Greek Academic Comes to Bury Multiculturalism

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Professor Vrasidas Karalis of Sydney University, the translator of some of the books of Patrick White, has come to bury the condottieri of multiculturalism—I won’t call them warriors as that would give a worthy name to an unworthy cause—that are still fighting ingloriously and in an enfeebled state to resuscitate a concept that has been in a comatose state since the late eighties, when Slav Macedonians were burning Greek churches and when more recently, fanatic jihadists in pursuit of the seventy-two virgins, I must say, a chimerical, an eluding chase, they will never find them, were planning to kill thousands of Australians in football grounds and in public malls. It is in such a deadly milieu that the multiculturalists are attempting, in a futile and full of zealotry effort, to breathe life into a ghost. And in spite of the fact that the founding father of multiculturalism, professor Jerzy Zubrzycki, expressed explicitly his doubts about the viability of multiculturalism in the face of this tidal wave of atavism. Also, Gareth Evans, serving at the time as minister of communications, said to me in a phone conversation, that these conflicts between Slavs and Greeks, Serbs, Croatians and Bosnians spelled out the burial of multiculturalism.

It is a great fallacy to postulate that cultures have an amicable disposition and can live in a peaceful state of coexistence with each other without conflict. History has shown pellucidly that cultures, on fundamental issues are irreconcilable, and are in a permanent state of antagonistic competition and the stronger and more successful always subdue and supplant the weaker and less thriving. The Romans appropriated the higher culture of the Greeks and the German tribes, who were fighting the Romans were, in turn, absorbed by the higher culture of the latter.

No less a figure than Karl Marx, many of whose supporters today are puzzlingly upholders of multiculturalism, expressed, with characteristic force and eloquence, the inequality of cultures and the irreversible proclivity of the more powerful, in terms of intellectual, scientific, economic, and political success, to overwhelm and vanquish the weaker and less successful in the realm of human development and freedom. Without for a moment supporting or pleading his ideology, I would like, if you allow me, to paraphrase the great man: The elemental force of capitalism and its great culture would sweep away, on a vast scale, the dead weight of traditions and cultures that riveted their peoples to the obfuscation, ignorance, and bigotry of a hoary past.

After this long, but I believe relevant diversion, let us return back to the thesis of Professor Karalis. In a well structured argument delivered with panache, vivacity and wit, Karalis cogently argued, that with the ascendance of the Liberal-National Party to power in 1997, and the immediate dismantling of multiculturalism by the Howard government and the weak reaction of the ethnic communities to this dismantling, especially the Greek that was the avant-garde of multiculturalism, demonstrated clearly that the major part of these communities in a short duration were absorbed by a process of osmosis to the values and mores of a global, cosmopolitan Australian society. In his own words, the ethnic communities were incorporated within the political, economic, and cultural institutional framework of the Australian society. And he asks the question, is there still any reason to advocate multiculturalism as a nation-building policy or as a political project for the future? His answer is decisively negative.

Professor Karalis not only buried multiculturalism, but also inadvertently, fully justified the position and prognostications of the historian Geoffrey Blainey and that great Australian John Stone who both of them expressed, almost fifteen years ago, for which they were pilloried and maligned by the leftist intelligentsia, that multiculturalism was the design of historically ignorant politicians who could not perceive that at a critical moment would collide with Australian culture and would never recover from this crash. And the death knell for multiculturalism sounds presently in all European countries–especially in the context of Islamist terror–which had also so naively and un-historically adapted it as the elixir that would induce different cultures and peoples to love each other. They had forgotten that amity and congeniality could only issue from the sharing of common fundamental values that give the opportunity to all to succeed in the endeavours of daily life and to fulfil their ambitions according to their individualistic proclivities. It is the great culture of capitalism and its free enterprise system that provides these invaluable principles that lead to the comity of nations and peoples and eradicate, to a high degree, deadly conflict.

Rudd is Stopping Boats at the Price of Exposing his Cant about his Humanitarianism

By Con George-Kotzabasis—June 24, 2013

At last, Kevin Rudd, after swallowing a double dose of Viagra he is entering the ‘seraglio of reality’ that you can only stop the boats carrying asylum seekers not by a policy of immaculate conception, as he has done in the past when he repudiated and displaced Howard’s Pacific Solution, but only by forcefully violating the ‘hymen’ of this intricately difficult problem and giving birth to a hard line policy that will decisively stop illegal migrants from entering Australia. His deal with Papua New Guinea (PNG) to resettle refugees in the latter is a masterstroke that will achieve this up till now elusive goal.

This is a craftily made disincentive that will comprehensibly deter asylum seekers from reaching the shores of Australia by boat, since they will know beforehand that they will be send to New Guinea for perpetual settlement. And with the barrage of advertisements that the Rudd government is preparing that will make explicit the new government policy to would-be refugees and by implicitly conveying to them the inimical environment in which they will be residing, this will erase any incentive  attempting to enter Australia by paying people smugglers when their dangerous and expensive passage over the sea will take them not to the social and economic paradise of Australia but to the hellish socio-economic conditions of the dangerous land of PNG. And the veracity of the appalling and dangerous environment in which refugees will be placed is being ironically corroborated, willy-nilly, by all their ‘humanitarian’ supporters, like David Marr, and defence lawyers, who have already in their shrill shouts denounced Rudd’s announcement as “a day of shame” for Australia depicting in dramatic terms the great dangers that refugees will be facing in this hellishly bad setting once they are settled in PNG. After refugees becoming cognisant of the infernal conditions in which they will be living in, by these statements of their own supporters too (thus all the fans and backers of asylum seekers will find themselves being redundant and deprived of their libidinal pleasure by showing their heart on their sleeves, by their own ironic contribution to the stopping of the boats), who of the illegal migrants would be willing to pay a smuggler to be transported by Charon to the Hades of PNG and not to the paradisiac land of Australia?

Beyond any doubt, if the Rudd government will retain to the end the strength and acquire the determination to implement this hard line policy and there are no insurmountable legal challenges to it will exultantly succeed in this endeavour to protect the borders of Australia. And Kevin Rudd from a weak politician will be metastasized into the Roman god Terminus who guarded the boundaries of the republic by the force of arms. But if he is going to avoid from embarrassing the Roman god, he must tear the veil of pretence that covers the ugly features of this new policy and hails it as being humanitarian by arguing fatuously and emotionally that it will save lives by preventing boat people from drowning. Indeed, he will save them from drowning at sea but only by drowning them on dry land, in the socially cesspool of Papua New Guinea. Thus, his ‘humanitarianism’ will be swallowed in the whirlpool of his own hard line policy. Mockingly, he himself has already admitted that his new policy on illegal migrants has all the hard features of a porcupine—to use a metaphor. And the reason he has adopted this porcupine is, other than winning votes, to prevent boat people coming to Australia.

In his by now double replication of “me-tooism”of John Howard—the first time he professed to be willing to imitate Howard, as dyed in the wool conservative, in economic policy, this time he is doing it on border protection—he is out-distancing the latter in his hard line, like a galloping horse running next to a mule. And if he doesn’t lose his balance riding this winning stallion over the rough ground of politics, which so many times before enfeebled his policies by making them captive to populism, he will triumphantly pass the winning post and stop the boats.

I rest on my oars: your turn now                

Who Are the Real Culprits of the Oslo Massacre?

By Con George-Kotzabasis

Enoch Powell’s prophesy in his “Rivers of Blood” speech delivered in Birmingham in 1968, was to occur by the “cunning of history,”  if not by its ‘revenge’, forty-three years later in the peaceful and highly cultured country of Norway to the shock of all people who had not taken seriously the premonition of  that outstanding conservative British politician. Powell had early on seen that the ‘progressive’ immigration policies that were artificially breathed-in on the political landscape of the UK by a hybrid breed of Labor and Conservative governments, would not take long before they changed into dragons teeth that in turn would spawn homicidal ‘armed camps’ between indigenous and migrant populations of Britain. The first phase of Powell’s dire prediction had already happened when the children of immigrants transformed themselves into Islamic homegrown terrorists, and detonated bombs aboard London Underground trains on 7 July 2005, killing and wounding hundreds of people—and the currently burning of Britain by the offspring of migrants is directly correlated to the same inconceivably foolish and ill-advised immigration policies of the past–as well as one year earlier in the Madrid train bombings by Moroccan Islamic homegrown terrorists. And as we all witnessed, the second phase, the indigenous reaction to those fatal immigration policies, occurred in the cultured polished country of Henrik Ibsen by the murderous action of a ‘Viking Warrior’, Anders Behring Breivik, who took it in his hands, as his long Manifesto makes clear, to close the doors to Muslim immigration in Norway, and to prevent the future domination of Europe by Muslims. These actions were not the actions of a madman, but the actions fed and bred by a mad immigration policy that was implemented over a number of years by so called humanitarian and caring social democratic governments toward Third World countries in Scandinavia, Norway being the first victim of that policy that was to be put in the government made straitjacket.

For inevitably, that bizarrely naïve immigration policies adopted by a number of economically developed European countries, and ‘escorted’ by that beautiful debutante of multiculturalism, would divide the countries politically and severely between left and right, as it is being illustrated presently and pellucidly in many parts of  Europe. With such political and cultural polarization in Europe and within the context of the external and internal mortal threat that Islamic barbaric fanaticism poses to Western civilization, as well as the economic crisis of the Euro zone, not to expect that fringes of the extreme right would not be prone to commit atrocities, could only be assumed by those who like ostriches have their heads buried in the sand. The Breivik killings could only shock the historically ignorant and the incorrigibly naïve.  And, indeed, it may turn out to be a dress rehearsal for other European countries that are likewise divided on the issue of immigration and multiculturalism and the internal threat of Islamization. The former PM Tony Blair in an interview he gave in his last visit to Australia sees the Oslo atrocities as an extreme reaction to the “Islamization of Europe.” (M.E.) The liberal internationalists who dub those who believe that this threat is real as “Islamophobes,” are fugitives from reality and are totally incapable of composing a narrative of reason on the issue. Were those like Winston Churchill, after the Anschluss of Austria by the Nazis in 1938, who were convinced that the latter posed a real threat to Europe and to the peace of the world, ‘Naziphobes’?  And can one likewise disregard the profound cogitations of great thinkers, like the Islamist scholar Bernard Lewis, who forewarns that Europe by the end of the century by the dint of demographics, will be Islamized?

Here lies the cause of the Oslo massacre. And European governments who are becoming conscious and aware that these ill-conceived immigration policies of the past and present are rallying their own people to take direct action against these policies and against congenitally unassimilated Muslims who are lazily teeming the cities of Europe as a result of these doltish policies, must bring the latter to an end. Moreover, many Muslims willingly become ‘secularly’ unemployed-to use the term in its economic meaning-and of the underclass, since their preference is to be welfare dependent. And the safety net of welfare, especially the one that applies to families, is a honeyed incentive for Muslims to have big families, which is in accord with their religion, as the more children they have the bigger the payments of welfare. Hence, ‘working’ and sweating in the conjugal bed is a pleasurable source of ‘windfall’ income.

We see therefore, that the demographic change of Europe, of which a sizeable part of its population is Muslim, is fostered not only by religious factors, i.e., Muslim polygamy, but also by economic factors. i.e. the exploitation and milking of the welfare system by the true believers of Mohammed. This unholy wedlock of religion with economic sleaze provocatively raises the ire of the majority of the indigenous population who as tax payers are footing the bill, and who are terrified that future generations of Europeans would be living under Sharia laws. It’s these factors that agitate Europeans and induce them to support political parties that are committed to put a stop to Muslim immigration, to enact radical reforms to the welfare system that presently is a big tit that feeds Muslim procreation, and to engender the conditions for Muslim integration to European mores by ceasing to subsidize Muslim schools and Mosques. It’s only by hardening the political and social landscape of Europe for Muslims that governments can prevent their citizens from taking extreme measures to reverse the past deeply flawed immigration policies that are responsible for such extreme and atrocious actions as perpetrated in this case by Anders Behring Breivik.

I rest on my oars: your turn now…