Australia – becoming a land of colonies?

The tennis world was eager to see how young Greek Stefanos Tsitsipas  would fare against aging Spanish champion Rafael Nadal. There seemed to be a wish that Tsitsipas would prevail over the Spanish bull. Wishful thinking, indeed. Nadal gored the young Greek. But it was not the anticipated clash that drew my attention in the first place.

Once again, television news reports showed crowds of Greek supporters draped in Greek colours loudly proclaiming in Australian accents their support for Tsitsipas . If you speak with an Australian accent, you have grown up in Australia. The Greek case of Australians identifying with another nation and culture is not the only one.

Most visible in circumstances where national representation is central is the allegiance of some Australians to Italy, Serbia, China, India, and Sri Lanka. Most worrying is the unabashed support for China. Whenever a Chinese dignitary visits Australia, a large contingent of flag-waving Chinese rushes to the airport to welcome him. Perhaps China is a separate case. It is clear China has a policy of infiltrating Australia to gain political and economic influence. That is not the case with the others – at least not yet with India.

Why is it that people who have grown up in Australia are unembarrassed about identifying with another nation and culture? Until the 1960s, it would not have entered the heads of most Australians to publicly display allegiance to another nation and culture, so secure were Australians in their identity. The answer immediate to hand is the enforced policy of multiculturalism.

I am not talking about multiculturalism as the maintenance of a cultural connection with the country of one’s ancestry. This is natural and unexceptionable. But it’s connection not allegiance. No, there are two ideas of multiculturalism. One is the consciousness of one’s ancestry and the willingness to acknowledged it as an element in one’s overall cultural consciousness – as an Australian. The other is the policy of encouraging one’s origins as the primary cultural allegiance. In this case, one’s cultural community is situated on a piece of Australian real estate that is an extension of an overseas nation and culture.

This is exactly the idea that Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan propagates among overseas Turks, especially in Europe. All Turkish communities around the world are considered part of Turkey, and their primary allegiance must be to Turkey. All Turkish people wherever they live take part in Turkey’s elections. An essential part of Turkish political campaigns is a visit to the huge Turkish populations in Germany and Holland. In Germany and Holland, you have a significant part of the population with a primary allegiance to another nation – in this case a Muslim country – deciding the political future of Germany and Holland.

This second idea of multiculturalism is the one that predominates in political discourse in Australia. It is the one vigorously pushed by the left since the 1960s – with outstanding success. The boast that Australia is the ‘most multicultural country in the world’ amounts to the boast that Australia is the most fragmented country in the world.

What motivates the left – the Marxists and lately postmodernists – to bring about the break-up of Australia? This is a long story and requires a competent understanding of Marxism and its offshoot postmodernism. But I can state its key thought and aim without fear of contradiction. For Marxists and postmodernists, bourgeois capitalist society – the (crumbling) structure of Australian society – is evil. It is a class society of oppressors and oppressed. The oppressed must be relieved. From a suite of tactics to eliminate (white Anglo) capitalist society, the left employ the powerful weapons of multiculturalism and immigration. With the importation of non-Europeans, the left have natural allies.

One does not hear about it, but white Europeans (in Australia’s case white Anglo-Saxons) are the originators and promoters of capitalism – and its protectors. They go, and capitalism goes.

In my book TONY ABBOTT AND THE TIMES OF REVOLUTION I provide a paradigm case of the way the left gain power and keep it.