Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (30)
Ideas can be dangerous. Among the most dangerous are those that are utopian and therefore bear little or no relevance to the real world. In recent years, a popular but ill-considered utopian idea has been multiculturalism. This ideology appeals to impractical idealists and was readily adopted by the Left, which saw it as the means to undermine Western values. Multiculturalism dates from the 1963 Canadian Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, but did not become that country’s official policy until 1971. As more immigrants moved to English-speaking countries in the West, multiculturalism travelled with them. In Australia it was adopted as official policy in 1973.
The success of post-war migration to Australia should not blind us to the failings of multiculturalism. When most new settlers originated in the Western world or possessed Western values, multiculturalism appeared to work. However, it was a mistake of epic proportions to import settlers whose cultures were not compatible with those of Australia. Those who promote multiculturalism often stress the diversity it adds to the community. That is true, but there is no reason to believe that diversity is beneficial. It is a woke idea unsupported by facts. There is a fine line between diversity and disunity, one that can be erased only through integration and assimilation.
When widely differing cultures come into contact, they inevitably clash. This historical reality has been ignored by many governments who hastily embraced the theory of multiculturalism without giving thought to the dangers it poses for national cohesion.
Concerns about the effectiveness of multicultural policies to integrate migrants were eventually expressed by several world leaders. David Cameron, in his first speech as Britain’s prime minister, spoke of radicalisation and the causes of terrorism. He criticised state multiculturalism and later signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism. Former French president Nicolas Sarkozy declared multiculturalism a failed concept and called for a renewed focus on France’s identity. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel said the so-called multicultural concept—where people would “live side-by-side happily”—did not work. The governments of Netherlands and Denmark, recognising multiculturalism’s disruptive effects on their communities, returned to an official policy of monoculture.
In Australia, as ethnic social unrest resulting from multiculturalism increases, it might be only a matter of time before monoculturalism is introduced to unify the nation.
Based on the dubious platitude of “populate or perish”, Australian governments after the Second World War opened the gates of immigration. Most of the early migrants were British and European who adapted easily to Australian life.
From the time of the Vietnam War, migrants started to arrive from countries that were collectively known as Indo-China. Most were happy to integrate and become Australian citizens. However, any hope that they would be the model for all future immigration was optimistic.
This hope ended with the arrival of immigrants from Middle Eastern and African countries. Not only was their behaviour foreign to Australia, they brought with them Islam, an inflexible belief that sets them apart from most of the Australian population. Many of the ideas of Islam, as expressed in the Koran, are not only incompatible with Western values, they are its antithesis.
Islam is essentially a political ideology that functions under the aegis of religion. Many of its followers, believing it to be superior to any other religious or secular community, advocate Islamic (sharia) law and go to extreme lengths to ensure its adoption. Adopting sharia in Australia would be akin to exchanging democracy for fascism.
The ideology of Mohammed does not serve the interests of a secular state. It advocates religious intolerance, proselytisation and aggressive jihad (a euphemism for conflict). Unlike Jews, it is unusual for Muslims to integrate into Christian communities. In Australia this is apparent in the growth of Islamic cultural enclaves where abhorrent practices such as forced marriage, female genital mutilation and “honour killings” occur, without regard to Australian laws.
The chance of Muslim migrants from the Middle East, Asia and North Africa integrating successfully into the Australian community is minimal. As their numbers grow, our culture will be forced to regress to a primitive past we hoped had ended with the Enlightenment. Anyone who doubts the negativity of Australia’s policy of multiculturalism when applied to the Muslim community, might recall the sight of them massing at Sydney Opera House calling “Gas the Jews!” This was modern multicultural Australia, not Nazi Germany in the 1930s. Nor should we forget police advice to Jews in Sydney to stay home for their own safety, lest they are set upon by Islamic thugs.
The Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who wants the Koran banned in the Netherlands, believes that “Islam is not a religion, it’s an ideology, the ideology of a retarded culture.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali-born Dutch-American activist who converted from Islam to Christianity—according to Islamic law, apostasy is punishable by death—has said:
The fundamental problem is that the majority of otherwise peaceful and law-abiding Muslims are unwilling to acknowledge, much less to repudiate, the theological warrant for intolerance and violence embedded in their own religious texts.
Before Australian society falls apart under the corrosive ideology of multiculturalism, migration laws need to be amended to protect the country from those whose who import totalitarian dogmas, whether political or religious. Where does Islam stand in relation to this? According to O. Roy (The Failure of Political Islam, 1994):
One popular view … is that Islam has produced a political movement in modernity because there is something essentially political about Islam. [However, it] never historically developed the institutional separation between a corporate “church” and a corporate “state” out of which functional secularism could evolve … Islam is deeply associated with the public enforcement of a religious law.
Anyone questioning this assertion should provide the names of Muslim countries where church and state are separate, and where governments operate under a democratic system. At the root of the problem is the incompatibility of medieval Islamic theocracy and modern secular Western values. Hirsi Ali’s opinion is that contemporary Muslims “have not yet transitioned to modernity, and many Muslim immigrants are culturally unsuited to life in the West and are therefore a burden”. In a 2007 interview with the online magazine Reason she said:
I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways … “radical Islam” is what must be defeated … Once it’s defeated, it can mutate into something peaceful. It’s very difficult to even talk about peace now. They’re not interested in peace.
Later she referred to Islam as a “destructive, nihilistic cult of death … a new fascism”.
The Australian government is making a huge mistake allowing 800 Muslim Palestinians into the country. They come with hatred and a culture that is so foreign to ours they will never contribute anything worthwhile to Australia. We are told they will be screened before being permitted to live here. However, they have already been refused entry into Egypt and Jordan — neither country will admit Palestinians. That should be sufficient warning for the Australian government to rethink a policy that makes Australia a dumping ground for the world’s undesirables.
If we are to have a peaceful, united society, multiculturalism must be thrown on the scrapheap of failed utopian theories. With few exceptions, it has been a monumental failure and needs to be replaced by monoculturalism. Reality should take precedence over idealistic leftist drivel.
A bit late now, don’t you think? It’d be political suicide for someone to say – Maybe we should put the brakes on this importation of Islam. The High Court would have a field day.
You wouldn’t ban all islamic immigrants, you’d just be more strict on the cultural compatibility requirements for immigrants. There would be no need to answer to the High Court in relation to this. But as you say, not going to happen given the lack of political courage, even though I think such an approach would be quite popular with the man on the street.
Not “islamism” but Islam itself is pure evil and has no place in a civilised country. Immigration of Muslims must stop and all already here deported. Whenever someone quotes the mantra “Diversity is strength” I always respond with “like cancer is health”. I confess it does get some odd looks, but I don’t care.
Immigration without assimilation is colonisation.
I – A = C
Peter is correct. There is no ‘moderate Islam’. There are just lazy Muslims; and also people who want to stop being Muslims but don’t dare because they’ll be killed.
The way to stop it is to require all immigrants to OZ to pay for $X of Israeli military equipment for our woefully underequipped military. Islamofascists, Marxists, neonazis and latte sipping yuppies would all refuse, and so be excluded from the country.
Multiculturalism, as promoted by the nanny state, is a pernicious form of apartheid. When my family came to Australia from war torn Europe we came here to be Aussies. We were sometimes importuned to join some kind of club or organisation where we could regularly congregate with others of our nationality but we always turned down the offers because we felt that we came to Australia to get away from the inclusivity which that particular national ethos espoused. As a result we gratefully became Aussies. We were not even the slightest bit interested in becoming a representative of a multicult. In my view, multiculturism, for certain nationalities, promotes the nationally narcisistic notion that they can have all the benefits of Australia without becoming Australians.
It sounds like your family were demoralised about their European identity, possibly as a result of war and poverty and ready to buy into the then optimistic, aggressively egalitarian Australian identity. It seems to me that it is that same Anglo-Celtic Aussie identity which is itself currently being demolished and its adherents demoralised to facilitate a new rainbow, black red and yellow flag mongrelised proletariat with hardly any sense of history at all, apart from the latest Netflix dramatisation.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. The Huguenot genetics may have contributed.
It’s a sad irony that those post-war European immigrants who were somewhat less assimilable, like the Croats and Greeks, and who have maintained their own churches, are amongst the Whites best positioned to weather the dismemberment of the majority culture.
.
Nobiscum Deus
Sadly, I have to fully agree with you, Bryan, and with StJohnofG (above), whose background parallels my own. While patriotism might now seem an outmoded, maybe even pejorative, concept, it provides the essential glue for a coherent nation. Multiculturalism simply ensures that nobody feels loyal to their host country, only to their ethnic group, with which they identify far more strongly. Its first (and possibly only) benefit that always springs to mind seems to be culinary diversity – which we can have readily without all the mess of different languages and other, more serious, shortcomings. Citizenship should imply loyalty to a unitary culture. (I’ve even started wondering, after almost 60 years, why I bother still giving blood regularly; I want it to benefit only an Australian.)
We can observe one practical outcome of “multiculturalism” in remote Aboriginal communities, where people of different tribal origins, even though speaking similar languages, and culturally indistinguishable to the outside observer, seem to be at constant war with each other – which, of course, is attributed to “colonialism” and “racism” by the ignorant ideologists. What hope is there for our larger society, comprising people intentionally imported from far more diverse, potentially incompatible, backgrounds?
Is it any wonder that our society seems to be fragmenting, and our defence forces struggle to find enough recruits nowadays? With the deteriorating international situation, perhaps it’s time to actively start instilling a feeling of patriotism into Australian society, the only one we have, and bring back national military service?
There should be some kind of National Service, to instill a badly-needed sense of pride and community in young Australians. It always amuses me that while the Nordic countries tend to be impeccably PC, they also tend to be ruthlessly un-PC when their national interests are actually engaged. Sweden comes particularly to mind, with its national service, its matter-of-fact rejection of Covid lockdowns and its unapologetic position that net zero without nuclear is unachievable. With one exception all the Nordics maintain at least a form of National Service or conscription. In part it’s the result of occupation by the ridiculous, strutting but murderous Nazis and the equally brutal Russians in Finland’s case. In Sweden’s case it’s part of its historical neutrality. The exception is Iceland, with no standing armed forces, and just the lightly armed Landhelgisgæsla, the Coastguard. But at least it’s a NATO member, and despite the undercurrents in favour of neutrality likely to remain so.
Seeing that culture is the broad set of presumptions a group has about rights, relationships and responsibilities to each other and the community, the idea of multiple views of these foundations of social expectations can intermingle is dumb-assed to the max. The dill who thought it up should be installed in the dunce’s corner permanently. A successful polity has to be unified at the infra legal level for its laws and institutions to have any chance of working. Without that, nothing will work. (Looks out the window…QED)
QUOTE BEGINS If we are to have a peaceful, united society, multiculturalism must be thrown on the scrapheap of failed utopian theories. With few exceptions, it has been a monumental failure and needs to be replaced by monoculturalism. Reality should take precedence over idealistic leftist drivel. QUOTE ENDS
May I suggest that the old ‘White Australia’ policy of the Menzies era foundered because it rested on a demand that would-be immigrants pass a test of racial purity, however concocted.? Coming hard on the heels of WW2 and its Holocaust, that invited all sorts of odious comparisons, and came to naught for its advocates.
However, multiculturalism is a two-way street. While Islam is entry-lever fascism, has its own gaping internal the Sunni-Shia divide, and is NOT open to reform or development from within, it has its serious problems arising from just that. It is ‘monocultural,’ and constantly demands purity and correctness of thought. It is totally hostile to liberalism: that same liberalism which arguably began in the West with the Reformation and brought about the rise of modern capitalism.
The effect of that is there for all to see at the southern extremity of the Eurasian landmass, where multicultural and relatively liberal India sits with Islamic East and West Pakistan on both sides of it. India is an economic powerhouse, while Pakistan is a basket case. Those born into Islam and wishing it to prosper have, at the same time, to prevent the youth being ‘corrupted’ through exposure to alternative ideas. This is a hard task when economic advancement and freedom of thought go hand-in-hand. (It is all there in Plato’s Apology circa 500 BC.)
The exception of course, is the oil-rich part of the Islamic world. If I can recall correctly the quote from a perceptive Arab: “My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a plane. His son will ride a camel.”
The way forward out of this neofascist mess as expressed in the quote above from Bryan Wimborne, is IMHO to totally end the religious indoctrination of the youth, through restriction or elimination of ALL religious education. Let the young be exposed to, and choose between, as many ideas as possible. Under such conditions, anti-liberal doctrines such as Islam will have no hope.
Indeed Canada did create multiculturalism rather biculturalism but it is worth remembering that this stemmed from the fact the country was bicultural from the earliest days of European settlement with the French in Quebec and the English in other regions, and multiculturalism was formally established as a means of managing the issue of separatism and the campaign of violence that had been initiated by separatists. Discord and multiculturalism are siblings. In Australia it was adopted soon afterwards when Al Grassby became Immigrantion Minister soon after Canada adopted it and Grassby at the time made plain that he despised Australian bi-culture as it then existed of Anglo Protestant majority and an Irish Catholic minority with a chip on its shoulder, justified or not., Perhaps Grassby’s hatred reflected his Irish mother’s experience and/or his Spanish father’s indifference. Whatever the case the people’s chant of “the workers united can never be defeated” and “united we stand divided we fall” was overlaid by what are now unfortunately labelled ‘elites’ parrotting “diversity is our strength” something akin to “divide and rule” and the two do reconcile realising that two different and mutually exclusive collectives are being spoken of and speaking, the ruled and the rulers.
Enoch warned: no more to be said.
recall the sight of them massing at Sydney Opera House calling “Gas the Jews!”
I recall that it has been forensically disproven and was in FACT ‘Where’s the Jews?”
However, they have already been refused entry into Egypt and Jordan — neither country will admit Palestinians.
Neighbours of Irael that have already felt the wrath of offending Israel…we are a little bit further away.
@Michael Mundy.
There is nothing wrong with my hearing. As far as I am concerned, I played and replayed the video soundtrack of the baying Jew haters at the Sydney Opera House and I was left in no doubt the co-religionists were crying out “Gas the Jews”. They brought with them flares and Israeli flags to be burnt and stomped upon. There was nothing impromptu about any of their incendiary words or actions. And no-one has ever fully demonstrated the equipment, method and required level of expertise to “forensically disprove” how “Gas the Jews” could be replaced by “Where’s the Jews”. In my view this was unlikely in the extreme and in an effort to hush up what really occurred.
February 22, 2024
And even if it was “Where’s the Jews” (I can’t tell, myself)–that’s all right, then? A mob rejoicing in an attack on Israel, burning, yelling, saying “F– the Jews”– are we supposed to think that they wanted the Jews to come out so that they could nicely discuss the situation?
As a Christian lady pointed out in a recent interview with Avi Yemini of Rebel News, when the Gestapo kicked down doors and entered buildings they didn’t say, “Gas the Jews”; they said, “Where’s the Jews?”
Precisely.
Thank you Rebekah. Chilling.
Thank you Bryan Wimborne for your excellent article. I absolutely agree with you when you say, “The Australian government is making a huge mistake allowing 800 Muslim Palestinians into the country. They come with hatred and a culture that is so foreign to ours they will never contribute anything worthwhile to Australia. ”
.
Islamists certainly will never contribute anything worthwhile to Australia, but the reality is that they WILL bring extreme violence, jihad and fear to our once free, democratic society. Further, their cost to our society will continue to be astronomical with their extended family reunions, health, education and housing demands! Not to mention the cost of investigating their criminal activities.
.
Australia should only welcome people from cultures that are free to respect and positively contribute to our Australian, mostly Christian culture. Islamists should never be given residency in any first world, free Democratic
Apology for my incomplete sentence above.. This is my last sentence:-
Islamists should never be given residency in any first world, free Democratic country because Islam respects ONLY Islam and NO other cultures.
Multiculturalism is the policy of the Tweedledum/Tweedledee duopoly that is responsible for the destruction of democracy in Australia. Despite polling indicating widespread opposition to multiculturalism, the political class consistently refused to hold a referendum on the issue, even though petitions organised by Australians Against Further Immigration showed it to be a popular initiative.
To oppose multiculturalism earns one the pejorative “racist”, a term that demonstrates the ignorance of multiculturalists who confuse race and culture. Australia has been a multiracial country since the First Fleet arrived, but at the time of Federation, it was officially monocultural.
The political class loves multiculturalism; it has been responsible for a vast increase in publicly funded agencies and institutions and seen a huge expansion of powers in the political class generally.
Australia, once a unified nation of shared cultural traditions, has been balkanised into an uneasy collection of warring ethnic tribes, a condition that cannot be undone. That is the singular achievement of the political class and it was carried out in purposeful opposition to the express wishes of the people.
I agree with you on a good deal of this but it is actually quite difficult to disentangle race and culture. Ask a Viet, a Korean, a Thai or a Japanese or a foreigner in those countries.
.
It was with some difficulty that continental Europeans assimilated to Australia and they changed the urban culture to a significant degree but mainly by refining and augmenting the Western culture of which Australia had been a distant outpost. Multiculturalism was only announced when the real policy was multiracialism. This policy, now in place throughout the West, is quite deliberate. It’s aim is to destroy homogenous white societies, both people and culture, and prevent any effective rebellion against the globalists.
“Prophet and Loss” indeed, Bryan Wimborne. Multi-ethnic India is removing the multicultural exemptions of the 200 million Muhammadans who are to have their polygamy option removed and monogamy will be the only legal option. Zindabar for Indian PM Nehrendra Modi!
Why do Islamic school buses get away with seating all the girls at the back of the bus? Why? On a 40 degree school day in WA, the girls are covered head to toe in hijabs, while the boys run around in a t-shirt at the front of a bus. How can PM Albanese proclaim ‘oh it’s natural to tolerate this’… I agree that this goes far beyond so-called religious freedom, as far as I can see. I would not allow Islamic ideological schools to operate.
I see in my neighbourhood, young Australian-born girls going from carefree child to hijab wearing teenager with child. Their young life throttled, ferried from Islamic school to mosque to home, ad infinitum. These children under Islamic ideology don’t stand a chance.
Young hijab wearing ladies on their P-plates, distracted by their phones of course, with a back seat full of babies! Why not TAFE, college, work? The arrogance, naivety even, of Australian politicians sickens me. Even both sides of Sweden’s polity are in agreement. They failed to teach their language and culture to their hundreds of thousands of middle eastern migrants (and children) and the country is now paying the social price.
These young children whom you pity, if they adhere to their own culture, will most likely be fruitful and multiply. In the words of the late great Bobby Darin ‘Multiplication, that’s the name of the game’
.
The Australian culture of the mid twentieth century put fewer strictures on women but they were certainly there and for good reason. Before second wave feminism there was still a strong sense that a woman’s place was in the home and there was something wrong or at least to be lamented if she had to work. That culture gave us the baby boom. Had it continued we could have had a growing homogeneous nation instead of an incoherent emporium. What might have been.
Of course, the birth-rate of the islamists, where there is one male, one legal wife, and multiple women in their typical concubine, is unrestrained. This, of course, includes their “child brides”. Time the Australian government enforced our laws against child marriage and polygamy. The islamists are freely breeding because they KNOW that most of them will have to pay for nothing because of the subsidies through the very generous tax systems of France, Sweden, the UK and other first world countries including Australia.
.
Governments must stop taking the money from the Native tax paying workers and giving it to the Islamists who are hell bent on outbreeding the Natives and forming their sharia controlled, jihadi islamic caliphate.
.
Married mothers (in the traditional father, mother, children family) who are working full time, at home, with their children between the ages of 0 and 5 years are doing essential work which should be recognised as such. And this necessary and compulsory WORK should be PAID. A minimum basic wage should be paid so that the mothers can afford to stay home and do this essential work.
.
Where are the Unions campaigning for a fair wage to be paid to married women as a workplace entitlement for the 24 hours/ 7 days a week work with their 0 to 5 year old children? Never have the Socialist Unions nor Governments cared a fig about this particular group of essential workers.
.
Why should the taxpayer foot the bill? Because the taxpayer foots the bill for all essential services and there is nothing more essential to a successful first world society than a nation’s healthy birth rate and children who are raised in the optimal nurturing environment. All children have the right to an emotionally stable, intellectually stimulating, happy, healthy and secure environment with the love, care and attachment of one primary significant other usually the mother. This comes with an enormous cost and successive governments in first world Democratic countries have been avoiding this crucial issue pretty much forever.
.
One way of estimating the value of the work performed by married mothers working full-time caring for their children between the ages of 0 and 5 years is to compare the wages the child-care workers receive when the children are put in childcare and the caring of these children is immediately classified as work. Time to think outside the square.
Well there are the Family Tax Benefits which can amount to $300 or so per week by my reading per child which would add up in a large family. Your proposal is a feminist socialist one which essentially maintains mothers as brides of the state and with significantly reduced dependence on or need for husbands. Perhaps the Howard era proposal of income splitting for married couples would be a better incentive to keep families together and mildly disincentivise female participation in the workplace, to give women the freedom to stay home. It would also work against the polygamists. Obviously we’d need to get rid of the DIE nonsense, sex quotas, male-female pay gap handwringing and so on. Margaret Atwood would be appalled but too bad.
David Isaac, you said that my proposal “is a feminist socialist one which essentially maintains mothers as brides of the state and with significantly reduced dependence on or need for husbands.”
.
You need to read my contribution again. I wrote, “Married mothers (in the TRADITIONAL father, mother, child family) who are working full time, at home, with their children between the ages of 0 and 5 years are doing essential work which should be recognised as such.” Further, I have NEVER labelled myself as a “feminist socialist” although I do believe in Very Fast Trains and wish the Australia Government had at least one of them say from Sydney to Melbourne.
.
I agree with you when you say, ” Perhaps the Howard era proposal of income splitting for married couples would be a better incentive to keep families together and mildly disincentivise female participation in the workplace, to give women the freedom to stay home. ”
However, PM Howard never implemented this worthwhile tax reform. Also, it benefitted the higher income families more than the lower ones. The Family Tax Benefit you mention of “$300 or so per week per child ” is means tested so it would not apply to ALL women doing this essential work.
.
I believe there is nothing more essential to a successful first world society than a nation’s healthy birth rate and children who are raised in the optimal nurturing environment. All children have the right to an emotionally stable, intellectually stimulating, happy, healthy and secure environment with the love, care and attachment of one primary significant other usually the mother. This comes with an enormous cost and successive governments in first world Democratic countries have been avoiding this crucial issue pretty much forever.
.
It really is very easy to solve but I am sure that it will never happen so the ultimate best care for children between 0 and 5 years is only a dream. I maintain that those married mothers, in the traditional family of mother, father, children, should be paid a basic wage just like ALL other essential workers are paid. Their wage is NOT means tested depending on what their married partner earns.
.
C’est la vie.
Was the White Australia policy not a concoction of the Australian Labor Party?