Lauding Peter Dutton for conflating border security with an immigration policy Peter Hartcher writes:
The immigration minister knows that the Liberal Party cannot appease racial and religious hatred. If it does, it will be consumed. If the Coalition seems to be condoning a Muslim hate-fest, it will license its more reckless supporters to vote One Nation, while losing its legitimacy with the great centre of the Australian population.
The real task for the Coalition is to deal with the problems of extremist Islamism, while advancing the core Australian commitment to mutual respect, regardless of race, religion or gender. That is the responsible Right's formula for winning the political contest with the fringe. That way, the Coalition can offer solutions to real problems and hope for the future. The hate-mongers offer no solutions, only a bleak self-perpetuating cycle of hate, division and violence.
Division. Divisiveness. All very problematic for a modern multicultural society. Being chinless Young Liberals sketching parallels with the Greek notion of stasis [civil strife between differing factions] is certainly warranted — check. Yet, just as the Greeks ne’er saw a cannonball — reference to the British Empire: check — they too didn’t know the potential for ethnic conflict within the polis. Neither in the actions of tyrants or the imagination of philosophers did it occur to import all and sundry to occupy the same territory competing for the same resources. They just weren’t that enlightened.
The shadows of Brexit and Trump, the looming spectres of Le Pen and Wilders all cloud the rose-tinted vision of our intelligentsia, making them see red as they warn us that we too might be sleepwalking back to such unenlightened modes of being; being an Australian, a European, a White Man.
Luckily those fluent in technocratic argot are here to diagnose the problems and advise on the solutions. Karen Brooks not so remarkably mirrors Hartcher on the issue alleging that we “mourn a past that never existed and choose to adopt an exclusive and white patriotism, becoming part of the problem, not the solution.”
The self-appointed experts have sought to erase the collective memory of Australians, convincing them that the lived experience of their grandparents and forebears is fictitious, that Australia has always been multicultural as evidenced by the presence of a few Afghan cameleers.
To this end the leftist complex has devised numerous schemes for social engineering. Disagree with Muslim students being given a special dispensation from observing the secular creed of gender equality? You better go speed-date-a-Muslim to find out that your objections are unjustified.
Notice how all cultural gulfs are to be bridged from the Australian side. Simply, Australian identity is a simulacrum of an organic one, with foreign appendages grafted on without any forethought as to whether they’ll take or adversely affect the host. A Hazara migrant, for example, has a holistic understanding of who and what they are, and their place in the world. It is absurd to expect the latter to want to learn from the former; they believe that they have the answers to the question on what it is to be a human being. Tolerance of the Other ain’t one of them.
It would seem that the Australian Left have a sophisticated understanding of identity. It makes sense; they’re hostile to particularity and nationhood not out of ignorance but because they are roadblocks on the way to their end goal of the “universal and homogeneous state.” It’s a case of “know thy enemy”. The attack on the historic Australian nation this past Australia Day proceeded on two fronts, ethnicity and culture. This is of great significance as Michael O’Meara et al contend that man is a “biocultural” being. Meaning that we are a composite of our genetics and our cultural heritage. One cannot be understood without reference to the other, and when one is assailed the other is sure to suffer.
The Meat and Livestock Australia (MLA) Australia Day ads have become a de facto statement about this country at the point of time they’re released. This year’s underscores the notion that we really are down under, cut off from the wider world, a decade behind in political sentiment — or at least certain segments of society are.
Being students of Uncle Joe’s school of visual media editing the MLA marketing gurus effectively delete 229 years of history in as many minutes. Apart from autochthonous Aborigines the history of Australia is one of successive migratory waves, each being accumulative contributing to the modern Australia. The old view of British settlement is alluded to, and never named, but is mocked. Yet, the biggest omission and insult is the refusal to show any Australian flags yet alone acknowledge the day for which the ad was created. Such is the opposite of divisiveness.
The cultural elite and opinion makers cannot ever endorse the wisdom of our ancestors, choosing to peddle the notion of there being two Australian identities. Both are multicultural, one being for the historic nation resembling a buffet where we pick and choose which ethnic foods we’ll gorge ourselves on whilst being good atomised citizens. The other is the flourishing of the hundredfold biocultures the consecutive handover teams in Canberra have welcomed into our living space. It is never stated that there are two identities as the usage of “multicultural” is equivocal. Sometimes the two entwine creating dissonance.
Exhibit A, the QMS billboard featuring the hijab wearing miniature flag waving young girls. In Islam the hijab is worn after puberty, the girls on the billboard appear pre-pubescent, one interpretation can be that their attire is an assertion of their identity in public space. Contrast that with the flag in the background and the ones in their hands, they are secondary images, but more importantly are symbols that signify nothing in particular. As symbols from an Australia that no longer exists, transposed to the new multicultural one, they represent the deracinated citizenship we are all meant to share in. It is implicitly White, which allows the Left to distract Australians by dangling a flag before their eyes as they shove more unassimilable migrants into the melting pot.
Until these civic symbols regain ethnic content and therefore substance, they can be used however the Left wishes, which is to postpone such an occurrence. They fear such a process, hence their removal of all references to Australia Day in the second iteration of the billboard.
In the dance that is contemporary Australia, Aisha is dancing circles around John Smith feigning partnership while poor old mate is chuffed thinking he has gotten to second base by hover-handing the sultry dark sheila. Conservatives look on and nod with a sigh of relief as their moribund institutions facilitate this exchange. If things get a little hairy along the way, the fact that different peoples with different Weltanschauungen mightn’t see eye to eye and step on each other’s toes is never up for consideration. The most recent excuse comes from Paul Kelly with a quaternary understanding of Heideggerian critiques of modernity; it’s technology, stupid!
Never fear, if the biggest enemy of the Leftist project is the Left itself, their best ally is what Hartcher termed the “respectable Right”, who are here to duct tape over any fractures on this rich mosaic.
How fortuitous then for the announcement of the “The Ramsay Foundation for Western Civilisation”, financed with Paul Ramsay’s bequest of $3.3bn and tasked with the study of Western civilisation. With such conservative luminaries as John Howard, Tony Abbott, and (((Julian Leeser))) at the helm the Left can rest easy that this will be the same bloodless values conservatism that has aided and abetted the cultural Marxists for decades, but with a bit of money behind it. For those wanting to find out about the Faustian spirit and Aryan aristocratic egalitarianism of the peoples who conquered land, sea, and the moon, and should they survive this century, the stars, this meagre outfit will have to suffice.
Here’s the state of play: the “respectable Right” cuck for the Left in order to be invited to the right kind of dinner parties. The Left by nature of their ideology must destroy any ethnic feelings of the native born European population. Being fixated on this goal they overlook the problem of their coolie labourers being committed to their particular identities who will turn on their masters the moment they have numerical superiority.
In this depressing vignette it is the Left who are doing the dividing. By changing focus from the uplift of the Australian working class to abolishing Australia as such they have torn down the very structures that had prevented their initial focus from becoming overly toxic, namely the White Australia Policy. The rise in populist nationalism and resurgence of One Nation in particular is more or less entirely due to this. The Left require Middle Australia to remain politically homeless so they, like Hartcher, offer the worst advice possible to the “respectable Right” of further alienating this demographic, who are only too happy to oblige.
If being divisive means opposing the Leftist agenda of population replacement and other policies not in the interests of the Australian people, then there are far worse things one can be accused of being. In the final instance, being thought of in less than flattering terms by those who already hate you for merely existing is a small price to pay for being a hero in tomorrow’s world. Go on, young Dingo, relish the hatred. Being a divisive prick is fun and right.