Saturday, September 23, 2017

DADDY, WHERE DID MULTICULTURALISM COME FROM?

little girl: Cute little Girl Doing her homework
'Where did it come from, Daddy?'
'Well, from the Jews Honey.'
'Why?'
'Well you see, right from the very olden days, everywhere the Jews went people were bad to them.'
'Why?'
'Because the Jews always did things that other people didn't like.'
'What did they do?'
'They changed things to suit themselves but which didn't suit the people whose countries they changed.'
'Is that all?'
'No. You see Honey, the Jews are very smart. They've always known how to separate other people from their money.'
'But Daddy, you still haven't answered my question.'
'Which question was that Sweety?'
'Why did multiculturalism come from the Jews?
'Why don't you ask your mother?'
'She said to ask you.'

 

Daddy doesn't really have much of a clue but at least he's essentially on the right track which is more than can be said for around 98 per cent of the population. In Australia, the ideology that led to multiculturalism was largely an imported disease but fingerprints of the usual suspects can be found on the local version. Walter Lippman, a Jew, is credited with being the leading activist in firing up Australian multiculturalism. Lippman succeeded in becoming a borer from within of the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) which was an umbrella organisation under which grouped around 500 different  organisations of social advocacy. At a biannual ACCOSS conference held in 1968, Lippman's concern for migrant welfare led to his having it included on the agenda. With this one foot in the door, the creation of Lippman's and his fellow proto-multiculturalists' own Joint Committee on Migrant Welfare, an ACCOSS standing committee, followed. This was base-camp 1 from which Lippman could sustain a lobbying campaign on government. "Lippman exploited these strategic and logistical advantages and made his ACCOSS committee the hub and command centre of proto-multiculturalist activism." (1)

Although arse-clown, crook and sartorial fuck-up, Al Grassby, Minister for Immigration in the ill fated Whitlam Labor government of '72 to '75 would puff up like a pigeon with a hard-on at the sound of the words, "Father of Australian Multiculturalism, the man who had considerably more claim to the title was Jerzy Zubrzycki. It was Lippman though who was the first multiculturalist to pursuade Grassby that multiculturalism was the way of the future. Grassby, in fact not having much of a clue himself about which way to go, was putty in the hands of zealots like Lippman.

However, being hailed as the true king of Australian multiculturalism, it was only fitting that Zubrzycki was the first to spew the pernicious lie that "all Australians except the original ones are ethnics". Born in Poland, Zubrzycki wasn't a Jew but the sociologist Emile Durkheim who he claimed as one of the greatest influences on his life was.

In 1963 Zubrzycki travelled to the US to associate with and become heavily influenced by leftist sociologists who were now carrying the baton handed on to them by the Frankfurt School pioneers of cultural criticism. The central pillar of Frankfurt School thinking was that the cultural hegemony established by the capitalist ruling class produced "false consciousness" in the body politic. This hegemony needed to be dismantled by way of relentless critique, hence the 'critical theory' of the Frankfurters who had fled the German National Socialists. Being both neo-Marxists and Jews, this was an eminently sensible career move. Germain to the present argument, the need for a nation's racial homogeneity was seen by these ideologues as a spin-off of false consciousness. Pluralism was the antidote. While in the States Zubryzcki befriended Milton Gordon who was writing Assimilation in American Life. They spent hours together discussing the need for, and ways and means of disposing of the melting pot model into which American immigration was processed.

After returning to Australia, Zubryzcki, a demographer by trade decided to switch to Sociology. He became a founding member of the Sociology Department at the Australian National University. In 1964 he produced a field study of migrants living and working in the coal producing area of the Latrobe Valley entitled Settlers in the Latrobe Valley. Being an immigrant himself, it was exceedingly easy for him to empathise with the subjects of his study and sympathise with their problems. He also extolled Anglo Saxons who also sympathised with their problems. This perhaps was a subtle way of putting into a negative light the majority of the host population who didn't sympathise.  Also subtly presented were a few anti-assimilation sentiments. He wasn't about to begin rattling the cage too loudly just yet. Within a few short years though the tentative whispering here, aided significantly by expressions of discontent about the white Australia policy coming from countries to our north - a case of the pot calling the kettle black considering their own racialist policies -  would become a confident and unmistakable call for action. 

 

As cultural pluralist ideas as promoted by the likes of Lippman and Zubryzcki began to ebb and flow about academe and government circles the intelligentsia began taking a liking to them. Through the ages people who have thought of themselves as superior types have always looked for ways to distance themselves from the hoi polloi. Signing up to these new ideas becoming fashionable was just such an opportunity. "Anti-racism, anti-parochialism and cosmopolitan values, often expressed in terms of appreciation of migrants and migrants' cultures, became a means by which tertiary educated professionals as a status group set themselves apart from those who did not appreciate the 'finer' and 'more colourful aspects of life. This adherence to certain values helped define a person's status and claim and claim to social respectability."(2) It could be said moreover that even people lacking in education could make up for this deficiency, or at least appear to, by subscribing to these same ideas.

Parallel to this welcome chance to signal one's superiority for those who wanted to, was a dawning realisation that Australia and Australians were in serious need of a complete make-over. "In addition to being racist, the 'typical Australian' was negatively stereotyped as parochial, narrow-minded, materialistic, suburban, culturally inferior and in need of improvement."(3) With a rap-sheet like that, we were fortunate indeed to be allowed to continue living.

It is in no way possible or legitimate to view the early stirrings of Australian multiculturalism in isolation. If rebellious rumblings hadn't been heard years earlier and leading to American pluralism, it would be reasonable to assume that we would never have been afflicted with the condition. But of course they were. And America, being a country containing a large black population, was eminently vulnerable, particularly after fighting a war against a country whose preeminent evil amongst a basket of alleged evils was institutionalised racism. Returning to their own country of  racial segregation about to also become known as institutionalised racism, Americans were led to confront an apparent monumental hypocrisy with which it was almost  impossible to continue living. Doing the leading were of course Jewish dominated liberals who were quick to widen a societal crack into a gulf that would convulse the nation. However, racial segregation when seen from the perspective of today's black/white relations and the epidemic of black on white violence may not have been such a bad thing. As proof that Jews are world champions at the divide and conquer game thus furthering their own interests it's worth noting that the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was founded and staffed by Jews.

And guess who had been agitating for liberalised immigration policy, that is, from non-traditional sources, since the latter part of the nineteenth  century. Unlike Australia with an almost negligible pre-WW11 Jewish population, the US had been the destination of Jews, predominantly since a particularly nasty pogrom in Russia in 1881. This though of course wasn't something Jews hadn't experienced before. Pogroms went with the territory, it being difficult to be the enemy of the rest of humanity without expecting some blow-back now and again. Because of a peculiar blindness though, Jews prefer to view this reaction as irrational hostility - psychopathology no less. It has absolutely nothing to do with what's written in their holy books about Gentiles being simply cattle - their own words - or more aptly, sheep to be shorn. How else could they think? If a monotheistic people claim the one god as exclusively their own, then logically no gods are left for anyone else. So godless, with no means of obtaining a soul, what else can these unfortunates be but non-humans - animals? A corollory of their self-appropriated status as the only true humans is their system of dual morality. Essentially this meant an in-house moral code loosely in line with the Christian code: don't steal, don't kill blah, blah, blah, and a second code to be applied to all non-Jews which is, as known in Australia as 'Rafferty's rules' or 'open slather', roughly translated meaning no rules at all. Against the Goy, it is perfectly legitimate to steal, kill and the complete reverse of all the blah, blah, blah. This of course is tempered by the pesky civil laws that apply in the countries called home by Jews, even in Israel where world opinion sometimes means just a little bit more than nothing at all. However there was that case a few years ago when an Israeli soldier let loose his Uzi at some innocuous Israeli Arabs for no apparent reason. Not only escaping any real punishment, he became an instant equivalent of a rock star.

This dual morality also operates on a global level. For example, for western countries, Jews promote multiculturalism, mass immigration and anti-nationalism with opposition to this rainbow pot of enrichment being evil and beyond the pale, but for Israel, it is perfectly fine to oppose these weapons of mass destruction which they know perfectly well themselves to be their true nature.

The US was the perfect home away from home after that home had burnt down. It seemed the perfect shelter from the mysterious hatred and violence they had feared for thousands of years. No national religion, but indeed freedom of religion - perfect! A constitution that guaranteed freedom to pursue happiness and a freedom to make money with which to make that happiness complete. Best of all, America was a nation of individuals - defenceless against the most collectivist tribe that had ever existed. This was the same formula exploited so mercilessly that had caused them to be kicked out of enough countries to form an alternate UN. But of course when making more enemies than a crooked tax collector - which incidentally was a role often filled by Jews - it was just good sense to have a well thought out survival plan. This, Kevin Macdonald, in his seminal work A Culture of Critique, called a "group evolutionary strategy". This was what was employed to consolidate an impregnable position in the US. This essentially comprised using team work par excellence to accrue phenomenal wealth with which to take over the power points of American society - the instruments of persuasion such as media and Hollywood - to turn them around like captured cannon and begin using them on the enemy

However, even then, with the fear of what they called anti-Semitism in the very marrow of their bones, they still didn't feel safe. In their paranoia they still felt as exposed as a pair of dog's testicles. Monolithic homogeneity of the host populations they'd burrowed into was what had always brought them undone. But there was an obvious solution to this. If the homogeneity of the US population could be busted up by the introduction of many different ethnic groups which would serve the purpose of camouflage, the dog's testicles would become just another pair in a greyhound race. So began the relentless crusade for so called cultural plurality.

Things were going swimmingly for our Hebrew friends with a virtual immigration free-for-all until hitting the first major road block in the form of the 1924 US Immigration Act which they fought against with the fury of a whore stiffed for her fee.. Briefly, the act stipulated that the racial components of the US should be frozen in line with the results of an 1890 census, ergo a quota system. A later census of 1920 was disregarded because in the years immediately preceding it, immigration had been skewed heavily in favour of those from eastern and southern Europe. It was considered fairer to all concerned to extrapolate from the earlier census and keep the percentages of immigrants coming from a particular country in line with the percentage of their countrymen already resident in the US and thereby maintain a racial status quo.

It was a setback but in their millennia of existence Jews had learnt how to deal with adversity. They simply regrouped, and with infinite patience resumed the struggle. The breakthrough came in 1965 when the quotas were thrown out, the walls came down and the Jews'  Shabbos Goy, Ted Kennedy famously stated that the new immigration act would in no way alter the racial make-up of the country. It's well known that politicians lie for a living but this was a lie that would tower as an Everest of bullshit among mere foot-hills of bullshit. It's now calculated that within little more than twenty years whites will no longer be a majority in America. The same goes for Australia which caught the fever when the mighty US breathed on them as it does for the rest of the West where national suicide is considered the most moral and honourable course of action.

 

Unless a cure is found quickly for the disease of multiculturalism and, more importantly, the mass third world immigration that feeds it, Daddy's little sweetheart will be reaching maturity in an Australia that for an Australian, won't be worth living in.

But you don't have to take my word for Jews being the engine behind mass immigration and multiculturalism in the West, or for that matter that of any other 'anti-Semite' . They're more than happy to  take full credit for it themselves. Indeed they brag about it. See below.

(1) Lopez, Mark The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945 - 1975 Melbourne University Press P109
(2) ibid P 84
(3) ibid P 83
I'm also indebted to Kevin Macdonald's, The Culture of Critique

For an insight into the development of multiculturalism in Sweden which parallel that in Australia, this is well worth reading:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/09/23/the-origins-of-swedish-multiculturalism/#more-154699

spectre7.jpg

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

FIJI: IF BICULTURALISM IS THIS EXPLOSIVE, HOW BIG A BOMB WOULD MULTICULTURALISM BE?






Racism has become so identified with Whites that the term has become a synonym for white racism. In order for the racism practised by non-whites to be indicated, it is usually denoted as "reverse racism". The idea of racism expressed by other races has become so difficult to process that it's easier to simply abandon it. It just doesn't fit the narrative we've all had drummed into us. This perhaps is the  reason why non-white racism seems to have become as rare as rocking-horse turds.

Besides, the universality of the distrust of the Other really doesn't bear thinking about. If we were to dwell too long on the possibility that what has been labeled as "racism" - a scourge to be rooted out like a troublesome weed wherever it is found - is in fact an inherent part of human nature that always was and always will be, we may be drawn more to a world of reality and away from the world of fantasy in which our overlords struggled so mightily  to corral us.

This is perhaps the reason we don't hear a lot about Fiji, apart from its role as a tourist destination. Unfortunately for Fiji however, its tourist industry has been in decline for several decades due to political unrest in the islands. This is something we do hear about from time to time as roving TV reporters much prefer real action as opposed to, say, looking silly as they so often do in lonely postings outside of where something barely newsworthy might have happened hours before. But the newshounds are fickle lovers and as soon as the dust has settled in Fiji it is again quietly forgotten about. However trouble in Fiji doesn't evaporate simply because the news cycle has rolled on to perceived greener pastures. On the contrary, trouble brought to the islands more than 100 years ago by the British in the form of indentured labourers essentially press-ganged from the lethal poverty of India is a permanent component of Fijian society.

Between 1879 and 1916 when the system was abolished, more than 61,000 Indians were brought to Fiji. Why did they agree to be wrenched from their ancient homelands and become only slightly better off than slaves labouring in fields halfway around the world? The alternative - starving to death - provided not much competition. The indentured Indians, or Girmitias from Girmit from Fiji Indian dialect meaning indenture agreement, were victims of cascading misfortune that began with the British changing the Indian constitution to effectively cut many millions out of land ownership. Members of the resulting armies of vagabonds were subject to imprisonment. For this to be punitive it therefore obviously needed to be a worse fate than simply starving. The mind baulks at just how bad this would have had to have been to deter the malnourished from wanting to get into jail. Sealing the indenture deal for those who might have been wavering, although this would have to have been a very small minority given the other options,. was an upfront payment. After debts were settled, family and friends were helped out, it's not difficult to imagine these unfortunate souls fairly leaping onto the the ships that would take them to Fiji with whatever money was left. Don't worry, they were probably told, there's plenty more where that came from.

Why did the British need to go so far afield to conscript labour for work in Fiji? Wouldn't it have been easier to offer the the native Fijians the same deal? The Indians were brought in for the same reason that labourers had to be brought from as far away as Japan to work in American owned sugar-cane and pineapple fields in Hawaii: the islanders would no doubt have thought back-breaking work for foreign bosses, paid with money they didn't need was the definition of insanity. A hunter and gatherer life, topped up with a little subsistence farming and cannibalism in a bountiful environment, which had served their people well for the best part of 1,000 years, would continue to do so, thank you very much.

After abolition of the system in 1916, the Indians were offered paid fares back to India. Many accepted, but many opted to stay. After all, by now many had been born in Fiji and it was now India which was the foreign country. The ones who stayed quickly began to make their mark. Being a race which had created one of the earliest civilizations as opposed to the Melanesian natives who had, although performed remarkable feats of sea-voyaging, not bothered too much with civilization building, the Fijian Indians were far better positioned and mentally equipped for profiting from a Fiji now opened up to a much wider world than the natives had ever known. They also knew the value of money, and more importantly, how to accumulate it. This, the supposed  root of all evil, and the one-sided possession of it, became the root of Fiji's mutual animosity.





The situation that eventually arose in Fiji was as inevitable as an egg following a chicken, or was it a chicken following an egg? By the modern era, Indians comprised 46% of the Fijian population but dominated the economy. This unsurprisingly was a thorn in the side of the native, Melanesian population that would lead to a festering infection. Countering the Indians economic power was the type of power so endearing to Chairman Mao - the type that comes from the barrel of a gun. The army was 100% Melanesian.

The first real surprise to the outside world that everything in Fiji wasn't just pork-roasts, nubile, swaying dancers and lazing beside impossibly blue lagoons was the military coup that occurred in May 1987. The coup was led by Lieutenant Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka. The overthrown government led by Prime Minister Bavadra was a left of centre, multi-ethnic affair supported mostly by Fijian Indians. This to the indigenous Fijians, seeming like their Indian cohabitants had effectively wrapped up both economic and political power, was a bridge too far and racial discrimination was claimed as the justification for the coup.

In November, a second coup, or round two of the first coup, ended Fijian monarchy and in October a republic was proclaimed. The neighbours weren't impressed and both Australia and New Zealand introduced economic sanctions against the unrecognized regime. This however did little to hose down a racial fire.

The die was cast. Fiji staggered on into a future of economic and political turmoil and animosity which caused many Fiji Indians with business acumen to flee.

In 2000 the first Fijian Indian Prime Minister was held hostage in parliament by nationalists for 56 days and riots tore through the streets of Suva.

Currently rankling the indigenous Fijians is the fact that Ambassador Nazhat Shameem Khan, the permanent representative to the UN and other offices in Geneva is an ethnic Indian. There appears to be no end to the conflict.



One feels compelled to sympathise with both the Indians and Melanesians of Fiji, because neither were responsible for the racial divide destroying their country. The had it done to them by the British. They cannot be said to be as foolish as those who have done it to themselves, although the inevitable tragic results will be the same or worse.

Here in Australia, for example, Lib/Lab politicians and their lap-dog media and educational apparatchiks never tire of telling us we are the most successful multicultural society in the world. So what? Who cares? We didn't know it was a competition and, moreover, we didn't ask to be entered into it, or in fact for multiculturalism in the first place. It came from the top down - shoved down our throats. Not even immigrants were asking for it, that is, apart from immigrants of one particular race.

But it is hoped their smirking self-congratulations and warm moral glow can be enjoyed while they can because these are early days and the end result is sure to disappoint. Every multicultural experiment carries within itself the seeds of its own disaster. Unfortunately it is axiomatic that those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it. The disaster isn't a matter of if but simply when.

Yes, the current situation appears to be bubbling away quite nicely, but that's because the economy is still as strong as can be expected, the white majority hasn't yet been knocked off its perch or even been seriously threatened and the Chinese haven't yet commandeered the economy like they did in Indonesia, Malaysia and South Vietnam and the Indians did in Fiji. But of course all this will change.

The difference between our fragmentation painted over with an illusory harmony and Fiji's political, social and economic dysfunction is simply time. In Fiji, much more time has elapsed since different races were forced to share the same territory. Trouble has been allowed sufficient time in which to brew and become lethal.

All that is need for the same inevitable result in Australia is simply more time.








Friday, September 15, 2017

NOT JUST 007 WHO'S LICENSED TO KILL



This week in mid-September Sydney saw yet another small but significant victory for the sisterhood. Ms Quian Liu, 35, was found not guilty of the murder of her husband Han Lim Chin, 39, as well as his manslaughter, by a jury evidently composed of morons who believed her barrister's claim that the entire event had been "a terrible, tragic accident". The distraught woman had simply "reacted to a nasty situation". The nasty situation had culminated in the victim acting aggressively after repeated accusations of his wife's infidelity with a personal trainer at her gym.

Compounding her fear and anxiety, it was alleged, was her knowledge that Han Lim Chin carried knives in a bum bag he was wearing, while she herself held a knife behind her back.  Claiming she wasn't aware that a protective sheath had fallen from the knife she was holding, she simply meant to press the knife up against his chest to prevent him from advancing closer. It seems that the unfortunate Chin had never himself visited a gym because his flesh was so soft the knife that was simply “pressed against” it penetrated as though it was melted butter all the way into his heart. Lifting the unfortunate event into the realms of Shakespearean tragedy were Chin's last words: "Wife do believe me, I do love you very much."

No evidence of remorse on the wife's part has been reported. On the contrary, according to evidence given by an attending police officer, Ms Liu had said simply "I stabbed him, we argued and I was mad." She later denied having said this.

When the verdict was delivered, Justice Clifton Hoeben revealed that in his thirteen years of presiding over trials this was the first time a jury had delivered a not guilty verdict. On hearing this out of context, one might conclude that the judge was expressing a degree of dissatisfaction with this egregious travesty of justice but the report in the Sydney Morning Telegraph of September 15, 2017 assures us he was smiling as he spoke those words as though he also thought the verdict was a brilliant balancing of the scales of justice. Evidently it was smiles all around, that is, except for relatives of the deceased who later expressed to TV journalists in sad, difficult English their inability to accept that what had happened was "an accident".

Indeed, how could one be stabbed through the heart by accident? Perhaps if a person was holding a knife in a Psycho-like grip, tripped on a fold in a rug and fell toward the person with whom a nasty situation was being shared, and against odds at which most gamblers would despair, drove the knife into the other person's body where the small space housing the heart is located. However, nowhere at no time did Liu claim that anything like this happened. If it had been, perhaps it would be understandable that a jury reached the decision it did. In comparison, Liu's claim of what happened requires an inordinate amount of suspension of disbelief. It was just an accident, so there! "A word means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." The spirit of Humpty Dumpty was apparently informing her defence.

Just for argument's sake, let's accept for a moment the man's death was simply an accident. The man is still dead; his wife was the cause.  Why was the charge of manslaughter ever introduced into every modern legal system? The reason was to calibrate blame and punishment in cases such as this (providing it was an accident) where no intent to kill has been found. The factor of, or absence of, negligence is usually the deciding factor. In cases of car accidents, for example, in which passengers, or the occupants of a car collided with are killed, the factor of proven or unproven negligence decides whether the driver at fault goes to jail, and jail is usually the fate if found guilty in such cases. People hereby found guilty sit in jail while Liu, who had a knife secreted behind her back during a domestic altercation and just happened to accidently stab her husband through the hearts skips out of court smiling like a split watermelon.

Whoever said the law is an ass knew what he was talking about. Let's call a spade a spade. It's Feminism that has brought us to this ugly pass. It's now open season on the despised male. After years of poisoning women's minds against men and converting domestic violence into a cause celebre it's gotten to the point where a judge can smile while allowing a female killer to go Scot free. He obviously wasn't up to navigating through a mine-filled sea. Liu, after all had a second string to her bow. Not only was she female, she was also a member of an ethnic minority - a deadly double whammy.

Domestic violence, admittedly serious as it is, has been promoted into a category of evil topping the charts almost as much as racism and is a one-way blame game. A knee jerk response is that it is always immediately thought of in line with the simple feminist decree: man bad, woman good. Instinctively, domestic violence is construed as men's violence against women. However, the reality is different. According to Jim Ogloff who heads research at the Victorian Institute of Forensic Violence and is a world renowned authority of violence has stated that at least one third of domestic violence is perpetrated by the not so fairer sex. That is of course what is actually reported. While no shortage exists of women who will report even the most negligible degree of domestic violence, often with ulterior motives, how many men would risk being laughed out of a police station by going to report his significant female other assaulting him?

Get used to it. It's a rigged game, a stacked deck. A woman has a breast squeezed and it's a fire-storm of outrage and demands that the perpetrator be punished to the very limit allowable by law. However when a man has his penis sliced off by his wife while he sleeps, it’s good for countless laughs by late-night comedians to the delight of female audiences.

The moral of the story? Be wary of the woman in your life. She may kill you just because she can - and get away with it.


Saturday, September 9, 2017

CULTURAL MARXISM FOR DUMMIES

Hala Faisal paseaba desnuda con lemas contra la guerra pintados en su cuerpo en la fuente de Washington Square el martes en una protesta contra la guerra de Irak. Foto por Jefferson Siegel

 "Situation hopeless but not serious," may have been the view taken of the Soviet economic system by the Politburo. Among the proletariat, an old joke raised the odd smile when nothing much else would: "we pretend to work and they pretended to pay us." These were two takes from different perspectives on an economy that worked about as well as solar panels during a Scandinavian winter .

Just as within the think-tanks of Western capitalism, constant growth was all that mattered. Without it .. well no-one really wanted to think about that. A major difference however between a capitalist and a communist economy was that with the former the concrete and steel wall that growth must inevitably hit was somewhere off in the future, while with the latter, the system was pushing up against the wall right from the beginning.

But as with so many other things, a prime example being the situation during the initial phase of the German-Soviet war when to tell the truth about another crushing defeat was a fast-track to getting a bullet in the back of the head, a certain amount of reticence existed when it came to reporting growth rates possibly less spectacular then expected. Cunning methods were devised to avoid any nastiness such as, for example, boosting production figures by way of having gleaming finished products passing out through a factory's front door only to be re-routed back through the back door so they could be counted again ... and again.

Naturally enough an economy that belonged in Fantasy Land could only be maintained for so long until the whole house of cards came crashing down, which it did. The Soviet Union ceased to exist and its chained up European satellites, generously handed to them by their World War 2 allies, threw off their shackles and celebrated like it was 1999.

Similarly, the Chinese saw the graffiti on the Great Wall and switched to a hybrid of economic capitalism and political communism, not caring too much about the tension set up between economic freedom and the continuing oppression of a communist society. Its neighbour, Vietnam, attempted to follow suit but with limited success, widespread poverty still being the general rule. Cubans stuck to their guns and drove the same model cars for sixty years. But at least that attracted vintage car enthusiasts with money in their pockets. That only leaves North Korea which if not careful may still be radioactive in 1,000 years.

Communism had three major problems. (Estimating the exact numbers of all the others could provide an excellent competition for morning radio.) They were 1. Marx seriously misunderstood human nature. Christians and Freudians had a far firmer grasp of the nettle. Man is essentially flawed, they said. Christians blamed 'the Fall', while Freudians blamed the irrationality swirling around in the dark depths of the Unconscious. This condition, it was thought, is fixed for all time. Man has about as much chance of being perfected as a square wheel. He is selfish, tribal and as territorial as a hippopotamus.  He is the most dangerous creature to ever walk the earth.  And sadly, he is not as smart as he thinks. If he were, the average IQ for white people, although higher than that of other races, wouldn't be flat-lining at around 100, meaning of course that exactly half the population comes in with an IQ of less than 100. However, one Herr Marx believed that this unpromising material could not only be converted into the totally unselfish 'brotherhood of man' but could also be moulded into a state of perfection. Human nature to Marx was Play-Doh. This was taking naivety to a whole new level. And Jews are supposed to be smart!

2. Class consciousness trumps nationalism. Once the workers of the world were properly "educated" they would realise that they had more in common with workers of other nations than they had with their own nation-states ruled over as they were by the evil bourgeoisie. The First World War put the kibosh on that idea when the workers of different nationalities slaughtered each other on an unprecedented scale. Nationalism, as it turned out, trumped class.

3. (essentially an elaboration on 1.) Throughout every incarnation of Communism, some animals were always more equal than others. While some holidayed in seaside dachas, were driven around in sleek limousines, and dined on caviar and imported cognac, the rest of the farm animals scratched the barren earth in search of scraps. But this is just temporary, they were told. Sacrifices are needed. But take heart, a glimmering socialist paradise lies just over the next hill. Yet as the years rolled by and the proles trudged ever onward, the paradise, being the mirage it was, remained forever out of reach.

Nothing really panned out the way Marx said it would, which is surprising given that Marxism was billed as being as scientific as a test-tube. For instance, according to the theory, (theory as in theory of evolution - already beyond doubt) the lift-off of Communism could only be achieved in industrially developed countries already softened up by "bourgeois revolutions" such as the upheaval in France in 1789. The great impediment to "progress", the aristocracy, would be thereby bulldozed out of the way. The arrival of Communism, that is to say, the dictatorship of the proletariat, was predicted to be an historical inevitability but a little help from the vanguard of that benighted social class wouldn't go astray.

But here was a surprise: the two main events of Communist revolution in the twentieth century occurred in industrially backward nations where the peasantry and not the proletariat formed the backbone of the body politic.


Gramsci.png
Antonio Gramsci

But, hey, any port in a storm. That could be worked with. Just a little tweaking and a shift in strategy was all that was called for. And this slight departure from the gospel of Marx might even have worked out better in the long term. After all, once the workers in industrially advanced countries witnessed the miracles taking place in nations which had jumped the gun, who could stop them wanting the paradises possible in their own countries. Admittedly, they had not been softened up by the predicted bourgeois revolutions, but rather by peaceful evolution. Same result wasn't it?

But once again, the cold, wet blanket of disappointment descended. The official script was again being ignored. Workers of the First World, when advised that all they had to lose were their chains, replied, "what chains?" Notwithstanding wars and economic depressions (and if the Great Depression couldn't tempt its victims into communism, what could?) they were living la dolce vita. With a little prompting from unions and social democratic political parties they were now being smiled upon by Capitalism with a human face. In fact, the embryo of a welfare state had been conceived by the shrewd Bismark in Germany precisely to cut the legs out from under troublesome socialists. These reforms began making their way around the world. Incidentally, the only advanced country where a communist revolution came close was Germany after years of unimaginable suffering. But of course we all know what happened there.

The appearance of thinkers becoming known as neo-Marxists was a sure indication that something had gone badly wrong with the old Marxism. The seeds of what would become known as the New Left - a term interchangeable with Cultural Marxism - but a cleaner ring to it, such as New Rinso with the implication being that it was both new and improved, were beginning to sprout. Proponents of the New Left preferred this term because of the impression it gave of not having anything more to do with Marx. It would only be the Right who would use the alternative term to remind people it had everything to do with Marx. It even came with the thought crime invented by Marxists: political correctness

These seeds were planted independently in countries going in the opposite political direction - in Mussolini's Italy by the brilliant Antonio Gramsci, and in a Germany about to undergo the National Socialist revolution by the Institute of Social Research at the University of Frankfurt. Becoming known as the Frankfurt School, its members surrounding the institute's director, Max Horkheimer who founded it in 1930, were Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorner, Walter Benjamin and Eric Fromm. The intellectual centre piece of the Institute was Critical Theory. This essentially was holding up every pillar of western civilization to scathing critique in the hope that, like a pier pounded relentlessly by wild seas, it would eventually surrender to a collapse.

Gramsci's  genius lay firstly in his perceiving that Marxist economics were unworkable and so began distancing himself from it and, secondly in understanding that something almost intangible was maintaining the ruling class invulnerable in its position of dominance over western societies and it had nothing to do with raw brute power. It worked far more effectively. In order to isolate this mysterious force, he formulated his theory of "cultural hegemony". In terms of being able to see something no-one else could, Gramsci was right up there with Newton musing on gravity.

Briefly, Cultural Hegemony is something achieved by those crafty capitalists who had succeeded in converting their ideology into the very culture of a society so that its inhabitants would be like fish not noticing what they were swimming in was water. Moreover, the ideology now seen (but not seen) as the permanent furnishing of a society would be accepted as being beneficial to all and not just the ruling class or bourgeoisie (take your pick) to whom of course it was exceedingly beneficial. This cultural status quo would so permeate the hearts and minds of those living within it that it would be accepted simply as reality with no other reality being possible. To think otherwise, one might as well be longing for a parallel universe. This master-stroke of pure genius hinged upon a form of mass-hypnosis, if you will. So logically, all that needed to be done to usher in the new age - shorn of all the economic mumbo jumbo - was to flip the cultural hegemony. How this was to be done, Gramsci never got around to telling us. Never having enjoyed good health he died relatively young after years of imprisonment in Mussolini's jails.

In Germany, the Frankfurt School was just getting into its stride only a few years before Gramsci shuffled off.  Like Gramsci, the Frankfurters were concerned with the way in which ideology was used as a tool of oppression, and also like Gramsci they arrived at the conclusion that an ideology was able to function so smoothly in this way was because the assumptions underpinning it were so rarely challenged. This is what they set out to do by way of criticism or critique similar to the critique of capitalist economics engaged in by Marx in Das Kapital. But instead of writing their own Capital, broadsiding every other facet of capitalist society, they hit on the idea of using the means already in existence - the humanities or social sciences: Geography, Sociology, History, Political Science and Anthropology, the latter providing a classic example of how to criticise (and therefore change society, the whole point of the exercise) to do the job. The job was to criticise society to within an inch of its life at which point it would give up and became more conducive to an alternate ideology.

With the advent of National Socialist rule the Frankfurt boys got the hell out of Dodge and lit out for the US with their peculiar brand of poison.

As foreshadowed, the discipline of Anthropology and the way it was turned inside out to further the agenda of the few determined to remodel western society in line with their own interests provides a crystal clear illustration of what the Frankfurt School was up to.

Franz Boas, although not associated with the Frankfurt School (except by shared religion) indeed preceding it by a number of years, his most important work being done not long after the turn of the twentieth century, and winning for himself the mantel of Father of American Anthropology proved to be a genius at taking an established discipline and reshaping it into a tool for furthering his own agenda. Before Boas, anthropologists took race as much for granted as the seasons of the year. Boas decided to change that. Under his reign, race would become a "social construct", human nature therefore being what Marxists preferred: malleable. At last the perennial argument was over: nurture trumped nature. To seal the deal, Boas coined the term "cultural relativism", meaning all cultures, once their peculiar strengths and weaknesses had been weighed, would come out of the wash exactly equal. Extending the logic a little, the same could be applied to individual human beings. In this way, Marx's holy grail of egalitarianism was sneaked in through the back door. But even a showman like Boas knew he needed more than smoke and mirrors.

To this end he sent his young protege, Margaret Mead all the way to Samoa tasked with bringing back proof from the primitive society living there that, being out of reach of capitalist machinations, these people were as carefree, joyful and free-loving as nature meant them to be. This mission she performed with admirable energy and dedication, having no idea that the prank-loving Samoans were showing her exactly what she wanted to see. Eventually the Australian anthropologist, Derrick Freeman lifted the lid on the whole sorry episode. Samoans were in fact just as inclined toward the darker side of life as every other Homo Sapien. But the damage had been done. Boas had single-handedly flipped a significant plank of the cultural hegemony. There was now no such thing as race, that is, unless you wanted to blame the white race for every misfortune suffered by every other race. And of course, what did an immigrant's race (non-race) matter if, being exactly equal to everybody else, he could be simply dipped in the culture of his adopted (or invaded land) and presto! he was every bit as American, British or Australian as the natives. Just in case he didn't, and of course turning science, common sense and thousands of years of history's lessons on its head was bound to produce a few contradictions, this simply being one more, multiculturalism would be constructed to allow the immigrant to remain in a non-assimilating bubble.

All that was now needed was someone to come along, gather all these loose strands together and have enough rope with which to hang western society. That person was Rudi Dutschke, an activist who had grown up in East Germany and had been greatly influenced by the jail notes of Gramsci. Borrowing from Chairman Mao, it was Dutschke who coined the term "the long march through the institutions". However, like a surfer lifted by a wave he was greatly assisted by the social revolution of the sixties that hit the US and Western Europe and in a way compensated for the bourgeois revolutions that had failed to eventuate. Herbert Marcuse, still around in '72 when his book Counterrevolution and Revolt was released, positively swooned over Dutschke's blueprint for pulling off the trick of the century - working against the established institutions while working within them.

Woodstock Love 32x36 Glass Panel.  Image Starts Here...                                                                                                                                                     More

The new improved Marxism had not only dropped the dubious economics: it had also quietly dispensed with the proletariat. Not even the lumpenproletariat need apply for shelter under its umbrella. It was as though, after their past rude ingratitude, they didn't deserve the extreme left. Besides, there were now so many other rich pickings to choose from. The new oppressed class would be a composite of all the groups who would be quick to recognise the advantages in claiming victim status under a stubbornly remaining racist, patriarchal, imperialist ruling class. They, blacks, indigenous people, minorities, women, refugees, homosexuals, would be conscripted on a quid pro quo basis. Ever more indignities, humiliations and injustices would be uncovered in return for undying allegiance to the new hegemony.

Dutschke's advice, plus hardened activists riding on the back of the civil rights movement and opposition to the Vietnam war that had provided the impetus for the revolution, as well as stoned and sex-soaked hippies so engrossed in their own infantile romanticism they would have believed anything, comprised the perfect storm. The success of the revolution was breathtaking, the revolutionaries did indeed march through the institutions - most critically, the media, education and entertainment - and made them their own. Traditional cultural hegemony was flipped on its back. There it will stay until once again flipped right side up. In order for that to be achieved, much could be gained from studying the methods of those who perverted everything they touched.



























Sunday, September 3, 2017

TIME TO BOYCOTT THIS RACE TRAITOR

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/9504237f0cf0ba6656abfd165ff026ed
AND WHY WOULDN'T HE BE LAUGHING? HE'S JUST POSTED A $449 MILLION YEARLY PROFIT - 29%  UP ON LAST YEAR
He's at it again, the man who asks 'who is Australian anyway? We're all from somewhere else.' The man who would prefer to import not only his products directly from Asia, but his employees as well. 
After all, it's mighty impressive how hard people will work for dirt-poor wages and with conditions only third worlders will tolerate and with a Damocles sword hanging above them in the form of a return to where they've come from if not entirely satisfactory. The man who will so generously employ as many of the 12,000 Syria refugees he can get a hold of who have been given big-hearted invitation to our shores. Among the 12,000, it's reasonable to assume only a small percentage will want to kill us.

Yes, Gerry Harvey, he of the Harvey Norman department store empire, is at it again. This time he's giving us what he no doubt gleefully hopes will be a self-fulfilling prophecy in the statement to news.com.au of September 1, 2017 in which he shares his vision of Australia becoming an Asian country with a population of between 50 to 100 million: “If I was God and I looked down on the Earth, I would see 1.3 billion Indians, 1.4 billion Chinese, 240 million Indonesians, these great big continents, America, Europe, and one funny little country, Australia. “It’s not possible you can maintain a population of 25 to 30 million people. [The 50 - 100 million is] going to  happen ... it's just inevitable. The  people that exist today, me and you, we all have our view, but we’ll be long gone. Immigration and population growth were impossible to control. The problem is you can’t control it. The rest of the world at some stage is not going to let you control it. Sometimes when you smell the inevitable you’ve got to go along with it."

That the teeming millions of Asians turning Australian cities into bulging Calcuttas and smog-shrouded Bejings will be happening much sooner than the predicted next century if Harvey and his ilk can have any thing to do with it is not mentioned. Well, so what? If it's inevitable, it really doesn't matter whether it's sooner or later. If the country becomes uninhabitable for white people much sooner than Harvey expects it's hardly likely that he'll lose any sleep over it. He can simply pack up his billions and move to wherever the global elite are holed up in their exquisitely luxurious and expansive fortress-compounds.

But why is it inevitable? And if it is inevitable, why were we not told that over forty years ago when the first beach-heads of the invasion were being established? Instead we were told that we were racists and idiots for having even the slightest concern about the small numbers of Asians arriving in our midst - so small that it was inconceivable that so much as a ripple could occur in the racial make-up of the country. But of course this is how soft tyranny works - through cunning, deceit and duplicity and,to use a word much loved by Australians, bullshit. But just imagine if we were told back in about '75, "OK, we'll be starting with small numbers initially just to get you used to it. These small numbers, don't forget, are desperate refugees fleeing a country that, helped by us, the American military-industrial-complex had fucked up completely - something the it does spectacularly well - and then leaving our new best friends holding the burnt spring rolls. The less fortunate of their countrymen are dead - probably somewhere between one and two million, and many of them fried with Napalm".

It would of course be difficult to maintain this scam indefinitely before the natives began to get restless. But a contingency plan was already in place: "Now because we Whites have a fatal flaw, put there largely by Christianity which posited a universal god who frowned upon the merely selfish application of altruism, that is, among  our own kind, instead of toward all comers, we have absolutely no qualms in using this weakness against you. Refusing to obey this holy dictate appropriated by leftists and Humanists produces guilt found to be exquisitely painful. If you object to relinquishing the country your forebears created, you will be made to feel more guilty than you can possibly stand. 

"This Asian trickle will of course be only the thin edge of the wedge.  We know of course that chain reaction of escalating Asian immigration and the cutting back of European immigration will, in the lifetimes of most of you, lead to our major cities being unrecognisable as Australian and our universities and selective schools being monopolised by Chinese rapidly on route to dominating Australian business and commerce."

Why weren't we informed of all this way back when we were  jujitsued with our own famous ideal of a 'fair go' of what was in store for us? Simple really. Assuming that our traitors had any knowledge of history at all, they would have known that, by and large, whites although slow-burners, once the spark hits the powder they can be as ferocious  as Mongol warriors. So the tried and trusted tool of gradualism was employed. Don't scare the horses. Easy does it; because if the sleep-walkers suddenly woke up to the fact that they are being guided toward the cliff edge, the conspirators would be hauled from their ivory towers and carted off to meet deeaths that would by comparison cause Muammar Gaddafi's grisly ending to look like an exercise in tough love.

But someone was bound to let the cat out of the bag at some time and  Bill Hayden, the ex-copper, was just the man to do it.   As Australia's foreign 1983, he blabbed to Asia Week magazine - a source of information in which he knew most Australians had little interest, but obviously wanting to curry favour to those who did, he said: "There's already a large and growing Asian population in Australia and it is inevitable in my view that Australia will become an Eurasion country over the next century or two. Australian Asians and Europeans will marry and a new race will emerge. I happen to think that's desirable. We should welcome the process gradually becoming a Eurasian-type society ... we will not just become a multicultural society - which seems to me as soft sort of terminology anyway - we will become a Eurasian society and we will be the better for it."

A year later, Bob Hawke, the man who knocked Hayden of his perch as the next prime minister, said: 'We will not allow to become a political issue in this country the question of Asianisation." So there you have it, the last word in describing our pretend democracy. All that has to be done to shut the mug voters out of the political process - as though they had more than a precarious hand-hold anyway -  was for the major parties to close rank and enjoy a cosy bipartisanship. This will work with any issue our fearless leaders decide must be kept out of the grubby hands of the proles - that is, the important issues.

Hayden was said to recant his view of Australia's Asian future. So the small number of those noticing his mangy cat fleeing the bag could now relax. If Hayden now claimed he wasn't so enamoured of the idea, then we could all see it as a misunderstanding and go back to the Sunday papers. But anyone wanting to step into a cold shower of reality, with eyes to see and a brain capable of even a modicum of abstract thinking would have been acutely aware that Hayden's change of heart wasn't going to blow away a future to which, if the current trends continued, and no evidence existed to show otherwise, we were inexorably headed. 

How far we have come. How smoothly the perfectly reliable method of gradualism has worked. Now when a big-mouth like Harvey insists that an Asian future is one hundred per cent guaranteed, the prediction meets with not only a complete absence of outrage but hardly a murmur. Most apparently nod their heads in resigned agreement. It won't be for another century or so why should we worry - we won't be around to see it. Hats off again to the mind-benders! A magnificent job in deracination. Our descendants? Either half-breeds or fully bred out? What does it matter? Race is  merely a social construct. What does it matter if the country built by our descendants is taken over by those of a radically different race? They'll still all by just as Aussie as we are won't they?

But if this is to be our fate, if it is to be as inevitable as a sunset, why don't we just get it over and done with. Why bother defending ourselves if in the long term we'll be surrendering anyway? Why are truck-loads of money being wasted on defence? We could save a motza here. First up, we could sell our navy to China. Knowing how well our geniuses deal with the inscrutable Oriental who learns to haggle before he can walk, we could make a killing here -  probably walk away with enough capital to set up a hobby farm breeding alpacas, more than likely, with a little spare change to boot. Our air-force? Perhaps we could approach those nice Americans to ask if they have a buy-back scheme. We need to keep our army though. As it's headed toward being an all-female, self-empowering exercise, we dare not rob our young ladies of the opportunity to continue pretending to be men. This is perfectly harmless. At the first sign of trouble we'll be showing the white flag anyway. It is to be hoped though that when our ladies are asked to surrender, its not done in a patronising, bullying way. The surrender in that case may take slightly longer.

But what if we decided to take a different course? What if we collectively grew a pair? How would it be achieved? Believe it or not, signs of hope are on the horizon. As it has been for more than a century, a lot depends on what happens in the US. Most critically, as Gramski and the marchers through the institutions so assiduously recognised, an assault on the cultural hegemony is the necessary and essential first task. Right now, the cultural hegemony of the left in the US is under attack like never before. The situation there could be fairly described as cold civil war. How this pans out is crucially important to Australia. As the recent statue fiasco here demonstrated we are immensely affected by what happens across the Pacific. The aging superpower is riven with fault lines carved so deep by multiculturalism and Lincoln's failure to follow through on his suggested repatriation of the black population to Africa, it is on the brink of disintegration. A white separatist homeland in the US is not entirely outside of the realms of possibility. If this were to happen, white nationalist here would be given an enormous boost.

However, sitting around waiting for this to happen is too passive to be contemplated. There's much that can be done. An effort here also can be made to shift the cultural hegemony. Australians have to be convinced that keeping their heads in the rabbit hole of consumerism and hedonism is not a smart option. White genocide is real, it's happening and race is as real as the iron laws of nature. If indeed the brotherhood of man is so important to so many, then the convincing of that so many is needed to show that without the white race, the entire brotherhood suffers. Much benefit, for example, could be attained from steering people's interest toward a certain mental exercise: try to imagine what Australia would be like now if multiracialism had been the the rage at the time of our founding. 

Our people need to be convinced that immigration is of absolutely no benefit to them. In cost/benefit analysis terms, it is all cost, no benefit. At best, our immigrants are of dubious loyalty, at worst they comprise a growing fifth column. The only beneficiaries of immigration are members of the global elite such as Harvey and those who escape to here from the failed societies their own people have created. Why would they be able to create anything better here?

Harvey tries to work on our weak spot comparing standing-room-only Asia with our wide open spaces. It's so unfair. Besides the fact that the preponderance of our wide open spaces are deserts, why should exploding populations to our north be any more of a problem to us than the exploding populations of Africa be a problem for Europe? (Although the evident survival of cannibalism in parts of Africa may be a partial solution.) Given that it's difficult to see so much as a trace of what other races have done for us, why should we care? If these countries are incapable of solving their own overpopulation problems, why does it become our problem. Is it because we all part of the human race? Is it because of the supposed brotherhood of man? That's enough comic relief. Perhaps we could begin considering those lofty ideals when nature ceases being red in tooth and claw and when the leitmotif of the story of man ceases being constant war.

Harvey posits a day will come when all we have, if we haven't already given it away, will simply be taken from us. That would be so if we decide to lie down like mongrel curs.  But if we can ignite once again in ourselves the will to survive it need not be so. tThis brings us to the matter of our own defence. First off the rank should be our summary cessation of military exercises with countries that cast envious eyes over our homeland. This is pure stupidity laced with appeasement. Secondly, we need an industrial base. We did it once; we can do it again. We need to recognise globalisation for the death trap that it is with fantastic wealth and power flowing to the global elite while the suckers become poorer and more enslaved. We need to become self-sufficient.

When white South Africa was under attack from all sides with sanctions, it was able to become remarkably self-sufficient. It wasn't sanctions that brought it down. It was world opinion. Being Whites with weak leaders, they worried exceedingly about not being liked. Losing the will to live is what killed them. Some predict our fate as being in parallel with South Africa's. However, important differences exist. For example, the cry 'Africa for Africans' apparently cut like a knife. But how could the same be applied here? If we were to hear the cry here 'Asians for Asians', it would be just a neighbour getting a little rowdy.  As much as our traitors have tried to instill in our minds for decades that we have suddenly became part of Asia, and no matter how much our Asian neighbours like hearing it, it is simply too ludicrous to be accepted by even the slowest among us. Asia has absolutely no claim on us.

Nukes provide the best bang for your defence bucks. Let's have them. We're right now seeing an emphatic demonstration of how it's much easier to mess with countries without nukes than those with them. If a shit-poor country like North Korea can develop them then why can't we? Why can't we say to those who say their need for more living space means they have to take ours: by all means, come and try. Come and remove our weapons from our cold, dead hands. We implied the same to the Japanese over seventy years ago. They got the message. An Australian invasion was taken off the table 

Our armed forces have to cease being laboratories for political correct loony tunes and affirmative action. Only true warriors need apply. The defence budget needs to be increased exponentially. We also need to begin providing first class science educations to our own rather than prostituting our universities for overseas money.  As has been said probably a few million times, where there is a will there is a way.

Believe it or not, the ballot box can be used to our advantage. We must begin by avoiding at all costs voting for the Lib/Lab twins joined at the head. Instead vote for any party who, as old fashioned and quaint as it may seem, puts the national interest above all else. If none of these are running, then boycott the box. Just get your name marked off to avoid a fine. Take heart and stay positive. The election of Trump marked the zenith of the leftward swing of the pendulum. There's only one way it can now swing. All over the world, nationalism, to the horror of the globalists, is stirring.

Contrary to the perverted thinking of this grinning clown Norman with much more money and greed than brains, our fate is not written in the stars high over Asia. Man determines his own destiny. A destiny informed by strength and the will to survive, the qualities that once equipped our race to overcome enormous odds and tower as giants is just as achievable as its diametrical opposite - a destiny surrendered to out of stupidity and gutlessness. To borrow from Dylan Thomas, "Do not go gentle into that good night ... Rage, rage against the dying of the light".

 


Thanks to Josef for the tip

Sunday, August 27, 2017

MONOCULTURAL THAILAND

 
 
The poor Thais. They just don't seem to have a clue when it comes to multiculturalism. Like every other Asian or, come to think of it, every other non-western nation, they are not only not interested in it, they avoid it like one would an AIDS infected platoon of Jihadists.

Western leftists however are strangely silent on the matter. It's as though they have been hypnotising themselves in mirrors in order to seal off this perhaps troubling matter. After all, with the West hogging all the fantastic benefits of diversity and everyone else not seeing so much as a lead slug of all this treasure - or even a razoo in the Australian language - aren't all those obsessed egalitarians at least a little discomforted by this egregious lack of equality. Perhaps, but they are even more uneasy about how this type of question tends to cause painful awareness of the corner they've painted themselves into. It's as unanswerable as the old 'have you stopped beating your wife yet?' The answer that dare not be spoken is that the reason for the singular lack of interest in multiculturalism in non-white countries is that, well, you see, they just haven't evolved to the stratospherically high moral plane that we whites have. But that of course would be leaking racism all over the place. These poor benighted souls just don't know what is good for them. One day though they'll catch up. To uphold the sanctity of multiculturalism, this is the only answer that can be given, which is the reason it's not.

The correct answer is though of course that non-westerners aren't quite as silly as these idiot leftist tend to think. Of course many differences exist between the East and the West but most salient to our argument is that the former is healthy in that it has a dynamic sense of self-preservation, while the latter is sick and is hell-bent on suicide. Also, at risk of sounding conspiratorial, non-white, non-Christian countries don't have enemies who see them as their most dire threat and won't rest until they are destroyed, which naturally isn't the case with the West.

Also, unlike the West, intent on erasing its own past, the non-West knows only too well the deadly consequences of losing its memory. With teeming multitudes sharing a massive, easily navigable land mass, thousands of years of racial, ethnic and religious conflict have taught Asians, for example, that containment - very much like a defence against a deadly disease - is the only solution.

thai culture: monks sitting meditate with many candle in Thai temple at night , Chiangmai ,Thailand, soft focus Stock Photo

In the nations of Asia that have steadfastly resisted the mind-bending of Communism, very similar to the mind-rerouting of leftist PC in the West, an instinctual, experience-reinforced understanding of human nature survives as immovable as the pyramid of Giza and as essentially immutable as human nature itself. The New Socialist Man of the communists was only sustainable while populations were trampled upon with lead boots of oppression. After the inevitable fault-lines began appearing, the grotesquely misshapen version of human nature sprung straight back into its true form and, to paraphrase the late, great Jim Morrison, the whole shit-house burnt down. The same will happen in the west when New Multicultural Man is vomited straight back up into the faces of the lunatics who've taken charge of the asylum. Their version of reality carries within itself the explosive packed seeds of its own destruction. The grim difference though between the fall of Communism and the fall of the religion of multiculturalism is that, with the latter, so much chaos, death and destruction will probably ensue, we will be thrust back to our own year zero. And possibly with hopelessly mongrelised populations, that is where we may stay.

 thai culture: Thai Traditional Dance.

Of all the countries of the so-called Third World, Thailand is an eminent example of a nation which can only shake its collective head at the madness of the West and do everything in its power to avoid going anywhere near that same descent into the abyss. It therefore positions itself at the diametric opposite of that of the West by being one of the most monocultural nations in the world. To a degree, it, like the rest of the Orient is unavoidably westernised. This however, is largely a veneer, underneath which a rich culture reaches back thousands of years. It obviously doesn't need 'enrichment' but if it was in the interests of those insisting on enrichment of Western societies, it would no doubt be found to be sorely in need of that diabolical process. What has been conveniently dropped down the memory hole is that the nations of the west, standing as they did on the shoulders of the Greeks, the Romans, Shakespeare, Goethe, Beethoven, Da Vinci, Michelangelo, Newton, the giants of the art world along with a supporting cast too numerous too mention, the pre-enrichment West also had an extremely rich culture.

 thai culture: BANGKOK - DECEMBER 5: Buddhist monks walk collecting alms in the morning on the kings birthday on December 5, 2010 in Bangkok, Thailand.

A polemically opposed attitude also prevails in Thailand. It is a nation that is proud of itself. It has no interest in donning a hair shirt or flagellating itself - all consuming pastimes of the West. And it's not as though Thailand is a nation without skeletons in its closet. Conveniently forgotten, for example that, if not an actual ally of Japan during World War 2, it was though exceedingly helpful - probably more so than it was to the US during the Vietnam War. But evidently the Thais also have an instinctual understanding of how never-ending guilt can corrode and undermine a nation, just as much as it can eventually destroy an individual person. Once again, Thailand has opted for health rather than sickness.

In stark contrast to the West whose institutions, where if you listen carefully you will be rewarded with the non-stop sound of munching white-ants, in Thailand it is its institutions that hold it together as firmly as if by Roman cement. There is simply one culture. That's not to say different ethnic groups don't
 exist in Thailand. They do - a lot of them. If though they care to have their own traditions and celebrate their own historical events, they do so without too much fuss and on their own dime and on the explicit condition that they respect the overarching culture. The exception would be the relatively primitive hill-tribes people who, where formerly they were far more neglected than our own Aborigines ever were, are now, after the error of its own way was recognised by the Thai political leadership, considerably helped out by the government.

 thai culture: Eight Buddha in Thailand   Thai art culture Belief and faith Stock Photo

As the thirty million visitors to Thailand every year can attest to, Thai culture is distinct, and as colourful as a freshly painted neighbourhood in Buenasaires. It has its own own cuisine, its own form of dance, its own language - even its own alphabet - and of course its own greatly revered king. Lese- mageste is a serious offence in Thailand. Just damaging a banknote with an image of the king on it can get you into trouble. Several years ago a man fell foul of the lese-mageste law by destroying a picture of the king. A lawyer provided proof that the man was a certified nut-job. Nevertheless, his client still landed in the slammer. Before the showing of films in Thai cinemas, images of the king appear on the screen. Even Muslims who refuse here to stand up before magistrates, would have to think hard about whether not standing up at this point would be a good idea. Perhaps then he could find reason for standing up before someone other than Allah.

A golden rule, long forgotten in the west, which drips of irony given that it includes the name Rome, so must have been formulated in the West, stands unassailable in Thailand. It is of course this: when in Rome, do as the Romans do. 

In stark contrast to feminised, pansy-arsed Australia where even tough footballers are forced to wear pink, Thailand in a singularly masculine nation, therefore ruled by its head and not girly emotions. Whereas, for example, considerable pants-wetting would be the result of even mild scolding from the UN Commission on Human Rights, to Thailand, it would be water off a duck's back. The modern Western sickness of pathological altruism would meet a shield of total immunity in Thailand where the national interest is truly paramount, and not the joke that Australian politicians carry on about.

Thailand is as free-wheeling as its possible to be in today's globalised world. It goes it own sweet way. And here's a huge laugh, a guffaw in fact: if Australia were ever to cast off the shackles of an evil, tyranical Britain and step out into pure republican sunshine it would still be sitting on the launching pad in comparison to the high orbiting independence of Thailand under a constitutional monarchy. 

 thai culture: Khon-Thai culture drama dance show

Overheard in chilli joint on a soi just off Rama 1V Road in Bangkok: 'Stupid round-eyes. And just think - we used to see them them as superior beings, ha ha ha.'
'Yes, that's a good one, ha ha ha.


DADDY, WHERE DID MULTICULTURALISM COME FROM?

'Where did it come from, Daddy?' 'Well, from the Jews Honey.' 'Why?' 'Well you see, right from the very olde...