

    If that happened there would be very little of the Koran or Hadith left.

    It would be easier to simply denounce the chapters that require all Muslims to convert or subject the other two thirds of the world to believe in one god Allah and one law Sharia, using any means possible.

    That would fix it … but don’t hold your breath.

    Every time a Muslim opens their mouth this is in their mind.

    check Churchill, Chesterton, Russell and even Hitler. Hitler was an admirer the others were scathing.

    Cheers

    I’d simply ban the religion, bulldoze the mosques and burn their books. It would be less brutal and more achievable, than trying to convince the infidel hater to become intolerant of their own intolerance.

  9. gavanhe says:

    Perhaps many seasons ago we should have referred to ourselves as a multi ethnic society, this would have obviated any need for the pc brigade to invent the multicultural label.

  10. Trog says:

    In a word, outstanding! It was all I could do to stop myself from leaping up out of my armchair and saluting!

    So much more salient when hearing from someone experiencing the “lived reality” than from others that merely postulate upon the experience.

    More strength to your arm Ma’m.

  11. Doc S says:

    Babette Francis – you are a gem!