MULTICULTURAL MYTHS ... and cold, hard reality

Myth 1: Diversity is morally good This is seldom stated so baldly but rather implied by the opposite: people opposed to multiculturalism are morally bad or even evil. Just as seldom are reasons given for why multiculturalism is morally good; it is simply asserted, just as if enough people claimed for long enough that drinking urine was morally good, it might be hoped that it would eventually become morally good.

So, as we are not told why multiculturalism is morally good, we have to ascertain for ourselves why it is so. Notwithstanding that most people who make the claim are generally Humanists, whether they know it or not, and so atheistic, could the assertion be backed by an appeal to religious authority? No; search as enthusiastically as you like and you will not find any moral judgements on multiculturalism inscribed on tablets or written in holy books.

But, as already noted, God's opinion on multiculturalism is not sought, even as the devilishly problematic nature of attempting to construct a moral doctrine in the absence of a supernatural umpire has dogged great thinkers down through the ages. All too often a slippery slope appears, leading all the way down to 'if it feels good, do it'. Nevertheless, an admirable attempt at this was Utilitarianism, a relative of Humanism, which placed an action on the good/evil continuum depending on whether it promoted happiness or unhappiness. This, appropriately enough was termed the 'Greatest Happiness Principle'. Happiness, perhaps unfortunately for this doctrine because it tended to legitimate hedonism, was defined as pleasure. By unhappiness was meant pain and the deprivation of pleasure. Perhaps trying to head of the hedonism charge, it was claimed that the greatest good for the greatest number was what was really intended.

So how does multiculturalism stack up when weighed on the Utilitarian scales? Judging by the persistent underground rumblings of the host population and the constant collective complaining of the ethnic groups for whom the system was devised, it would appear that not much happiness is being created at all. And as multiculturalism is a zero sum game, that is, because there is only so much gravy to be shared, every gain is someone else's loss, and because it's a one-way street, the unhappiness of the losers (those who've had multiculturalism inflicted upon them) can only increase. Ergo, by this secular measure Multiculturalism cannot possibly be passed as morally good.

Human conscience is a notoriously unreliable guide in moral philosophy simply because good and evil tend to change places so often depending on the era and place that human conscience tends to find itself in. Cannibalism, for example, is one man's meat, but another man's poison. To give another example, polygamy, to some, is debauchery; to others it is the most fun that can be had without your clothes on. But putting aside this qualification for a moment, some common threads do tend to connect the human conscience throughout time and place. Practices such as murder, theft and cheating appear to be universally frowned upon. Rape too is something unlikely ever to be warmed to - especially by women. Ironically though, if we use such a generalisation to measure the morality of multiculturalism, we find that throughout 9.9 tenths of human history, multiculturalism was also frowned upon as a moral negative. How can we deduce this? Simply because it would not have been touched even with the proverbial barge pole.

It could be said that Nature has its own moral code. Simply stated, it is this: what is conducive to survival is good; what isn't is bad. Multiculturalism and the mass immigration fueling it are not conducive to the survival of the white race in Australia.


Myth 2: There is unity in diversity. This is pure Orwellian anti-logic, identical in style to such gems as 'war is peace' or 'slavery is freedom'. 'Strength in diversity' is often how the same idea is phrased. The sheer nonsense of such slogans is testament to the power of propaganda, or at least to how powerful it is perceived to be by the social engineers behind it. Once again, it is obviously believed that if a modification of the mass mind is to be effected, all that is needed is that, if the required adjustment is encapsulated in a short, snappy slogan and repeated often enough for long enough, it will take root. This will happen, so the mind-controllers believe, even if evidence of the exact opposite flourishes all around. And flourish all around it does, pulsing out the unmistakable signal that diversity equals fragmentation and weakness. If a symbol was needed to illustrate the 'strength' in diversity, none would be better suited to the task than the opposite of the fascist symbol of the tightly packed bundle of sticks or fascio, essentially shooting a message straight to the brain which says 'unbreakable'. Conversely, the symbol for diversity would see each single stick placed in a row on the ground - practically begging to be broken. Not for nothing have the words, 'divide and conquer', been the golden rule of tyrants since conquest appeared as the ultimate career move.

Myth 3: Australia is a land of immigrants. This insipid offering implies that Australia's history began circa 1945 - '46 by effectively white-outing all that went between 1788 and World War 2. Australia is no more a land of immigrants than any other land, with the possible exception of Africa, if one is willing to place any stock in the 'out of Africa' theory. It is simply a matter of how far back you want to go.

This by far is the most obnoxious element of the immigrant-land claim, implying as it does that Australia before the boom in post-war immigration was a void just waiting to be knocked into some kind of form and shape and given substance by the industrious and enterprising 'New Australians'.

To most true Australians, the land of immigrants mantra is an insult, particularly those who can trace their Australian ancestry back many generations. Just how many generations of ancestors of Australian birth does one have to claim before having the immigrant tag removed?

For the immigrant-land claim to hold water, the human cargo of the first fleet would have to be classed as immigrants. If a medium could interview member of this band of hapless human transplants and then inform him that he had been one of Australia's first immigrants, the element of surprise would no doubt be of the same grade as being ambushed. One would suppose that embedded in the meaning of the word 'immigrant' is another word: voluntary. One thing we can be sure of is that there were no 'volunteers' in the first fleet, be they soldiers, sailors or convicts, perhaps with the single exception of Arthur Phillip who would govern the infant colony. Moreover, even if a sprinkling of adventurers was contained in this odd human assortment, as there was in later fleets, how exactly does one immigrate to a country that doesn't yet exist?

It still barely existed when free settlers began arriving. These people thinking of themselves as immigrants would have been as unlikely as them thinking of themselves as space invaders. The operative word here is 'settlers'. They had come to settle a singularly uninviting land. As a visit to a pioneering museum will attest to, this meant hardship, hard labour, sacrifice and an often untimely death. Not many immigrants would sign on for that.

There is a corollary to Myth 3 which for convenience will be termed Myth 3A, and that is that Australia has always been multicultural. This is absurdly based on the observation that the first fleet contained not only Englishmen, but also Irish, Scottish, Welsh and even the odd Black. Apart from the latter, these groups were so alike racially and culturally that an outsider such as a German, also closely related racially, would have been hard pressed to sort them into their appropriate categories. The claim is so risible as to not be worth exploring any further except, suffice it to say, that, if the word 'multicultural' had ever assailed the ears of a first-fleeter, a futile searching of dictionaries would have ensued.


Myth 4: Multiculturalism promotes harmony and understanding
... and just in case it doesn't, we have various Human Rights Commissions, and laws against racial discrimination and incitement to racial hatred. How we managed to live quite happily without these encroachments on our lives in the two hundred years or so before multiculturalism remains something of a mystery.


Harmony, one would think would not require enforcement, especially with its being seen as a byproduct of multiculturalism as natural as a Spring shower. The extra control over our lives that is in fact required to promote this myth is simply another of the many penalties of being on the losing side in the zero sum game.

Experiments have shown that when even the most docile and peaceful of animals are crowded to together, murderous rage is often the result. There is no logical reason why humans, a special kind of animal, would not react the same way. This is simply another case of bleeding heart theory impaling itself on the horns of Nature. When those being crowded together share no real affinity or empathy apart from the attempted artificially induced kind, it stands to reason that the result will be even more disastrous. Again, being willing to learn from Nature, the animal world brooks no such thing as shared territory. This is one of the primary reasons being red in tooth and claw is such a strong characteristic of the natural world.


And the foregoing doesn't even begin to take into consideration the seeds of destruction sown at the very birth of institutionalised multiculturalism - tiny seeds that grow imperceptibly slowly into mighty trees and are then fashioned into battering rams. The smouldering resentment of the host population, fueled by its losses, grows and grows. The corresponding resentment of multiplying ethnic groups, fueled by disappointment at the entitlement they have been led to expect being not quite forthcoming, grows and grows.

The supposed philosophical base of multiculturalism being nothing more than a shower of assertions, it is unsurprising to find that the claim that multiculturalism will teach Australians to be more understanding is simply more of the same. No attempt has ever been made to explain why Australians should be more understanding or even want to be more understanding. This supposed public education is no more than the mental version of fluoride being added to the water supply (it's good for you and you'll take it). This however presupposes that multiculturalism does make people more understanding of the Other, which in point of fact is wide open to debate.

Recent studies have shown the trend of Australian society to being less trustful, more suspicious, with less sense of community - even within homogeneous areas - being a correlation of multiculturalism. And why should this be surprising? Have Australians learnt to understand enough about the foreign that is positive enough to counter the abysmally negative such as: gang rapes committed against Australian girls because they are Australian; gangs forming along racial lines; soccer riots; violent political demonstrations against perceived wrongs that have nothing to do with Australia; jihad; likely fifth columns; demands for Australians to change to accommodate aliens; the whittling away of Australian traditions lest they offend the newcomer. To someone with even less than average hearing, none of this sounds anything remotely like harmony.


Rather than being force-fed the illusion of harmony and understanding, there has always been an option for those with a burning desire to learn more of various, national cultures; that of course was foreign travel. Those who weren't interested stayed at home where it was once possible to simply enjoy one's own culture