Skip to main content

Define Australia

Heritage defines a country. So we're mostly British, but still distinct from the Brits in that we're more egalitarian ("we don't like stuck-up stickybeaks here") and more "rugged" owing to our convict pioneering ancestry.

Of course, we've experienced the dysphoria of multiculturalism since the 60s which has resulted in some loss of identity and lower levels of social cohesion and trust. However, multiculturalism and rootless cosmopolitanism are a growing phenomenon in all western countries and not distinctively Australian.

Multiculturalism has no inherent value, as we have all the recipes now. We are struggling with cosmopolitan consumerism like many countries. It produces deracinated individuals seeking fulfilment through consumption. The good news is that our laws and mores are still distinctively mono-cultural and fantastic. We still have relatively high levels of social trust, infrastructure, social services, and wealth for toil, which is why people from lesser cultures want to live here.

When politicians say we're a 'multicultural country' or 'diversity is our strength' they are demonstrably lying. Their real agenda is to continue to flood the country with more immigrants to pump up budget numbers, and placate rent-seekers, property-ponzineers and corporates seeking lazy profit growth.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Multiculturalism is responsible for every war in history (almost)

people informally segregate all the time. You will find various ethnic enclaves in Melbourne and Sydney. Ethnocentric in-group preference is also seen in choice of friends and communication levels among work colleagues of different ethnic backgrounds. While there may be enough tolerance to allow semi-deracinated individuals to participate in capitalism and consumerism, the reality is that in-group preference is innate and Multiculturalism/diversity should be avoided a much as possible, because it breaks down social cohesion and trust. Diversity is our greatest weakness - an observable, scientific reality (footnote: Robert Putnam). Remember that forced integration has lead to many conflicts in the 20th and 21st century. WWI and Hitler would not have happened if various ethnic groups had sovereignty rather than being under the thumb of oppressive empires. Iraq and Israel/Palestine are two current examples of Multicultural conflicts. There is widespread revolt against forced integrati...

How Liberalism enslaves

Aristotle, the Stoics and other ancient Greco-Roman moralists posit a very different idea of 'freedom' that involves combating the tendencies that divert us from human flourishing and contributing to our community as social animals. It is naturalistic, albeit pre-Darwinist, but it is not dogmatic like Liberalism, Leftism, etc. This ancient teach us what freedom really is, and Stoic practices in particular can inculcate an honest sense of autonomy. Liberalism claims to grant people autonomy but it only gives them a false sense of it. It effectively enslaves people to denial of their biology, hedonistic consumerism, keeping up with the Jones', seeking celebrity, lower quality social and family relations, workplace and other forms of alienation, pursuit of happiness in all the wrong places: career, travel, shiny things, sleeping around, taking drugs, etc. Liberalism won't necessarily lead to all these things, but it makes people vulnerable to their marketing, and being h...

Equality, Liberalism and the Big State

Shelley makes Liberalism sounds as idealistic and Utopian as any religion. I even see some parallels with the Sermon on the Mount. What is the relation between 'equality' and the 'individual'. (I don't think we are equal and my reification of the 'individual' has become weaker lately). Must one have a strong view of equality to have a strong view of the individual and their 'rights'? I think so, although those regimes pushing equality the strongest - the Communists - have ended up being the most hierarchical and totalitarian of all, with the State on top and the plebs below. Equality ends ups sacrificing individual 'rights' for the sake of whatever new set of individual 'rights' are trendy at the time. e.g. we need to pretend that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual ones therefore our 'free speech' right is sacrificed so as to protect the new 'freedom from hurt feelings' right of another. New indiv...