Lowering the Flag

oz flag invertedNation states like Australia are built around a national identity and nothing symbolizes that identity more than the national anthem. Inevitably, that makes it a primary target for those radical leftists, progressivists, and special interest groups intent on undermining our national identity and systematically deconstructing our society.

In contrast, Islam is built upon a transnational identity, symbolized by the adulation the Koran and the Prophet Mohammed. Nowhere in Islam is there an imperative to place allegiance to a national identity over one’s faith; quite the contrary in fact, one’s Muslim allegiance is regarded as having absolute primacy. Inevitably, that makes it a primary vehicle to be exploited by radicals and Islamists alike.

It is therefore no surprise that the latest attack in the culture wars over Australia’s national identity should be mounted at a Victorian primary school, where around 40 Muslim students were recently allowed to walk out of the singing of the national anthem for allegedly religious reasons. Let there be no mistake, this attack was mounted deliberately to set a precedent that can now be followed by other Muslim students in other schools, in both Victoria and interstate.

The attack also conveniently occurred at the same time that Tony Abbott was delivering the Margaret Thatcher lecture in London pointing out the potentially catastrophic implications for nation states of allowing a massive insurgency of Muslim immigrants – “a tide of humanity surging through Europe and quite possibly changing it forever”.  Local advocates of civilizational suicide like Bill Shorten, Richard Di Natale, and Sarah Hanson-Young were mobilized to denounce Abbott (who unfortunately waited until he was deposed before he took a strong stance) and distract attention from the local implications of his speech. However, the British media noticed the coincidence and TheTelegraph conducted a poll on the issue, which showed that 87% of 7380 respondents supported the view that the Muslim students should observe the national anthem.

While Treasurer Scott Morrison (but not the new federal education minister!), denounced the decision, he appeared to think the attack was merely a silly decision by school staff, who deserved the “muppet of the year” award. However, the Victorian education minister, James Merlino, immediately came out to support the decision and gave the action his official sanction, declaring that the walk-out was acceptable for Muslim students and indicating that it could happen again in the future. Similarly, the spokesman for the Islamic Council of Victoria, Kuranda Seyit, sanctioned the walk-out and declared that Mr Morrison’s reaction was “disappointing”, especially as the federal government under Malcolm Turnbull was trying so hard to mend its relations with Muslim community. Apparently, the federal government and mainstream Australia are still expected to be on their best behaviour with respect to Muslim separatism inside our wider Australian country.

Nevertheless, Mr Seyit said it, confirming that the students’ Muslim identity trumped their Australian identity: “They’re in a state of mourning [for the death of Mohammed’s grandson, Husein ibn Ali, 1335 years ago] during which they’re not allowed to sing or dance”. Therefore, if they have to choose between disrespecting Australia and observing Muslim conventions, they are expected to disrespect Australia.

It’s not surprising that this attack was mounted in this fashion. Firstly, it occurred in Victoria, which has slipped in four decades from being the jewel in the Liberal crown to the jewel in the pommel of the sword of the barbarians, led by a Socialist Left government beholden to the unions and other corrupt bodies, and where the population has become accustomed to comprehensive statist intervention and social engineering. Secondly, it was at a primary school, where the crucial early years of socialisation are undertaken and the future worldview of children is shaped. Progressivists know it’s vital to undermine any developing sense of national identity at this early age. Thirdly, the attack involves teachers who are taught in the most politically radical faculties in the country, supported by the most extreme unions, and endowed with a fierce anti-Western animus, along with a deep sense of ideological purity and moral self-righteousness.

Some commentators have noticed the significant role that teachers play in such assaults on our national identity and emphasized the radical nature of their university training. I described it years ago to a Senate Inquiry as a stultifying intellectual monoculture that dominates academia and applies a radical template of class, race and gender to every conceivable issue, with entirely predictable results. Consequently, as Jennifer Oriel laments in connection with the attack on the national anthem, “the problem does not begin with schools but in universities where budding educators are encouraged to embrace profound antipathy towards the West”. (“Uni courses teach hostility to WestThe Australian, 30/10). She indicts neo-Marxists and other Sixties’ radicals like Herbert Marcuse, Paulo Freire, and Frantz Fanon for the ideological role they are still playing in teacher education in our universities. She especially focuses on Fanon, who “celebrated Islamism as a revolutionary activity [and pursued] the destruction of Western civilization by a sustained attack on its core values”.

Indeed, Fanon is a pivotal figure in the Islamist assault on the West. In The Wretched of the Earth (1961), Fanon advocated terroristic violence because it provides a cathartic and cleansing experience for the perpetrators, as they destroy their enemies and everyone linked to them. It overcomes their sense of alienation and fuses them together as a collective force. According to Fanon:

The practice of violence binds them together as a whole, since each individual forms a violent link in the great chain, a part of the great organism of violence which has surged upwards.

As David Caute explained in Fanon (1970), he was “a revolutionary, a Jacobin committed to violence”, while Randall Law points out in Terrorism: A History (2009), that Fanon’s “rationale for violence has figured prominently in most terrorist movements of the past fifty years”, influencing many terrorists, including Che Guevara in Cuba, who was particularly interested in his theory of violence, along with the Palestinians, the IRA, Black Panthers, the Baader-Meinhof Gang, Tamils, Iranians, and many other terrorist and other insurgency groups.

Fanon is a central figure taught in postcolonial studies, a major growth area at Australian universities, as Oriel points out. Between 2004 and 2014 the number of universities teaching it grew from 15 to 21. Amongst Australia’s 34 universities it is the third most frequently offered history subject, to say nothing of its extremely high profile in English and other literature subjects.

Possibly, Oriel could also have mentioned the absolutely pivotal role played by Edward Said and his extremely influential tome, Orientalism (1978), generally regarded as the foundational text of postcolonial studies. In this, Said falsely claimed that all Western scholarship was perverted by its ‘Orientalism’, which allegedly viewed non-Western cultures as undeveloped and inferior. He also introduced the notion that the West is inherently hostile to other cultures, which it sees as ‘The Other’. This primitive type of dualistic pseudo-psychology has become a central premise of progressivists and Islamists, who use it as a term of abuse to discredit all critics of their values and activities, not only in postcolonial studies but in virtually every field of social interaction. It is closely related to the contrived thought-crime of ‘Islamophobia’, which is the standard accusation made against anyone who queries or criticises Islam or government policy on the Muslim insurgency in the West.

Civilizational conflict is the principal feature of our era, and it was the leading neoconservative political scientist, Samuel P. Huntington, who spelt this out with his epoch-defining text, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996). Huntington correctly forecast that after the Cold War global conflict would be based on culture and especially religious identity, and that central to this would be the rise of Islamist violence, particularly along the civilizational ‘fault lines’ where Muslim societies abutted the West (e.g., the Balkans, the Middle-East, Eastern Europe, Chechnya, Central Asia, India and Pakistan, Iberia, North Africa, etc.):

World politics is entering a new phase, in which the great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of international conflict will be cultural. Civilizations – the highest cultural groupings of people – are differentiated from each other by religion, history, language and tradition. These divisions are deep and increasing in importance. [They are] the fault lines of civilizations [and] the battle lines of the future.

Crucially, these fault lines run not only between nations but, in many cases right through them, e.g., India. It was this danger to which Abbott was alluding: core components of Western civilization, like Europe but also Australia, have to face the crucial question of whether they will accept the presence of an aggressive insurgent civilization in their heartlands, or will they effectively articulate, defend, and convey an integrative sense of their own indigenous national and civilizational identity to which migrants and refugees must ultimately defer.

Governments cannot fail to make a choice on this issue. Do we assert our national identity or do we allow it to be undermined and deconstructed, as progressivists are seeking relentlessly to do? If our governments capitulate and the Islamists, progressivists, and other internal enemies are allowed to be successful then the result will not be their utopian fantasy of cultural diversity or a Caliphate, but only a future of ever-intensifying civilizational conflict and social disharmony

15 thoughts on “Lowering the Flag

  • Jody says:

    Keep fighting the good fight. The Europeans are busy embarking on population replacement so they’ll do anything and everything to avoid looking at the elephant in the room. In Australia we need to be much more brave, assertive, pro-active and the consistently argue the point. I was surprised to find this on ABC “Lateline”:


  • bemartin39@bigpond.com says:

    The most infuriating bit of this stirring article is the utterance by the spokesman for the Islamic Council of Victoria, Kuranda Seyit, who sanctioned the walk-out and declared that Mr Morrison’s reaction was “disappointing”, especially as the federal government under Malcolm Turnbull was trying so hard to mend its relations with Muslim the community.

    What?! The government trying to “mend its relationship with the Muslim community”? How the bloody hell did the Australian government or Australians in general damage that relationship – if it merits that description at all – for which we now have to atone? Did we not let them build enough mosques? Did we not allow enough hate-mongering islamist preachers to come and dispense their bile in those “places of worship”? Did we ban any of their faith based organisations or the display of any of their religious symbols? Short of failing to lick their …., where did we go wrong? The cheating, lying, preposterous audacity of the Muslim community beggars belief, but no more so then the craven attitude of the vast majority of our politicians, journalists and academics, who literally prostitute themselves in their pathetic endeavour of trying to please the Muslims amongst us. What a stupidly hopeless attempt at the impossible!

    Three hearty cheers for the newly formed political party, the Australian Liberty Alliance. The fact that they are being loudly accused of racism, intolerance, xenophobia, islamophobia and bigotry is an excellent recommendation, because they daw these labels simply by their intention of halting and hopefully reversing the islamisation of Australia. Should that intent fail, God help us all.

    • Sigwyvern says:

      My family and I have all decided to support the Australian Liberty alliance.(liberal voters for 30 years)The tipping point for me was our local MP Jason wood screeching at me that he was as conservative as they come. That must be code these days for Marxist two faced Pratt ,yet putting his self interest and vote behind the simple self involved dipshit that now thinks he,s my prime minister.

      • Jack Richards says:

        I’ll be deserting the Liberals as well. When that fat pig from Qld got his 6 double chins on TV saying we needed to take in 100,000 Syrian refugees … well, if they’re that out of touch they wont get my vote.

        I see that Hizb ut Tahrir held a Rally today and issued a booklet to the faithful entitled something like “How to tell Aussies and the Aussie Government to get fucked – we’re not going to be part of this place”.

  • lloveday says:

    I live in a Muslim-majority country. In every school, on every school day, every student – Muslim, Sunni or Shi’ite or…, Christian, Catholic or Protestant or …., Buddhist, Hindu – attends a ceremony of raising the national flag and singing the national anthem.
    Every day, during Ramadan, Muharram.., every student, Black, White or Brown.

  • brian.doak@bigpond.com says:

    Merv Bendle raises the flag for Australia and has aroused great supportive comment.

    There is a lack of similar informed comment on CEFA, the Constitution Education Fund Australia, and its online forum CCF. The present topic under discussion is ‘religious freedom in multicultural Australia’ and the visit of Dutch MP Geert Wilders is raise as an impediment. Most comment comes from the Green-left and the forum desperately needs some Quadrant quality comment.

    See if your indignation is provoked: http://www.cefa.org.au/ccf/religious-freedom-constitution

  • denandsel@optusnet.com.au says:

    Why does it never occur to leftists and the ‘feel good’ brigade that most of the so called ‘Islamophobia’ by the average Australian is actually a self defence reflex mechanism and not some deep seated ‘racist’ impulse? Perhaps some leftist ‘intellectual’ can tell us all how to bargain and make deals with somebody who is even prepared to commit suicide merely to harm you in some way. George Orwell had it correct that some ideas are so stupid that only an ‘intellectual’ could believe it. He would have been even more accurate if he had added government funded sinecured bureaucrat in academia or the judiciary.

  • Jody says:

    Here’s a scoop!! Paul Sheehan has written very critically in today’s SMH about the refugee ‘crisis’ in Europe and the comments section is already in meltdown with people in agreement!! Can it be the tide is turning? One of my comments – that media participation and activism is part of the problem – was, of course, rejected by Fairfax; one of the chief agents of refugee love-ins and activism. Actually, they’re so predictable I had to laugh about it!!

    • Jack Richards says:

      @ Jody. I noticed the usual liars and Bolsheviks from the GetUp/Greens squad had their hands full telling all that Sheehan is wrong and they are wrong and it’s all working well in Europe as it will here. There’s one particular commenter I’d love to find in the flesh and bash properly. That’s the compulsive liar calling himself ROSS – MALLABULA. There isn’t a day goes by he doesn’t all of it haranguing on the comments pages of Fairfax. There is no lie he won’t tell and is always full of praise for every race and culture other than the Anglo-Celtic. About a year ago he claimed that he’d witnessed “white racists” giving a demure hijab wearing Muslim woman a hard time at a petrol station and that he’d had to come to her defence. He claimed it was an “ugly incident” andc claimed it took place in the Nelson Bay area. I rang the ;police in Nelson Bay, every petrol station within 100km and the Police Area Command. No such incident took place or was reported. He simply made it up to further blacken and stereotype white Australians as bullies, thugs, ignoramuses who regularly mistreat the blacks and Muslims.

      I usually have 90% of comments to the SMH rejected – even though I scrupulously follow their “guidelines”. They simply won’t publish anything that challenges their biased and diseased Marxist view of everything.

      • Jody says:

        Believe me, Jack, living in Mallabula is no laughing matter; the place is a haven for crime with a high population of unemployed ‘indigenous Australians’ living in public housing. I used to teach their kids at the feeder high school.

      • Jody says:

        BTW, here is my offending comment which was rejected by SMH: it concerned the media’s role in reporting on “asylum seekers” –

        Our own media has been actively participating in these stories for a long time now; particularly the ABC, SBS and Fairfax. A report on “Foreign Correspondent” not so long ago saw the female reporter greeting the ‘migrants’ in Koz, taking selfies with them and wishing them good luck as she waved them off on the ship to Athens. No hard questions whatsoever. Activist journalists are a huge part of this problem.

  • aertdriessen@gmail.com says:

    Comparatively speaking we are now in the ‘appeasement’ stage of a similar conflict of some 80 years ago. But this time we have no Churchill, or indeed anyone who even comes close. Scary stuff.

  • brian.doak@bigpond.com says:

    Unfortunately, as good as he was, PM John Howard did not use his mandate to cement a conservative side in the ABC,the universities, or teacher education. Nor did he spike the ‘rights’lobby, or move for selective immigration. PM tony Abbott was worse in this regard seeming to have no handle on the economy, no appetite for spending constraint, and even wanted more spending on his abominable Parental Leave Scheme.
    In office we failed to build up the ramparts as Labor does.

  • Simon says:

    Do we assert our national identity or do we allow it to be undermined and deconstructed, as progressivists are seeking relentlessly to do?

    With Turnbull in charge the answer is clear. Nothing will be allowed to undermine ‘community cohesion’. But the constraints are on our national identity alone.

Leave a Reply