For several weeks now Canberra has been captured by a single question – monoculturalism or multiculturalism?
Given the total suppression by the establishment of all public debate around mass immigration and Australian identity up until now, this has been a surprising development. It has seemed like mainstream politics might finally be discussing the kinds of questions that nationalists have been talking about for years.
But is this way of framing the issue actually helpful for advancing the interests of our people? Just what are monoculturalism and multiculturalism, and their implications?
As always with politics, we must look through the Finkelthink and vibes to see if this is a genuine change on the part of the establishment, or just another diversion to fill in time until our demographic replacement is complete.
Let us first look at the alleged challenger to the multicultural orthodoxy.
On the surface, monoculturalism (previously known as assimilationism) seems to make instinctive sense. It is certainly a flattering proposition. The rest of the world is just waiting to participate in our superior Western culture, which is so powerful that it can overcome all rivals and turn any human being into a Westerner.
Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The only place where culture exists is in the minds of real, living human beings. And everything in living beings ultimately rests on a biological foundation. Culture is ultimately an expression of biology – of genes and the structure of the brain. Culture can certainly pass between peoples, but the underlying meaning is often changed to the greatest degree in the process. Compare how Christianity is practiced in Europe compared to Africa, or the Buddhism of China with the Buddhism of Sri Lanka. Peoples ultimately develop cultures that are biologically suited to them, even if they borrow their external form from another. Culture is therefore ultimately something inherent in the individual, and not something external. It shapes their entire view of the world.
If we apply this understanding of culture to the question of monoculture and immigration, we must come to the conclusion that it simply isn’t possible for someone to assimilate into another national group. Even if we throw a sop to liberalism and pretend that biology plays no part in influencing how the human mind works, is it reasonable to expect that someone can swap their culture, language, worldview and entire life experience? At best assimilation would be a surface level copy, based on a merely academic understanding.
Advocates of assimilation typically dodge this critique by reducing culture to a series of values or propositions – “Australian values” or “the Anzac spirit”. The problem with this is that Australian values are simply the values that the Australian people hold at a given time. They have no independent worth, especially when they’re abstracted to the point of absurdity in order to be palatable to as many foreign cultures as possible. The idea that “mateship” and a “fair go” are uniquely Australian values is something so delusional that it’s hard to accept that anyone could genuinely believe it to be true. Does anyone seriously argue that migrants come here because their own countries are devoid of the concept of male friendship and a general sense of fairness? The end result of this process of abstraction is that the Australian people disappear from our own history, to be replaced by generic “Australian values” that could be those of anyone on the planet.
The cost of monoculturalism is to turn our culture into lowest common denominator slop. It amounts to a spiritual great replacement.
If monoculturalism is both a delusional dream and a real threat to our culture, should we then seek to become just another ethnicity in “modern Australia”? Might it be better to live under a system that at least recognises us as a distinct people with legitimate political interests, rather than reducing us to a set of “values”?
If Australians were recognised under multiculturalism as a distinct ethnic group, with legitimate shared political interests, then multiculturalism would be a useful tool rather than an existential threat. We would be able to mobilise politically as a bloc to ensure that we remained the overwhelming demographic majority in this country in perpetuity, and to ensure that our institutions served our interests. No politician, judge or public servant would even consider suggesting antiwhite policies, as the cost of doing so would be to face the wrath of a united and politically mobilised majority.
Unfortunately, this is not how the dynamics of multiculturalism function in practice. Australians will never be allowed to be a “normal” group under multiculturalism, and we will never be allowed to organise politically along ethnic lines.
There are two reasons for this.
Firstly, the social dynamic that keeps multiculturalism from developing into a violent struggle between competing ethnic groups is mutual hostility towards Australians and their culture. The friend-enemy distinction that the government creates is that between oppressed minorities on one side, and racist White Australians on the other. The subtext is that multicultural groups need to stick together to defend their interests against the majority, and that this struggle is more important than whatever disputes they may have with each other. A constellation of government bodies and oligarch-backed NGOs obligingly produce a continual stream of horror stories about the oppression that multicultural groups face in Australia, and the need for solidarity.
This dynamic is also useful for explaining away the failures of multiculturalism. Everything from crime and terrorism to unequal economic outcomes can be blamed on White Australians, and their perpetual inability to accept that diversity is our strength. The most bizarre illustration of this was the aftermath of the Bondi massacre. The Bondi Massacre had nothing whatsoever to do with Australians. The perpetrators were Indian Muslims, and their targets were Jews, many of whom were Israeli citizens. The attack was apparently motivated by Israel’s genocide of Palestine’s predominantly Muslim population. As occurs increasingly frequently, Australia just happened to be the location of a battle in a foreign war.
Yet the result was that Australians suffered the consequences. We were robbed of our right to free speech, free association and political participation with the government’s new “hate speech” and prohibited hate group laws. A nationalist political organisation that had nothing to do with the massacre was arbitrarily banned, and its former members are now threatened with decade-long prison sentences if they dare to engage in the democratic process. In the absurd witch-hunt that commenced afterwards, thousands of police hours were wasted arresting and charging Australians for absurdities like having tattoos (this happened on three separate occasions), owning a boat which apparently featured “an image of Adolf Hitler”, and (ironically) giving a political speech opposing the new laws. Every person charged was White, apparently by design. Not a single Islamist was arrested and charged, aside from the surviving perpetrator. The only action taken against Australia’s extensive network of Islamic State sympathisers was a local council in Sydney temporarily shutting down an associated prayer hall, as it didn’t have the correct licence. Everything that’s wrong with multiculturalism will continue to be blamed on us, no matter what we do.
There is also a second major reason why multiculturalism is rigged against Australians. In order to legitimise multiculturalism, the unique historical claim that Australians have to the country that they built must be delegitimised. The immigrants who arrived five minutes ago from India, Africa or China must have their claim to the country equalised with that of the people who built it, independent of whatever economic or social utility they allegedly bring.
The resulting narrative is a mess of contradictions that would be laughable, were it not the officially recognised version of Australian history. Australia has always multicultural, yet the White Australia Policy is proof that Australians have always been racist. Anyone can be an Australian, yet the aboriginals are the only true Australians and everyone else is a migrant. Australia is aboriginal land that was stolen from them by European colonisers, so the only way to atone for this is to import millions more colonisers from Asia and Africa. Our cities and regions must be given aboriginal names, even though aboriginals were noble savages who lacked patriarchal, oppressive institutions like permanent settlements and territorial claims. Underlying it all is an almost Stalinist determination to rewrite history in order to shape the future. Our past is to be erased, and what little remains must be made a source of shame.
The assumptions are reversed when it comes to immigrant groups. It is the migrants who now have the true claim to Australia, as they are unsullied by its allegedly dark history of racism and genocide. Just like Europeans with the Holocaust, Australians are now the object of eternal suspicion in their own homeland.
Any attempt by White Australians to politically organise on ethnic lines is therefore treated with extreme hostility by the establishment. White Australians are still allowed to organise cultural associations and clubs based on their ancestral homelands. But the difference is that these groups are tolerated only as long as they remain apolitical, and promote foreign nationalism rather than Australian nationalism. They are cultural associations, rather than the ethnic lobby groups that every other ethnicity under multiculturalism has access to. The difference between a cultural association and an ethnic lobby group can be explained by comparing the Executive Council of Australian Jewry with your local Italian club. One advances group power by lobbying politicians, proposing laws and obtaining state funds. The other is a place for old men to play cards and talk about the old country. There may be a reason why we’re never going to see a Royal Commission into Anti-Italian Discrimination.
A recent example of the way in which the establishment denies White Australians access to communal rights under multiculturalism is the treatment of the British Australian Community (BAC). The BAC started out as a cultural association for British migrants, but has recently attempted to transform itself into an ethnic lobby group. Its cultivates ties to right-wing politicians, holds conferences and runs lobbying campaigns on various issues related to Anglo-Australians. As a result it has gone from being tolerated but virtually unknown, to having multiple legacy media outlets demand that associated figures be fired from their jobs at a small Sydney Catholic college for the crime of being “far right” and defending “white nationalism”. The federal education minister then instigated a “compliance process” into the school over its employees’ political activities, while a Greens MP claimed that the provision of public funding to a college with pro-White professors was “shocking”. Organising ethnic power is only wrong when we do it.
We must therefore reject multiculturalism as a rigged game, just as we must reject monoculturalism as an assault on our culture.
Both are equally bad for our people, as they deny us our national rights. Public debate about the two is a pointless distraction. It is empty left-right culture war theatre designed to distract from the underlying problem, which is that the existing political paradigm provides no avenues for White Australians to legitimately pursue their group interests.
If we are to have a future as a people, we cannot duck this fight by hiding behind asinine discussions about which form of collective suicide is preferable.
Header image: Socceroo Awer Mabil defending multiculturalism in an interview this week (ABC News).
The post Multiculturalism, monoculturalism, and White Australians first appeared on The Noticer.
The NoticerRead More
T1
