Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Minister wants to lecture Europe

A senior state government minister from here in Victoria wants to go to Europe to lecture governments there on multiculturalism. Nick Kotsiras believes that we have done it right with a policy of actively wanting people to retain their separate identities that stand apart from the others because this is a strength. This welcoming of standing apart is held to be the most effective way of integrating people by making them feel like they are not outsiders.
I think what they should do is perhaps follow Victoria's example and put in policies that we have to overcome the problems they're facing in the Netherlands. You can't force people to, you can't restrict people, you can't take away a person's identity without consequences.

After visiting Austria and Denmark he wrote:
A large number of people who I spoke to on the street felt that they were not wanted, that they did not belong to the country and they were seen as outsiders. There are no government programs like in Australia where we say we want your specific skills, cultures and religions that stand apart from others - because that is our strength
.
That's an interesting insight into how a senior minister looks at what is happening in Australia. What interests me is that he recognises the importance of communal identity to immigrants. The question is: if communal identity is important to an immigrant, won't it also be important to someone who belongs to the existing mainstream culture of a society?

In other words, if it is wrong to take away an immigrant's identity, isn't it also wrong to take away the identity of those who belong to the founding culture of a nation?

Nick Kotsiras's policy rests on an arbitrary distinction: identity matters for migrants, not for those who belong to the founding culture.

And there is a second problem with the Nick Kotsiras policy. As I wrote in a previous thread:
For a culture to reproduce itself it needs to have the "space together" to do so - something that multiculturalism doesn't allow for. In this sense it is an "anti-cultural" policy.
 
If you have a street in a Melbourne suburb where an Egyptian Muslim lives next to a Macedonian Orthodox who lives next to a Mexican Catholic who lives next to a Indian Hindu - and all of these people inhabit a society that is oriented to career and consumerism - then what kind of culture is going to reproduce itself? How are these cultures going to be able to "stand apart from others" even in the medium term?

If you are someone who believes that identity matters then mass immigration combined with mixing people randomly into big cities isn't the way to go - which is why Nick Kotsiras shouldn't be lecturing the Europeans about the wonders of the Victorian policy.

The alternative policy you sometimes hear in Victoria, the traditional right-liberal one, isn't any better. This policy prefers mass immigration combined with the idea that identity doesn't matter for anyone, not for Aborigines, founders or recent migrants. That's a radically individualistic view which tells individuals that they can just identify with themselves alone.

Where does that leave us? First, it's useful for a senior government minister to have admitted that identity does matter. We should file away the quote. Second, we can't rely on governments right now to do the right thing by us. If your identity and heritage is important to you, you have to organise independently of the government. No more "passive citizen who votes every few years". Instead, we need men who see themselves more actively as protectors and builders of the particular tradition they belong to.

Once that change of attitude takes place, those identities which want to continue on will have to concentrate forces somewhere (it could be in more than one location), and to build up the kinds of institutions through which cultures reproduce themselves (media, schools, arts, churches and so on).

If, like me, you belong to the founding culture, you're going to have to accept that much ground will be lost. It's no use being too paralysed by this fact, as the task is to dig in somewhere and to build. The further along we get, the more likely it is we will appeal to those who don't just want to witness decline but who want to contribute more positively to something that is growing into the future.

13 comments:

  1. you can't take away a person's identity without consequences.

    You can't let a person keep their alien identity without consequences, either, dumbass. Bad, bad consequences.

    if communal identity is important to an immigrant, won't it also be important to someone who belongs to the existing mainstream culture of a society?

    No, then it's raciss', and that's BAD.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nick Kotsiras is a lying jerk.

    Multiculturallism worked initially in Australia for the very exact opposite reasons he is using.

    Pre 80s immigrants were a an absolute minority in Australia, 2nd generation Greeks, Italians and Yugoslav assimilitated very quickly as their numbers didn't support establishing seperate schools and cultural enclaves.

    In addition their European Christian backgrounds and anti communism didn't make them averse to Anglo culture and their foreign governments didn't send funds to create cultural institutions.

    Recent immigrants come from hostile non European regions and their foreign governments are sending money to create schools and cultural institutions (Saudia Arabia and Turkey have literally spent millions on creating schools and mosques).



    ReplyDelete
  3. In other words, if it is wrong to take away an immigrant's identity, isn't it also wrong to take away the identity of those who belong to the founding culture of a nation?

    Not if your purpose is population replacement.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Just a bit of multicult snobbery towards the Europeans.
    "Our national suicide plan is better than your national suicide plan" said the minister.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Good post.

    What Orthodox Jews did, when they wisely did not like the way Liberal Judaism was going, was to build parallel institutions: a different school, a different house of worship, a different everything; yours for you and ours for us.

    I think that is what we have to do.

    Three problems:

    1. It takes a lot of money. That means wealthy Jews had to be in. They were and are. (Enough.) Rich whites are not.

    2. You need your own space. Ultimately you will need your own country. Jews have one. We don't.

    3. It helps a lot not to be under continued, massive cultural attack and forced to integrate while you do this. That is where we are in the most trouble. In America, white people gave up on parallel schools and everything else because the guns of the government compelled them to do.

    Can we build a parallel school system, like (Orthodox) Jewish schools, to pass on traditional white identity and culture; while the government requires that the pupils be increasingly Asian, Samoan, black and so on, and while it privileges their identities and bans and punishes white identity? I don't know how.

    Your post is right though. If there is to be a path to survival, our own independent action will have to create it. The well-funded political "mainstream" has nothing for us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nick Kotsiras's policy rests on an arbitrary distinction: identity matters for migrants, not for those who belong to the founding culture.

    It's double standards.

    ReplyDelete
  7. We should get over the idea that assimilation is always a good thing. In our situation it isn't.

    Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans, white countries for everyone.

    That is our situation.

    In that situation, Asians and Africans are secure, but white people will cease to exist, and assimilation makes it happen faster.

    We Australians wanted a nation united and at peace, not separation.

    But separation from massive numbers of racially different people constantly added to by mass immigration is the only way for white people to survive even in the short run (by historical standards).

    In 1959 the population of Pakistan was 37 million. In 2011 it was 173 million. Suppose you just move the "surplus" population of Pakistan, above the 1950 number, to Australia, and force the whites to assimilate with, i.e. intermarry with, the Pakistanis. What will be left of the whites? Hardly anything detectable.

    Whiteness would be like Neanderthal genes. Theoretically they exist in us to some small percentage, but that is where our connection ends. They Neanderthals are extinct.

    With mass immigration and forced integration we will be extinct, or more precisely since something like this is happening by policy, and it's genocide to wipe away entire peoples by policy, we will have been genocided.

    When we assimilate with immigrants that are not like us, we pay a cost to our genetic interest in perpetuating ourselves as us. The more immigrants there are and the less they are like us, the higher the cost. Mass non-white immigration raises the cost of assimilation to being our collective death.

    Historically in Australian we have had the ideal of a united nation. And we have tacitly accepted the idea that the Anglo founding stock has to pay the genetic cost of assimilation so that that unity can be real. (The cost does not fall on the non-white races, as they keep their own countries while in genetic terms taking an increasing share of ours.) There has been a tacit assumption that white people, specifically Anglo-Saxons, could well afford to pay that cost.

    Mass immigration has changed the cost of assimilation to being our collective death.

    We have to let go of our old ideal. The multiculturalists have made the cost too high.

    We had a united Australia, except for a tiny elite of academic anti-white malcontents. What we have now is a deeply divided Australia, where the deep splits are papered over by making the whites pay for temporary peace by giving up the most precious thing of all: our future.

    The cost of unity, In Australia and all other white countries, since all are being pressed to take mass non-white immigration, is white genocide.

    Take everything that was ever created by a white person, starting with all Italian art, and put that down the crapper. The race that creates stuff like that will not be allowed to exist anymore. Everything! Try to get your head around everything that has been part of the white world, and everything that this same race could have accomplished in the rest of forever, being dumped in the ash heap of history.

    The price is too high.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Where does that leave us? First, it's useful for a senior government minister to have admitted that identity does matter. We should file away the quote. Second, we can't rely on governments right now to do the right thing by us.
    -
    Those are the right lessons.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "Our national suicide plan is better than your national suicide plan" said the minister.

    Yep, you got it.

    Nobody really believes the "diversity is strength" rubbish. Those who repeat that mantra are usually anti-white, anti-Western types who want to see the mainstream ethnoculture overturned and marginalised.

    ReplyDelete
  10. if communal identity is important to an immigrant, won't it also be important to someone who belongs to the existing mainstream culture of a society?

    Under the current multicultural paradigm, Australia's 'old' white, Anglo-Celtic majority is not accorded any group rights.

    To quote Frank Salter again:

    Anglo Australians are a subaltern ethnicity. They are second-class citizens, the only ethnic group subjected to gratuitous defamation and hostile interrogation in the quality media, academia and race-relations bureaucracy. The national question is obscured in political culture by fallout from a continuing culture war against the historical Australian nation. Many of the premises on which ethnic policy have been based since the 1970s are simply false, from the beneficence of diversity to the white monopoly of racism and the irrelevance of race. The elite media and strong elements of the professoriate assert that racial hatred in Australia is the product of Anglo-Celtic society. But in the same media and even in the Commission for Race Discrimination most ethnic disparagement is aimed at “homogenised white” people.

    Full article

    ReplyDelete
  11. 1. It takes a lot of money. That means wealthy Jews had to be in. They were and are. (Enough.) Rich whites are not.

    Nah. The Hasidim in New York (and in Israel for that matter) are not rich. Lots of them are on welfare.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/21/nyregion/religion-and-welfare-shape-economics-for-the-hasidim.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

    "At least one-third of the estimated 7,000 Hasidic families in Williamsburg receive public assistance, according to neighborhood leaders.

    The benefits, including welfare payments, food stamps and subsidized housing, sustain the families with as many as 10 or 12 children; they fill the cash registers of the kosher supermarkets on Lee Avenue and help underwrite much of the work done by the Hasidim, whether in schools, retail stores or factories.

    The Hasidim, carrying on the traditions of a Jewish movement founded in the 18th century, live in an insular, highly ordered world of prayer and study, their customs governing everything from their clothing to the lines of separation between men and women, boys and girls. They gather for prayer twice a day and strictly honor the Sabbath, requirements that often restrict what jobs they can take, what hours they can work.

    They have their own newspapers as well as their own judicial system for resolving internal disputes. While they live largely apart from the secular world, they nonetheless have an appetite for politics.

    And they have large families: the average household has eight children, neighborhood leaders say. Hasidic parents commonly say that large families are the most satisfying realization of their religion, which tells them to be fruitful and multiply.

    So there you have it, trads. Go do that! Make the system work for you instead of against you! Stop being milked for tax dollars, and instead milk others!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nah,

    Damn right, use the system from centre-link to tax free churches, this way the community can invest in and apply for large government grants to build the community institutions and infrastructure.

    It's a numbers game, if we can push our communities to come together, rather then be atomised, we can make this reality.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Saudia Arabia and Turkey have literally spent millions on creating schools and mosques."

    - that's an interesting poin. I recently noticed a large, new gold-painted mosque in Chritchurch New Zealand.

    I doubt the local muslim population is large enough or wealthy enough to pay for such a structure so it's likely there must be some foreign money involved.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.