Saturday 28 May 2016

Multicultural Madness 2

Multicultural Madness Pt 2

Perhaps I come across a bit anti-Socialist. Well I was, as many were, a raving socialist at university but that was many decades ago! You know the old saying: “Anyone who under the age of 25 who is not a socialist has no heart: anyone over the age of 25 who is a socialist had no head!”

Our problem now is that many grown-ups still hold views that are right out of the Communist play book. And as someone famous said: “A definition of madness is to keep doing the same things hoping for a different outcome” Perhaps “stupidity” would be more accurate. But the fact is that the Marxist - Leninist scheme has been tried again and again, always with the result of vastly increasing human misery and suffering! (Yes the Chinese have now under a Communist cum Capitalist system lifted millions out of poverty, but during Mao's “Great Leap Forward” 34 or so million people died of starvation!) So it seems almost unbelievable that people are again trying to dismantle the pretty functional system we have had in the West to bring in a supposed Socialist Utopia.

In case you may be asking: “what has this to do with “Multiculturalism?” the answer is: “Everything”.

The classic first stage of that creeping Communism better known as Progressive Socialism, is to destroy the existing system. Particularly to destroy the traditional morals and beliefs.

Multiculturalism has been a particularly valuable tool for achieving this.

Anyone trying to say what our culture entails is immediately howled down: “We are a multicultural society – you can't say that!” Even established customs are shut down in the name of multiculturalism: “You can't have Christmas Carols – it might offend the Muslims!” Of course it is not Muslims complaining but socialists of nominally Christian heritage!

Anyone criticising behaviour which up till now has been unacceptable in our culture is treated even worse: “that is a racist attack!” they howl using the New Morals where this ranks with sexist, homophobic and Islamophobic as the deadly sins.

A funny story on this: There was a spate of telephone scams going on a while back where the caller would claim to be from Microsoft informing you there was a problem with your computer, which if you let them take remote control of it they would fix. As you can guess, that ended badly for the victim. When I got – for the third time – a caller with an Indian sub-continent accent saying: “My name is Peter, I am from Microsoft ...” I replied : “It is people like you who are giving Indians and Pakistanis a bad name!” before hanging up. Later I got a call – with an Indian sub-continent accent saying: “My name is Paul, I am from the Taxation department ...” I said quickly: “I can't talk now, give me your number and I'll call you straight back.” Then I looked up the phone number of the real Taxation department and told them the story only to have the operator say after consulting her database: “Oh yes, Paul is one of ours” !

But many migrants, would fit in with the existing order if that were not hidden from them. Partly it is hidden because people are now afraid to say: “in our country we do it like this,” or “We don't do that sort of thing!” for fear of being vilified on social, or even mainstream media as “racist” because they have seen examples of this happening – even of people losing their jobs or having their companies boycotted.

I had a Chinese parishioner many years ago who complained to me how no one would tell him what the “right” way of doing things was. As an example he explained how you would address different people in the office you worked in. I can't remember the details, but the key feature was that it was rigidly structured on where you and they fitted in the hierarchy. As he said he was bewildered by the informality in our workplaces, but wanted to learn.

So this multiculturalism is not being kind to immigrants, quite the reverse. It is cruel to them by deceiving them into thinking it is better not to adopt the culture that makes this social order function properly. It is callous by using them – particularly the Muslims – as a human weapon regardless of the stock of social resentment this builds.

Migrants are being used as human weapons against the existing social order and against the dominant religion, Christianity. It really is a Socialist plot!

Muslims are encouraged to think that they and their religion are privileged in this country. Since many come from countries where they are privileged and Christians treated as second class citizens if not actively persecuted, and their religion is mandated and all others at least forbidden to proselytise, they fall for this ploy. Muslims then act a bit like spoilt children! But it is due to the scheming of social progressives of nominal Christian background to use them as a weapon against Christianity.

What we are seeing now on the Continent and particularly in Germany suggests that Socialist elements are using the same general plot-line but much more vigorously, aided by uncontrolled immigration from poor or war-torn Muslim countries. They talk as though they are “compassionate” perhaps they have deluded themselves that they are, but the end will be human disaster.


If you think “multiculturalism” means an accepting attitude to immigrants, and absorbing the best of their culinary and artistic traditions you are right to endorse it.

Tragically that is not how it is now being used. It is now a ploy to destroy the values, ideals, morals and mores essential to our countries' survival. It is particularly being used as one arm of a concerted attempt to destroy Christianity. But our modern democratic Western countries owe what they are to our Greek-Roman, Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs, which have been painstakingly built-repaired-renovated over millennia. Destroy this and we sink into a new dark age.

Saturday 14 May 2016

Muticultural Madness 1

Multicultural Madness Pt1

Multicultural-ism has been in recent decades, the sacred cow of the “new” Western countries. The “old” European countries now seem to be taking this madness to its limit with uncontrolled borders.

Multicultural-ism is the doctrine whereby you have high immigration but instead of promoting integration of these new arrivals into the dominant culture you encourage them to maintain their old ways. In essence it is the end point of cultural cringe – you are in effect telling the new arrivals that they are coming to a land devoid of any customary ways of working together, devoid of a world view about what is right and wrong, and devoid of social customs and mores. It is for all parties a cruel lie!

Let me stress here “culture” is so much more than food and folk dancing! You can dress up in tartan kilts and do Scottish Country dancing, Irish feet-only dancing, put on a ten gallon hat and do American Country & Western, be a fan of the Waltz, or saucy South American dances and so on and still belong to the dominant culture. In fact these just become “add-ons” of choice. You can cook in exotic food styles, and still belong to the dominant culture – in fact you will find all these food styles just go mainline and even get improved. When I tried pizza in Italy I was quite disappointed! I kept thinking: “They should come to Australia and learn how to do a real pizza.”

When we allow ourselves to think of these things as “culture” we are only scratching the surface. We are also making a huge mistake. These superficial things have spread through the entire country – regardless of actual ethnic origin. They have been a real boon. But it is a very different story if we look deeper into what “culture” actually entails.

Culture proper consists of things like the ways of thinking which are built in to our language, our view of the rule of law, how we value human life, “manners” - that social lubricant of day to day dealings with other people, and the actual rules (written and unwritten) which have evolved to make our particular society function as well as it does.

People want to come to live ion our country presumably because they think it is better than their own. One reason for this is that our society functions better. (Another of course could be – as in the case of an invasion – because they want to plunder it!) But let's stick with first one for now.

If the people in our own country who have been so loudly advocating multiculturalism have not understood the implications one can hardly expect the immigrants to. So, unlike the immigrant waves of the past who integrated and took on our culture (in the true sense) and worked hard to give their children a start in the land of opportunity, these modern immigrants hear us saying that they should carry on just as they did in the old country, there are no new customs, ideals or rules here, and will destroy rather than build up our countries.

The old way of integration worked.

In one parish I had there was a very large Italian population. Often there were four generations. The old grandmother who had been brought out by her family – dressed in black and probably didn't speak English. The the ones who had come as adults, Italian names, dark skinned, still had an accent. Their children probably born here, still Italian given name, no accent, often risen the ladder through education and enterprise and as likely as not married a non-Italian. Then their children, with the currently popular Aussie names and indistinguishable from other European origin people. Sure in the early post WWII times there were real racial tensions. The “Dagos” used knives in fights which then was un-Australian. Italian boys were violently protective of their sisters, but conversely mis-understood Australian female fashions as indicating loose morals. But they learned to fit in over time. Melbourne is said to have a Greek population second only to Athens, but they are all thoroughly Australianised.

There is a gorgeous scene in the film “Kindergarten Cop” where the very young class of children are at the festival picnic and all reciting the Gettysburg address: “Four-score and seven years ago our fathers …..” and then when the camera scans the group you see an incredibly diverse ethnic mix! Every time I have seen that film it has struck me that it illustrates the proper way to treat immigrants : “You are one of us now, and this is our shared heritage, and this is how we behave


More next time

Saturday 7 May 2016

Loss of the Good Neighbour

"the Pioneer" by Frederick McCubbin (who's country painting cottage is in Woodend where I live!) Illustrating the harshness of pioneer life in Australia

Loss of Good Neighbours.

Jesus defined the ideal of “good neighbour” with that wonderful parable we call the Good Samaritan. He also put in a punchy saying “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

Of course Jesus was not saying anything new. Way back in Deuteronomy there are a multitude of – I was about to say “rules” but they are more in the nature of examples of the sort of actions required to fulfil the rule of neighbourliness. Interestingly they include enemies as well as friends which is something Jesus said a lot about!

So first of all we have the sort of thing we expect towards someone who is part of our nation, ethnic group, religion, church, club, locality etc.: “If you see your fellow Israelite's ox or sheep straying. Do not ignore it but be sure to take it back to its owner” (Deut.22.1).

Remember how I quoted Hayek in his book “The Fatal Conceit” saying that he thought traditional ethical rules evolved – by the simple mechanism that communities who had rules that made them more functional out-competed ones who did not. Now of course I believe the ones in the Bible were God-given – but that in itself implies that they work – and it is easy to see how in a rural subsistence community this rule makes the community more functional. It also makes it easy to explain why other communities may have developed similar rules – they found ones that worked! Also from my experience of God I expect that he gave people in ancient societies who were trying to work out “good” rules a nudge in the right direction!

But Jesus went further didn't he. With comments like “You have heard that it was said, 'love your neighbour, hate your enemy' but I tell you love your enemies ...” (Matthew 5:43) And of course the Parable of the Good Samaritan drives home this very point.

Now I don't know how the “hate your enemy” had wormed its way in to people's thinking in Jesus' time – it certainly was not in the Old Testament – quite the opposite! :
If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off be sure to return it. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen under its load, do not leave it there, be sure to help them with it.” (Exodus 23:4)

Once again if one were just looking from the perspective of “survival of the community”, this is a really good and functional rule to have! However it is not a rule that sits well with human nature! That alone probably answers my question “How did the 'hate your enemy' bit creep in”. So in this case it is a rule that works – and if you were a modern employer you would not be happy about animosity in the workplace which meant that one employee would not help another with a work problem! But this is often what happens – to the detriment of the company!

So once again we can say: “a rule that works” so it could evolve. But in this case we can say two more things:
1) It runs against human nature, so it requires either extensive “socialisation” to it as a traditional custom, good manners or the like, with sanctions against breaking it. Or an imminent threat where they clearly must cooperate in order to survive.
2) Jesus linked it to God's own character “Love your enemies … that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good...” God's love for us who were his enemies is a theme I enjoy contemplating – but for now I had better stick to this script. This gives us the insight, as I have said before of Christian morals being both derivative from God's own character and being like “maker's instructions” that we do well to follow! “But wait there's moreReal Christians actually want to be like Jesus, and have his Spirit to help them – so they are at a practical advantage in implementing “love your neighbour” That is of course not to say they score 100%!

In the West Millennia of Christianity, even if often of rather poor quality, had worked some of this into the cultures. True mostly inter- rather than intra- clan or family! But that often in by-gone times was the locus of community. Our large scale community or “extended order” as Hayak calls it, is modern.

In pioneer countries like the U.S. and Australia this was aided by sheer necessity. I read a sociological study of a small U.S. farming community in the 50's about 70kM from Washington DC
which was disturbingly similar to my then parish 70 kM out of Melbourne! In this study they observed that there was a strong code that people helped each other when one had difficulties on their farm. Interestingly they observed that there was never any payment but that over time such favours were scrupulously repaid in kind.

In Australia pioneer farmers in the 1800's faced a hostile environment. Cooperation and helping others without question: because you might need help next was essential. No luxury of scorning enemies there! Even in my youth it was expected that if you saw someone in trouble you would help them – whether it was a bogged car, a non-English speaking immigrant about to swim at a beach where the sign said “Dangerous rip – no swimming” or whatever. Without regard to who they were. I also remember that no payment was to be offered for such help – that would be considered an insult – people had done what decent people do.

This latter point: a rule that you helped people regardless of who they were, generally having never met them before or likely to again – this is necessary for the :”Love your neighbour” to work in modern mass society. We are not functional as clans any more, hardly functional as small states any more, we will rise or fall as much, much bigger social units!

Let me stress this: We live in mass societies. People we depend on do not in general have close personal relationships with us. People we need to treat as we would have others treat us may may just be a name or a face to us, if that. So for a functional society we need a general rule observed by all towards all.

Now in my memory all this has been collapsing. Self contentedness has become the norm. In many it approaches total self absorption: such people care nothing for others needs but expect everyone to rush to fulfil theirs.

Many are trying to create little groupings – family, civic action group, things of this nature, within which the rule generally applies. They are in fact going back to precisely the state Jesus was criticising in the Good Samaritan!

If the West is not to become increasingly dysfunctional on yet another front – until it implodes or is superseded by a more vigorous culture Jesus' teaching needs to become our general creed:

Always treat other people the way you would like people to treat you