Byron Roth on diversity and freedom

Byron M. Roth, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Dowling College and author of The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature, on the link between multiculturalism and political correctness:

"Not surprisingly, the multicultural program these elites promote is, by its very nature, profoundly undemocratic, in that it imposes changes on society that citizens most assuredly do not want and which they resist when given the opportunity to do so. Hence the extraordinary repression of dissent in the immigration debate and the totalitarian imposition of political correctness wherever elites have power."

According to Roth, state-sanctioned multiculturalism can only be maintained through coercion:

"From the perspective of inclusive fitness, unfamiliar others are potential free-riders and, out of a concern that they will be exploited by others, people reduce considerably their altruistic attitudes and behavior in a general way in more diverse communities. This loss of trust is a symptom of a breakdown in social cohesion and is surely a forerunner of the sort of ethnic conflict that is always likely to break out if allowed to do so. This is undoubtedly the reason why multicultural nation-states are forever promoting tolerance and ever more punitive sanctions for the expression of ethnic hostility, even going so far to as to discourage the expression of opinion about the reality of ethnic and racial differences. Currently these measures are directed at the host population when they express reserva­tions about the wisdom of mass immigration, but this will surely change as it becomes ever more obvious that it is the presence of competing ethnic groups that is creating the tension and not the expressed reservations of the majority population. The real danger for modern democracies is that in their zeal to promote multicultural societies, they will be forced to resort to the means that have characterized all empires attempting to maintain their hegemony over disparate peoples."

You can purchase Roth's The Perils of Diversity at Amazon.com.

"Anglo-Saxon Australia is dead. This isn’t the kind of society we are.”

Frank Salter on former PM Malcolm Fraser's support for multiculturalism and his antipathy toward traditional Anglo-Celtic Australia:

Consider Fraser’s book published in 2003 Common Ground: Issues that Should Bind and not Divide Us (Camberwell, Victoria: Penguin).

Fraser criticizes the Howard Government's policy of tight border controls against refugees and asylum seekers (p. 250). Fraser interprets popular support for Howard’s policies as evidence for his view that Australia's ethnic transformation had to be a top-down affair. He derogates democratic politics regarding immigration. Such sensitive policy is best left to elites, he implies.

"[A]ny of the political parties could have played politics with immigration policies [during Australia's post-WWII immigration program]. If Australians had been asked to vote on a major immigration program only seven years after the world Depression, when thousands of ex-servicemen were waiting to be demobilised, they would have voted against the program and Australia would have been the poorer. If one had asked the people of Melbourne whether they wanted Melbourne to become the largest Greek city outside of Greece, they would have said 'No' with a resounding majority. Now that it has happened, Melbourne is proud of the fact and Australia is much better off as a consequence of that migration."

Fraser argues that the same would have applied to Indo-Chinese immigration in the 1970s and 1980s. "But the political parties were united in the policy and Australians accepted the policy as right for the nation" (p. 250). That is not true. Australians have never been given the chance to vote for an established party that opposes mass Third World immigration. For the entire period of which Fraser speaks, from the 1940s until the 1980s, opinion polls consistently showed popular unease with non-British and then non-European immigration.

The scholarship of Mark Lopez confirms Fraser’s coldness towards Anglo Australians. (The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945-1975. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000.) Following are some relevant facts documented by Lopez based on interviews with Fraser and other leading figures and archival research.

The public had no idea of Fraser's conversion to multiculturalism (in 1973), and he was widely viewed as one of the more conservative Liberal Party leaders. Fraser remarked two decades later, without remorse, “Anglo-Saxon Australia is dead. This isn’t the kind of society we are” (quoted by Lopez 2000, p. 440). This is a remarkably detached statement considering that Fraser was perceived to be of Anglo identity himself, that Anglo Australians constituted an overwhelming majority of the nation as late as 1970. Certainly in 1950 most Australians had a firm identity as a British nation. The Australian nation was founded and built by Anglo-Celts from the initial landing by Captain Arthur Phillip at Botany Bay in 1788, a century of exploring and settling an often harsh continent, through Federation in 1901, the First World War and Gallipoli, and the Second World War in the Pacific and North Africa. What is remarkable is the lack of regret from someone who grew up in that original nation and was one of its privileged sons. Fraser treats traditional Australia as if it were somehow improper, something needing correction. It is a decidedly superior position, and one taken towards his own people. That requires explanation.

One interesting feature of Fraser’s disparaging remarks about Anglo Australia in the late 1990s is his openness, in contrast to his previous reticence. Lopez points out that the multicultural movement had always been secretive, had always mistrusted the Australian people, had always relied on infiltrating committees and agencies to surreptitiously advance its policies. Lopez writes:

“The source of the shift towards multiculturalism in public policy was not parliamentarians, vulnerable at elections, but the influence exerted by multiculturalists from positions in the Immigration Advisory Council (IAC), the Migrant Task Force Committees, the Immigration Department’s Integration Branch, non-government organisations like ACOSS, or through lobbying relevant Government ministers. . . . The multiculturalists could potentially maintain their degree of influence as long as they maintained their strategic presence in these committees and agencies” (Lopez, Origins of Multiculturalism, p. 337).

This is further evidence, proof really, that the ethnic diversification of Australia was imposed from above, that it was not a popular throwing off of the country’s traditional identity. It was accompanied by hostility towards Australia as it had always been and how it had previously chosen to remain in its popular restrictive immigration policies, first legislated by state parliaments and after federation in 1901 in the first act of the Federal Parliament.

Original article


See also:

Salter on Fraser, Part One

Syrian civil conflict comes to Sydney

Syrian civil conflict comes to Sydney courtesy of our open-door immigration policy:

As the author of the Ideologee blog writes: "And so, as another episode of Islam v. Dictator v. Stupid Moderates unfolds in the Middle East, we have to now hear about it here in Australia."

My question: why should we have to put up with scenes like this in Australia?
 
Let's be frank. If the Syrians in the above video are so passionate about their homeland, why don't they all go back there? Why are they in Australia? Why should we - Australians - allow these foreign squabbles to be played out on our soil? We certainly don't need such people here, especially given their fractious nature.

Australians want an end to immigration but nobody in Canberra is listening

 From The Telegraph

MORE than half of Australians want our borders closed and immigration ended.

New research, provided exclusively to The Daily Telegraph, reveals a dramatic swing against border issues, with 51 per cent in favour of saying no to all migrants - a 10 per cent jump since 2005.

Fears over falling job security and the burgeoning population putting more strain on infrastructure are two reasons for the shift in attitudes. The federal opposition said yesterday the anti-immigration sentiment was due to rising public anger about the number of asylum seekers attempting to enter the country.

Just a third of the 2000 people questioned by Quantum Market Research for AustraliaSCAN believed overseas migration made Australia "a more interesting and exciting place", down from almost half in 1995.

Almost two thirds said they believed migrants should try to "adopt the Australian way of life" when they arrived.

The number who believe the country has room to accommodate more people also plunged to less than a third, down from 42 per cent a decade ago.

Monash University migration expert Bob Birrell said the results showed public opinion about immigration had moved into new territory.

"I think they are right to be worried, we have record levels of immigration and as a consequence we are allowing 100,000 migrants to enter the workforce at a time when employment growth is at a level lower than that," Dr Birrell said.

"People are concerned that the present rate of population growth is not sustainable and is going to make Australia a poorer place to live rather than a better one."

The government's immigration and refugee program for 2012-13 is expected to reach a record 203,000 people, similar to the mass migration intakes of the 1960s.

Unsurprisingly, Australians are becoming increasingly fed up with mass immigration. Most right-thinking Australians want to see immigration reduced to far more saner levels.

No one can claim with a straight face that the current wave of immigration into Australia, most of it from non-traditional source countries in the Third World, is in Australia's national interest. While big business, non-white multicultural groups and the immigrants themselves benefit, it is the rest of us who must suffer the 'negative externalities' associated with higher immigration, such as lower wages, increased job competition and higher unemployment, housing shortages (driving prices out of the reach of many Australians), severe environmental strain, water shortages, worsening traffic congestion, overburdened public services and infrastructure, a breakdown of social cohesion and community spirit, ethnic tensions, the demographic displacement of Australia's historic Anglo-Celtic majority, the disintegration of our common Australian national identity and culture, and a more atomised society.

Australians, quite rightly, want an end to this open-borders madness.

Sadly, the 'great divide' between Australia's people and its political elites on the issue of immigration is as wide as ever.

Just witness the response from our political leaders to the news that immigration is increasingly unpopular with the Australian public:

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison blamed Labor's border protection policies for public hostility to migration.

"So long as Labor continue to crash confidence as a result of their failures on our borders, they will continue to crash community confidence in our immigration program," he said.

"That's why the Coalition will reinstate proven border protection policies to stop the boats, getting our borders back under control and restoring the integrity in our immigration program."

A spokesman for Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said migration had brought substantial economic and cultural benefits to Australia, but net overseas migration numbers had blown out under the Howard government due to an influx of low-skilled workers who abused the system.

"Our immigration reforms are delivering a sustainable level of migration, while responding to labour market needs," he said.

Both Morrison and Bowen are clueless apologists for open borders. They are spokesmen for what VDARE.com calls the "treason lobby' - those who promote mass immigration to the detriment of their respective nation-state and its historic peoplehood.

White Majoritarianism?

There is an interesting piece at the Commonwealth Contrarian blog about the lack of any explicit white majoritarian movements in the English-speaking parts of the West. 

Given the huge immigration-driven demographic changes that threaten to transform whites into a minority in all of the 'Anglo' countries, why haven't we seen the emergence of white majoritarianism as a political force?

The main discernible reason is that the historic white majority populations of the English-speaking West fail to see themselves as a people. They fail to recognise themselves as distinct population groups whose interests are threatened by the never-ending influx of non-Western immigrants into their countries. Rather, whites in the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand generally shun a collective group identity and instead tend to view themselves in more individualistic terms (an Anglo-Saxon trait?).

Thus, although they constitute the actual demographic majority populations in their respective countries, they have, to quote U.S. commentator Lawrence Auster, "no political or cultural existence as the majority."

As Auster notes:

Not only do whites fail to represent themselves as a group, but many of them think it is immoral ... for a white person even to think of himself as being white. Whites thus have no identity as whites, nor or they allowed to have any. Within the terms of our current order, whites as whites are nothing, even as non-white groups aggressively assert their own group identities and are endowed—by that same passive white majority!—with official and favored status.

Unless these white majorities begin to develop a sense of collective peoplehood and begin to assert their own group interests, it is difficult to see white majoritarianism amounting to anything more than a pipe dream.

Immigration paves Australia's way to becoming an Asian colony

In an article entitled "Immigration Paves Our Way", Australian Federal Immigration Minister Chris Bowen writes:

Something big happened in the history of immigration last year. It didn’t get any headlines. It had nothing to do with boats or asylum seekers. It wasn’t debated in Parliament. But it is probably the most important development in immigration in years. 

Last year, for the first time in the history of Australia, the United Kingdom was not our largest source of permanent migrants. For the first time ever, more people moved to Australia from China than any other country.

Bowen goes on to laud this historic shift in immigration patterns as vital to ensuring "Australia's role in the Asian Century". He also repeats the usual discredited rot about mass immigration being not only economically beneficial but essential (it is neither).

Bowen's article should have been entitled "Immigration paves our way into becoming an Asian colony," for he appears to be to essentially giving the populations of Asian countries the green-light to colonise Australia in the hope that it will lead to increased trade opportunities.

Bowen notes that China has replaced Britain - the nation that seeded modern Australia - as the number one source of new immigrants without any real public debate about this profound change in immigration source countries. Unwittingly, Bowen has conceded that our immigration policy is not subject to the democratic process. This shift in immigration will fundamentally alter the ethno-cultural makeup of Australia and indubitably effect every aspect of Australian national life. Yet the existing Australian people have been given no opportunity to debate whether or not these changes should occur.

If current immigration trends continue, we can assume that the end result will be an Asian-dominated Australia. Australia's founding Anglo-Celtic population will become a minority in this country. Surely it behooves all Australians to consider carefully the profound consequences to our society of such a radical change in the ethno-cultural makeup of our population. We need to consider the wider societal and cultural implications of immigration beyond its trivial economic aspects. After all, Australia is more than just an economy.

Julia Gillard's immigration lie

"Australia should not hurtle down the track towards a big population." - Julia Gillard in 2010.

But has the Gillard Government done anything in the last two years to reduce immigration levels?

Quite the opposite.

The Herald Sun reports:

MIGRANT numbers have hit a two-year high, confirming that we are hurtling towards a “Big Australia"… Net overseas migration is about 184,000 a year and is expected to reach 204,000 by mid-2015, according to the latest Immigration Department forecasts.

Despite its claims to the contrary, the Gillard Government is forcing us toward a bigger, poorer, ethnically divided, Third-Worldised Australia whether we, the existing Australian people, like it or not.

Gillard's broken promises

Peter Wilkinson of The Independent Australian writes:

Gillard is untrustworthy, true to the traditional ALP ‘whatever it takes’. However, in these days of the media concentrating on the moment, public opinion is fickle and tends to forget broken promises. Unless there are more stuff-ups like the Carr fiasco the ALP will improve before the next election. The Coalition has had it too easy, too early.

...

Broken Promises

To satisfy the Greens Gillard had to break her promise not to introduce a carbon tax. (There is no evidence that she is a liar, it is entirely credible that she was not going to introduce a carbon if the ALP had a clear majority, given her efforts to get Rudd to drop his ETS.) This site has argued for a carbon tax, but at a lesser level. As a result of Greens pressure it has been set too high.

Before the election she made it quite clear she was opposed to homosexual marriage. When the crunch came at the ALP conference she did not speak against the motion that made homosexual marriage ALP policy. Instead she slid away by getting a deal done to make a vote a conscience vote.

Conscious of a swelling public disquiet with Rudd’s Big Australia policy with record immigration, before the election she said she did not believe in a big Australia. However the Government quietly budgeted for a 20,000 increase in 2011/12 over 2010/11. So the Government is canceling out the effect of the carbon tax and more by increasing the population by not much short of 200,000 pa. There is no creditable scenario which has Australia reaching the target of 5% reduction by 2020 of the energy consumption in 2000 with Gillard immigration policies. Abrupt dumping of schemes to reduce household consumption, such as the pink batts and the solar hot water schemes, show that Gillard’s long term vision is not 2020.

She made a deal with independent Andrew Wilkie to do something about problem gamblers. As soon as she had inveigled the then Coalition member Peter Slipper into the Chair and didn’t need Wilkie’s vote, she shuffled off the simple plan of lower value feeds or slower spin in favour of a ridiculous trial of letting problem gamblers set their own limits.

Somewhere there was talk of amending the Constitution and a select (carefully selected!) group has made over the top recommendations. All too hard, quietly postponed.

Australia being transformed for nothing

The Australian reports:

THE case for higher immigration as a driver for economic growth is far from proven, as is the notion that more immigrants can counter the negative effects of population ageing, the Productivity Commission says.

In an analysis of the "big Australia" debate in its 2011 annual report published yesterday, the commission said the economic impact of immigration "is sometimes clouded by misperception".

"Two benefits that are sometimes attributed to immigration, despite mixed or poor evidence to support them, are that immigration is an important driver of per capita economic growth, (and) immigration could alleviate the problem of population ageing," it says.

The commission also notes immigration doesn't affect household wages overall, though particular sectors could be adversely affected if there were a large influx of skilled immigrants.

And it warns that trying to slow the impact of an ageing population on the economy by bringing in young workers is only a sugar hit.

"Any effect would be short-lived," the report says. "This is because immigrants themselves age, and progressively higher levels of migration would be needed to sustain the current age structure into the future."

No surprises here. Immigration restrictionists have been pointing out for decades that a) immigration does not raise GDP per capita, and b) immigration cannot solve our ageing population woes. Despite the dogmatic claims of the open-borders crowd, there is no legitimate economic rationale for ongoing mass immigration. In short, Australia is being transformed for nothing.

Labor dismantles Australia's borders and sovereignty

Andrew Bolt:

Two more in a day - which makes eight in just one week:

AUTHORITIES have intercepted two boats in Australian waters carrying almost 200 suspected asylum seekers.

That’s another 740 boat people in a week. The doors are wide open, and the Government has given up.

Given up? That would imply that the ALP did actually try to stem the tide. This is not the case.

The argument frequently used against Labor is that they have "lost" control of Australia's borders, with the imputation being that the present immigration crisis is a product of their gross incompetence. In reality, the truth is far more egregious. The immigration tsunami, both illegal and legal, rolling over Australia was not some sort of clumsy accident. It was not some unintended consequence unwittingly unleashed upon us. Rather, it was deliberate and calculated move on behalf of the ALP. Since coming to power, the ALP has purposely set out to dismantle our borders and erode our national sovereignty. For instance, the ALP deliberately dismantled the relatively effective border protection regime put in place by the Howard Government, thereby opening the country up to the current influx of illegals masquerading as refugees. They also deliberately increased legal immigration levels to record highs, despite the lack of any sound reason - economic or otherwise - for such a huge increase in immigration

It seems the only miscalculation made by the ALP was in underestimating the public's aversion to more immigration, both illegal and legal.

Paradise lost

Sydney in the 1960s:



Contrast the above footage of 1960s Sydney to the Sydney of today. One can clearly see how mass Third World immigration has forever changed - for the worst - what was once a beautiful, idyllic, Australian city.

Hat tip: Mark Richardson at Oz Conservative.

"We did it to ourselves"

In a 2010 piece for Alternative Right, Australian writer R.J. Stove
laments the suicide - demographic and cultural - of WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) Australia.

Stove:

... if we Australian WASPs (and I, though Catholic by choice, am largely WASP by ancestry) have become strangers in our own home, it is fruitless to go around blaming Jewish behavior. We did it to ourselves. (With substantial help, admittedly, from bellyaching Irish ex-Catholics, not to mention from Calabrian Mafia thugs.) Our position, and ultimate complicity in our own doom, may call to mind the 17th-century Spanish proverb: “Castile has made Spain, and Castile has destroyed it.” For “Spain” read “Australia,” and for “Castile” read “the WASP”.

Jack Lang on White Australia

Former ALP heavyweight and NSW Premier Jack Lang in his 1956 autobiography:

White Australia ... was Australia's Magna Carta. Without that policy, this country would have been lost long ere this. It would have been engulfed in an Asian tidal wave. There would have been no need for the Japanese to invade this country. ...

Even the United States has had to wrestle with the problems of Jim Crowism, racial segregation and color discrimination. Labor didn't want this country to have similar problems. Had we listened to the do-gooders and the crusaders for international brotherhood and racial equality, the barriers would have come down long ago. Our living standard would have been destroyed. We would have had intermarriages of races, half-castes and quarter-castes with all the social dilemmas that invariably follow such racial mixtures. We would have had a Black, Brown and Brindle streak right through every strata[sic] of our society. Instead we ... decided to keep this country as a citadel of the white peoples. Australia is still White Australia thanks to those who battled against those who wanted to exploit colored labor for their own ends. We must keep it that way.

For most of the 20 Century, the Australian Labor Party championed White Australia. These days, the Australian Labor Party champions Non-White Australia.

Andrew Fraser interview

Professor Andrew Fraser interviewed about his book, The WASP Question, by David Oldfield on Radio 2UE.

Where is the outrage?

Perth Now reports:

A PERTH teenager has spoken of his terror after he was violently bashed by a gang of thugs who repeatedly kicked him and stomped on his head …

Perth detectives are hunting up to 20 youths, believed to be of African descent, who were involved in the attack in the city at 11.30pm last night…

"The only thing I heard before they caught me was: `Who are these white c**ts?’ It was totally unprovoked."

Imagine the screams of outrage if a gang of white youths brutally assaulted some Africans on the streets of Perth. We would never hear the end of it.

White Australians being violently attacked by recently-arrived minorities doesn't quite fit the whites=bad, non-whites=good multicultural narrative, so don't expect much in the way of a media reaction.

We can thank the Australian Government, with its zealous commitment to non-discriminatory immigration and multiculturalism, for the importation of such violent, racist, white-hating thugs.

More multicultural propaganda from SBS

I managed to miss this when it was originally aired on SBS:



*Yawn*

Another biased, minority-centric SBS "documentary" designed to make this country's white, Anglo-Celtic majority feel ashamed for merely existing. This is not an accurate account of Australia's modern immigration history. Rather, it is crude multicultural propaganda piece aimed at denigrating and delegitimising the people who founded and built this country.

I find it interesting how white Australians are constantly being told how "racist" they are by non-whites, yet it is only Australia and a few other white-majority countries that permit large-scale, diverse immigration. Non-white nations are careful to maintain racial and cultural homogeneity and most permit essentially no immigration at all. A blatant racial double standard that SBS fails to acknowledge.

African countries for Africans. Asian countries for Asians. Arab countries for Arabs. Western countries for everybody?

Labor of yesteryear

"Do the multi-racialists want Australia to consist of a small number of people from all the African and Asian nations, or do they want to admit millions of coloured migrants from those nations for permanent settlement in a continent that was first settled 184 years ago by Europeans while other, nearer nations passed it by as a useless, barren land? If Australians are ever foolish enough to open their gates in a significant way to people other than Europeans, they will soon find themselves fighting desperately to stop the nation from being flooded by hordes of non-integratables. Then we will also need a Race Relations Board. None is needed now. A Race Relations Board is necessary only where there are racial problems and racial tensions. We are currently spared this rather expensive luxury."

— Former Labor leader Arthur Calwell, in his 1972 memoirs.

Let them all in!

The Herald Sun reports:

LABOR has agreed to increase the refugee intake by almost 50 per cent - so long as they are processed overseas.

The proposal, put forward by Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, would increase the annual intake of 13,750 to 20,000, provided they are processed offshore.

Another brilliant Labor strategy.

Australia is being swamped by illegal immigrants masquerading as refugees? No problem, we'll just double our annual refugee intake!

And if doubling our annual refugee intake doesn't stem the asylum seeker flow? I guess we could always just double it again to 40,000 per annum.

Even then, why impose an arbitrary ceiling of 40,000 per annum?

After all, Australia has an obligation to help every poor, downtrodden (non-white) soul in need, not just a select few. There are myriad dissatisfied, hard done-by people all over the world who would simply love to move to wealthy, comfortable Australia and live off the generous welfare state that they and their abundant progeny will never contribute to. Why not just them all come in? The wishes and interests of the Australian people are obviously not relevant considerations when formulating refugee policy. Nor is the huge cost to Australia, both financial and social, of importing more people from dysfunctional, backwards countries a valid objection either. So why impose limits on the number of refugees Australia can take? Let all the huddled masses come and live the Australian dream!

Australia may already have the highest per capita refugee intake in the world, but we can take even more - courtesy of the Australian taxpayer - because everybody knows that Australia is not a real country with its own legitimate national interests but, merely, a "piece of good luck to be shared with the rest of the world." *

* A quote from Geoffrey Blainey's 1984 book on immigration, All For Australia.

The West's demographic winter

U.S. commentator and legend Patrick Buchanan:

On Oct. 31, the U.N. Population Fund marks the arrival of the 7 billionth person on Earth and raises the population estimate for the planet at mid-century to 9.3 billion people.

There is a possibility, says the United Nations, that, by century's end, world population may reach 15 billion. What does this mean for Western civilization?

It may not matter, except to identify who inherits the estate. For while world population is exploding, Western peoples are dying. Not a single European nation, except Muslim Albania, has a birth rate that will enable it to replace its present population.

By mid-century, Western man will be down to 12 percent of world population. By century's end, he will be a tiny fraction, roughly equal to the white population of Rhodesia when Robert Mugabe came to power.

The demographic winter of the West has set in.

Full article

Frank Salter on Malcolm Fraser

Political ethologist Frank Salter on former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser's support for multiculturalism and his intense hostility towards Australia's Anglo-Celtic majority:

Malcolm Fraser, one of Australia’s longest serving prime ministers (1975-1983) was recently quoted talking about the origins of the multicultural policies his government initiated, in The Australian newspaper on 21 May 2009, “Death of a leader of cultural revolution Jerzy Jubrzycki”.

Mr. Fraser agreed with Prof. Zubrzycki, the intellectual father of multiculturalism in Australia, that the country was a “narrow, Anglo-Saxon society . . . up to, if you like, the Second World War." "[Prof. Zubrzycki] believed passionately that people should be treated as equal, and that being a good Australian didn't require people to give up their country of origin." "John Howard didn't like the word multiculturalism . . . But you've only got to walk down any street in Melbourne and Sydney to know that it's already too late - we are, in fact, a multicultural society.”

These remarks summarize Mr. Fraser’s support for multiculturalism over the years. They indicate an unsympathetic attitude towards Anglo Australia and a revealing use of the multiculturalism concept.

In principle it can be fair to criticize a society for being narrow. It is true that in 1945 Australian cities lacked cultural amenities and that our diet was due for a change. But we were still developing the continent, having begun from scratch in 1788. In that time we had built towns and cities and had one of the most productive economies in the world. Our British heritage made us one of the world’s few liberal democracies. We had a flourishing culture, from opera to popular. That’s quite an achievement in only 157 years.

However, Mr. Fraser goes beyond alleging narrowness. His words imply criticism of Australia’s core ethnicity. Our narrowness consisted of our Anglo-Celtic ethnicity. In other words, being of British ethnicity was a disability. The country was too Anglo-Celtic.

In addition Mr. Fraser’s comments reveal some of his notions about just what multiculturalism is. He links anti-Anglo prejudice to the formation of multicultural doctrine: it was Jerzy Zubrzycki’s reaction to “narrow, Anglo-Saxon society”. How to interpret this other than that Australia was too Anglo for Professor Zubrzycki’s taste? Mr. Fraser clearly shares this taste. Note that in the 1950s when Prof. Zubrzycki arrived from Poland Australia was overwhelmingly Anglo-Celtic because non-British immigration had only begun in earnest in 1949. Australia’s ethnicity was a local variant of British ethnicity. Most felt that way. We had just participated in a second world war entered into to defend mother England.

Mr. Fraser also expresses the aspect of multiculturalism that emphasises civil rights—that people from different cultures should be treated equally. But he again goes further with his remark that one can observe that Australia is multicultural by strolling around Melbourne and Sydney. What he is saying is that multiculturalism is the same as ethnic diversity. But cannot a society achieve perfect multiculturalism by tolerating or celebrating the ethnic cultures of all its citizens whatever their proportion of the population? Mr. Fraser implies otherwise: Australia is more successfully multi-cultural the more diverse it becomes. Hence the slap at John Howard: “it’s already too late”. This confirms the suspicion that for multiculturalists traditional Australians were always the “other”, always the antagonistic group to be combated. Especially this second kind of multiculturalism is compatible with minority chauvinism and an aggressive attitude towards Anglo-Celtic Australians.

The two faces of multiculturalism—the original rights-based type and the pro-diversity type—have very different implications for immigration policy. Rights-based multiculturalism is compatible with selective immigration. Logically, a government might simultaneously promote respect for the right of all citizens to express their ethnic identities and yet defend the group interests of the majority ethny by emphasizing immigration from Britain and other European-derived societies. That would be democratic. A pro-multicultural government might adopt a similar immigration policy for different reasons—to protect national cohesion and guarantee the long-term viability of multiculturalism.

Obviously this is not how multiculturalism has operated. It has always been linked to mass Third World immigration, confirming the interpretation of Mr. Fraser as treating Anglo-Celtic Australians as adversaries.

What remains unexplained is why someone like Mr. Fraser, ostensibly a conservative Anglo, should treat his own people so distantly. Why the hostility?

Original article

"Why the hostility?" Good question. Why is it that elites in not only Australia, but throughout the Western world, so loathe their own people to the point where they actively seek to replace them through mass Third World immigration?


See also:

"The Misguided Advocates of Open Borders" - Salter's 2010 Quadrant article on the poor quality of analysis behind Australia's abandonment of traditional assimilationist immigration policies.