Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Does Catherine Deveny embarrass the left?

The destructive, self-loathing, suicidal aspect of left-liberalism has never been better revealed than in the columns of Catherine Deveny.

Deveny writes a regular column for The Age, a newspaper which claims to be Melbourne's quality broadsheet. Her latest effort is an argument against the baby bonus, a payment of $5000 to mothers on the birth of a child.

This is Deveny's gentle introduction to the issue:

From July 1 our Government will be bribing nice white, or almost white, women with $5000 to have a baby. When I say white or almost white, I'm referring to breeders born here or breeders deemed by the Government as acceptable to live here.

Deveny is shocked that white women might be encouraged to have children. It would be better, she thinks, if they were paid not to have kids. Why would you encourage white women to have families of their own when there are non-white families who could be brought here? The answer must be the evil racism of whites:

I see the baby bonus as an extension of the White Australia Policy ... What I don't understand is why the Government is trying so hard to get the Aussie girls breeding when there are hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers with young children gagging to live in Australia ... No one has any answers for me. Here's my answer. Racism.

Deveny herself is a white woman with three children. Is she therefore an evil white breeder? Her answer is very close to a yes:

To be honest, had I known about the environment what I know now, I never would have had three children ... I've met many people who've decided not to have kids ... Whatever the reasons, good on them. Give them a "no baby bonus" I say.

Having just made clear her opposition to family formation, Deveny then offers advice to the Government on how best to support families. Despite being an anti-market leftist, she wants family roles to be commodified:

If government was committed to families, it would be setting up low-cost, high-quality child care in conjunction with fully paid parenting and paid grandparenting ...

Read the whole piece if you want to get the ugly tone of it. Two things are particularly striking about the article. First, it doesn't matter to Deveny that both major parties are committed to very high levels of non-white immigration. In her mind, whites are the dominant oppressor group and therefore society is structured in a systemic way to maintain their privilege. Ideology trumps reality.

The second striking thing is the disdain and contempt for her own coethnics that this ideology produces. She is troubled by the thought of white babies, despite having several herself. Why would any self-respecting white person sign on to such a self-destructive leftism?

What's really happening in Deveny's mind? I suspect that she has absorbed the theory that a white ethnicity was artificially constructed for the purpose of power and domination. Whiteness is therefore to be treated as a uniquely evil phenomenon.

It's not a difficult theory to challenge. It's much more likely that the different Western ethnic groups developed over time in much the same way that the non-Western ones did. In both cases, ethnicity was valued primarily as a source of identity and meaning. Although Western ethnic groups have dominated others at various periods of history, so too have non-Western groups been dominant over others.

Deveny is an end product of an unlikely ideology. The first impression on reading her column is a sense of what is unhealthy and unviable in her mentality. It's difficult to miss, too, the inconsistency in what she herself has chosen to do (have a family) and what she suggests it is politically correct to do (remain childless).

It seems reasonable to doubt the moral authority of a writer like Deveny and to choose instead to subject her political beliefs to critical scrutiny.


  1. "If government was committed to families, it would be setting up low-cost, high-quality child care in conjunction with fully paid parenting and paid grandparenting ..."

    When the government takes on all the roles typically associated with being a responsible adult, that society will see all sorts of pathologies as people have no incentive to mature and behave decently.

    This is not pro-family as it denies parents a role and places the responsibility for raising children on the government. Rearing children is actually enjoyable, not a burden, at least for those not prone to her pathologies. This is as anti-family as it gets.

    Where does she image one would find the money for fully parenting and grandparenting -whatever that means.

  2. Surely in these days of legalised abortion and advanced biotechnology, Deveney could be dealt with quietly and effectively retroactively. I am sure that many Ruddists and Leftists could apply pressure to get the appropriate legislative wheels moving.

  3. I have seen her only once, an appearance on a post-election panel on a Channel Ten morning show puff piece last November.

    On a solidly Left-socialist panel she added 'balance' by being somewhere out with the Bader-Meinhoff Gang on the political spectrum. < Sarcasm >.

    ( The capture of commercial television - even daytime TV - by the activist Left is a rant for another day ).

    Seriously - I found her demeanour utterly disturbing and I wouldn't want to be anywhere near her and sharp cutting implements if she found out someone's political views were right-of-centre. I feel sorry for her kids as I can hardly imagine what life in Casa Deveny is like ? < not joking >.

    But surely the pertinent question is "Why doesn't Catherine Deveny embarrass The Left...or The Age editorial staff...Channel Ten... or her family..or anyone ??"

    And for this question we also have a revealing but disturbing post from a recent Club Troppo blog on PJ Keating:

    "Also, Keating’s apprenticeship was conducted by a great Labor hater: Jack Lang. And it was Keating’s performance of ‘hate’ that so many of us on the left found pleasure in."

    So, sums it all up really - as long as hate is directed at approved targets, or class enemies I guess - hatred is a commendable trait on the left.

    And boy - does Catherine Deveny know a thing or two about hating !

  4. Poor Catherine. The thought of white Australians bequeathing their nation to their own offspring rather than a myriad non-white foreigners must be truly abhorrent to her.

    Catherine evidently believes that European-derived nations and peoples are not entitled to the right of self-preservation. That is, it is 'racist' for white people NOT to commit demographic suicide.

    Personally, I'm a firm believer in practicing what you preach. That's why Catherine should lead by example and have herself and her entire family voluntarily extinguished for the good of all mankind, both non-white and white.

  5. I'm not sure she should be taken so seriously. She's a lightweight - she writes a weekly provocateur piece, and does a bit on the weekend tv guide. I can't imagine anybody on the left citing her as a major influence.
    I suspect The Age keep her on to play the Piers Akerman type of role (i.e. simply irritate the other side of politics).

  6. Kevo

    Deveney doesn't embarrass The Luvvies who read The Age because she is 'one of them?' And who is 'one of them?' Well certainly not working class types. Labourers from the 'Bogan Belt'?Quelle horrer sweetie!

    As the Nightmare on Spring Street said herself

    Howard should be running a newsagency somewhere in the Bogan Belt dreaming his parents' dreams instead of inflicting them on Australia.

    Keating lost. He failed to capture the imagination of blue-collar Australia because blue-collar Australia has no imagination. And you can put that on my headstone.

    Is that a promise Cathy?


    You might find this interesting reading Mark. Certainly it gives credence to traditionalist conservatism as a viable political philosophy.

  8. To be honest, had I known about the environment what I know now, I never would have had three children ...

    What lovely dinner conversation that makes for: "Children, Mummy has realized it's a very, very bad thing that the three of you exist!"

  9. I used to comment on CD but now just give her a miss. she is too foolish to be a worthwhile object of criticism.

    Why does The Age employ her? Its a mystery.

  10. "Keating lost. He failed to capture the imagination of blue-collar Australia because blue-collar Australia has no imagination. And you can put that on my headstone."

    No, working-class (white) Australians rejected Keating's cosmopolitan internationalist "big picture" agenda because it was clearly not in their best interests.

    And Keating and the Left has never forgiven them for it.

    Once the champion of the white, working-class, the modern ALP now has nothing but scorn for its former core constituency.

    As Keith Windschuttle wrote:

    "Today, the Left has expunged both nationalism and working-class heroes from its pantheon. It now regards working people as the main impediment to its dream for the future. They are the racist, sexist rednecks who must be overcome before a harmonious world can be created."

  11. i like catherine deveny
    and i love how people can get so worked up about a single columnist
    Why does the age employ her?
    well, put it this way, you all seem to hate her, but you've just read her work anyway, so it doesnt make much difference to them.
    Plus i think they might secretly love reading you all waste your time complaining on some blog no one cares about.

  12. Although I can't speak for everyone, as someone from what you might call 'the left', I can state unequivocally that she is a complete moron. I reckon she jams out those 'articles' in about twenty minutes with minimal thought. When she does deal with reality, as opposed to ranting on hypothetical tangents, she is misleading, doesn't check her facts, and is sickeningly self-righteous. Gets my goat, indeed.

  13. ...Don't tell me you deleted pro-Deveny my comment.

  14. Ruby, you're welcome to leave a pro-Deveny comment, but not with swearing or ad hominem attacks.