The Menace of Multiculturalism
Assimilation, the Australian National Identity,
and the Multiculturalist Lobbies
Multiculturalists oppose the idea of assimilation (whereby immigrants would be encouraged to become Australian) as they want immigrants to retain their own cultures and pass those cultures onto successive generations. While it is understandable that immigrants would have an attachment to their place of birth and native culture, assimilation does not demand that immigrants should forget their origins; but asks that they, and their offspring, become part of Australia and adapt to the Australian culture and way of life; rather than give impetus to ghettos and ethnic divisions within the country.
Multiculturalism, however, demands that immigrants remain attached to their place of birth and native culture. In fact, this demand even extends to the offspring of immigrants: people born in Australia, of immigrant parentage, are told not to join "mainstream" Australian culture, but to become multicultural "ethnics".
Multiculturalism is a political policy to actively encourage the strengthening, building, and promotion of separate cultural units within Australia. Multiculturalism is a political device to discourage immigrants, and their offspring, from becoming Australians.
The aim of internationalist-thinking liberals, academics, and "lefties" is - in effect - to destroy the Australian national and cultural identity. This "aim" is not the design of some well-organised conspiracy, but is rather the "logical" outcome of the thought-processes of liberal-internationalists, whose actions will cause such devastation; however, since these "trendies" are, or should be, well aware of the effects their policies will have on our national culture, their actions can only be regarded as deliberate. This intended destruction of the Australian identity is being carried out by a two pronged attack:
Firstly, the Australian identity is denied. Many academics, trendies and "lefties" maintain that Australia does not have its own national and cultural identity. They argue that Australian culture is either "British", or a multicultural mish-mash; they tell us that Australia has no culture of its own.
Ignored are the poets like Henry Lawson, Banjo Paterson, Rex Ingamells, and Mary Gilmore; painters like Arthur Streeton, Frederick McCubbin, Sydney Nolan, and Russell Drysdale; architecture such as the Federation style; music from Waltzing Matilda, to the Seekers, to the Bushwhackers, to Skyhooks; our heroes and heroines, for instance, Ned Kelly, Nellie Melba, Don Bradman, the ANZACs, and the men of the Kokoda Track; the Australian way of life, including the bush barbeque, Australian Rules Football, and games of Two-Up; Australian icons such as Vegemite, Goanna Oil, Hills Hoists, and Akubra hats; our entertainers and characters like Ginger Meggs, Chips Rafferty, Paul Hogan, Dame Edna Everage and Sir Les Patterson; our distinctive language, accent, and colloquialisms; the Australian character, styled as easy-going, fair and democratic, having a healthy disrespect for authority, and with a laconic humour; all shaped and influenced by the distinctive Australian landscape and our unique history.(10*)
Secondly, the destruction of our identity is being carried out by multiculturalism itself. From politicians and academics comes the cry "we are all ethnics", no-one is an actual Australian - everyone is an "ethnic". The origin of your parents or forebears dictates what type of "ethnic" you are: if you have English parents then you're an English "ethnic", if you have Irish parents then you're an Irish "ethnic", German parentage produces a German "ethnic", and so on. If one parent is French, and the other Russian, then it could be assumed that you have to pick just one ethnicity, or perhaps you could become a multicultural schizophrenic? Australia's culture is being undermined by the effects of the continual push for multiculturalism (especially in our educational institutions); we are now being taught to see ourselves as "ethnics", rather than Australians, and this cannot help but to adversely affect our national cultural output and development.
The aim of this two-pronged attack is simple: no more Australians! Everyone becomes an "ethnic"; and the Australian identity and culture becomes treated as worthless and second-class, or gets twisted around to take on a multicultural slant. This destructive "aim" is the consequence of the actions of liberalistic internationalists of various shades; and, even if such destruction is not their actual intent, their ideology certainly manifests itself as an assault on our national well-being.(11)
As Loring M. Danforth, a Professor of Anthropology, has stated, "Multiculturalism, with its emphasis on community languages and ethnic media, promotes the development of these ethnic identities and impedes the development of a strong Australian national identity."(12) However, rather than being just an impediment, the long term results are actually destructive of the Australian national identity.
If this attack on Australia's heritage was being carried out by liberals, academics, and "lefties" only in their capacity as private individuals or groups, then we would not have too much to worry about as they are a minority opinion on the subject. But this is not how these people operate. They lobby and push their ideas through academia, the media, and the political machines; their ideas are then shoved into official acceptance, until they finally become "official policy". Once the "official policy" stage is reached, these lobbyists go into "overdrive"; "official policy" becomes the rationale to enable them to force their ideas onto the community: the public service is retrained and restructured to accommodate the new ideas; a veritable public service "industry" is created to build, promote, and propagate their ideology, encroaching as far as possible into other public service areas, as well as into private enterprise, and even affecting private individuals, becoming a self-serving, self-sustaining industry hell-bent on pushing its new ideology and justifying itself (they begin to wonder how we ever got along without them). In tandem with all this is the creation of new laws (enacted by self-serving politicians, assisted by the new "Multicultural Industry" and their allies) which sets up the new ideology as "right" and "respectable", whilst painting any opposing views as "wrong", "unworthy" and, in certain circumstances, "illegal". The new policy has now become "politically correct"; and with the media, academia, and the parliamentary political parties being full of small "l" liberals, the public receives the impression that such views are not only "correct", but are held by the majority of the people (when, in fact, these ideas are held only by the majority of journalists, academics, and politicians). In such a climate, it then becomes "politically incorrect" to hold opposing views, with active opponents being effectively labelled as cranks, if not downright criminals ("racial vilification" laws will see some opponents jailed and/or scared off). Opponents in prominent positions are harassed; while those in the public service, self-employment, or any other assailable position, stand to lose their job or livelihood if they speak out.
The most serious aspect of all this is that of education. It is during the formative years of our young children that they are heavily indoctrinated by the education system into believing in multiculturalism (such indoctrination being made by both subtle means and overt means). No opposing viewpoints are given any credible airing (if given any "airing" at all), and multiculturalism is presented as a fact, rather than as a particular biased political viewpoint. As in the days of Galileo Galilei, our school children now believe that "the sun revolves around the earth", and that it is "dangerous heresy" to believe otherwise; in our modern context, that "multiculturalism is good for us", and that to oppose it is "dangerous" and "wrong", perhaps even "illegal".
The ultimate aim of the internationalist liberals is to destroy the Australian national and cultural identity (whether this aim be deliberate or incidental). The general idea is that Australia will have no national identity of its own; that all of the population will be "ethnics" who owe their cultural allegiance to cultures all over the world; creating a situation where, en masse, the people will be loyal to all nations and, paradoxically, will therefore be collectively loyal to none; that Australia will become an internationalist state (maybe even a building block, or a springboard, for an internationalist world). It would seem that Australia has become a multiculturalist experiment, as the place to create the United Nations' vision of the "brown man": a human creature belonging to no identifiable race, nation, or culture; the new citizen of the cosmopolitan internationalist multicultural world.
That most, if not all, multiculturalists are actually internationalists is beyond doubt. As an example, the government-sponsored document, Australia as a Multicultural Society, saw fit to propagate the belief that Australia's interests may have to be overridden by so-called international interests:
"we also wish to emphasise that questions of immigration policy (like many other questions) are embedded in a much wider concept of social cohesion than this: namely, the 'social good' of humanity as a whole. From this point of view, Australia may be a sectional group in a wider international system and the good of the wider system may override the well-being of Australia considered in isolation" (emphasis added).(13)
What began as a trendy liberalistic idea, and was picked up and carried along as a "migrant vote winner" for politicians, has become a huge menace to Australia's society and culture.
The Menace of Multiculturalism