Multiculturalism Is No Culture At All

This piece first appeared on XYZ.

Some troubling events have been occurring on the Korean peninsula recently. The global anti-establishment rebellion has manifested in that country as an uprising against President Park Geunhye’s corrupt regime and the personal influence of a Rasputin-type figure who seemed to control the presidency indirectly for the benefit of herself and her family. This is happening while that cruel piglet dictator Kim Jongun is knocking off his brother and making even China nervous about what he’ll do next. Into that volatile mix is the American attempt to deploy THAAD anti-missile batteries to protect against northern aggression.

There’s a problem with that plan. North Korea has approximately 100,000 artillery pieces within firing range of Seoul. Seoul has a population of about 25 million people. In essence, the Korean military standoff is a hostage situation with the North holding Seoul at gunpoint. A few THAAD units aren’t going to change that calculation, and mad fatty Kim Jongun knows that. He may well have nukes now that can hit Japan as well. Neither the South nor the North nor China nor America would win Korean War II.

As tragic as another proxy war on the Korean peninsula would be, however, it would not be the destruction of the Korean people. A country is always its people and never its government. Korea as a political, cultural and biological expression of humanity would continue despite the excess of trauma that people would have then again endured.

The same cannot be said of Western countries given our current trajectory. We don’t have a mad, entitled, narcissistic dictator holding us hostage, but our long-term situation is even more dire. We’re immigrating ourselves to extinction.

One of the first things you notice when living in Korea is that everywhere you go, the horizon looks the same. There is nowhere in the country that does not have a line of low hills running along the horizon, at most a few kilometres away. All of those hills look exactly the same, from Incheon across to Chungcheongdo down to Gyeongsangnamdo and across to Jeollado. I pointed this out once to a local, and he told me that after the last Korean War there was not a single tree left in the country. As part of the reconstruction effort, the people planted trees on the hills along the countryside. Because they all planted the same species of tree, it changed the landscape of the country forever and made it entirely homogenous.

I don’t know if his story is true, but it’s a good one. It also sounds like something Koreans would do.

Another thing you notice after living in Korea for a year or two and getting to know the people is that, outside of the ‘diversified’ parts of Seoul, there is nowhere else on earth like it. The culture is highly complex, philosophically sophisticated, idiosyncratic and utterly baffling to foreigners. Even other East Asians don’t get Korean culture. This is because Korea, although becoming increasingly globalised under the American occupation, is still Korean. You see pockets of ‘diversity’ around the shipbuilding yards where they bring in Mongol or Nepalese grunts and Western managers, and there are young Western English teachers dotted around the bars and burger joints, but largely the culture has remained intact. Koreans still have a culture, one that has been evolving and unfolding for millennia. It’s a World Heritage area for human cultural diversity.

Korea has remained this culturally unique because, until very recently, they shunned foreigners. They protected their cultural diversity.

In many parts of Australia today this is not true anymore. The ethnic ghettos in our cities are obviously not Australian, and the foods consumed, beliefs held and traditions maintained in those communities are not native to our people. These ghettoised pockets of foreign occupation just happen to be where this destruction of Australian culture is obvious, though.

Less obvious is the cultural destruction which is occurring in what seem still predominantly Australian areas of the country. Australia is becoming less Australian over time, as the globalist multicultural agenda undermines social trust and weathers away social norms until this country joins the rest of the West in a beige nothingness of social dysfunction, with politics based on identity substituting for politics based on ideas.

We’re becoming the Brazil of the South Pacific as part of the neo-Marxist anti-Western agenda of globalism. The future for us is not a moon colony with flying cars, but rather a Rio favela with wifi.

This is because ‘diversity’ destroys diversity. Just as the greenies obsess about not introducing foreign species to the landscape in order to protect our unique Australian landscape, we should be worried about bringing in too many foreign cultures that are destroying our local one.

You shouldn’t just take my word for it. There is a growing body of social research proving that increased diversity in an area has negative effects. Robert Putnam’s work at Harvard, for example, has proved convincingly that greater cultural diversity reduces all sorts of social trust between individuals. Interestingly, this affected levels of trust within the dominant cultural group as much as between and within the minority groups. Diversity is death to social cohesion. Perhaps our forefathers were onto something with the White Australia Policy; they just couldn’t articulate their arguments for it well enough in the face of the postwar cultural Marxist onslaught.

Putnam recanted his views in the face of the leftist backlash, unfortunately. This is why so little truly empirical work is done in the social sciences – the conclusions have become political unacceptable to the omnipotent academic establishment and the gatekeepers of funding for academic research. It’s why social sciences research is pretty much completely useless.

The race fanatics will scoff at my focus on culture instead of biology and call me a cuck. Whatever. A people is both a biological and a cultural expression of humanity; flesh and spirit. Of these two it is the spirit of a people, not its flesh, which is most important.

Of course we should end mass immigration. Of course it’s better to have a racially homogenous nation to stand with friends against foes foreign and domestic. But what of the many brown, yellow and even black Australians who are already here? What are you going to do with them, you fashy white nationalists? Many of you will answer that peaceful separation is the way forward. OK. What if they don’t consent?

There are young Australians not of white extraction who have only ever lived here and who have fully adopted the cultural values, norms and habits of the mainstream white Australian culture. Where is the place for them in your pure white Reich of the south seas?

Multiracialism has already happened, and barring atrocity it will not be reversed. We can cease further non-Western immigration immediately (which we must) and perhaps open our doors to whites fleeing Europe and North America as the chaos there grows in the coming years. Should mass white immigration into Australia occur, we must demand that they take on Australian cultural identity and assimilate. What’s the point of preserving a white Australia if it’s one that largely speaks German or French?

Regardless of what happens in Korea over the coming years, the future is secure for them as a people. They have protected their diversity against the onslaught of ‘diversity’. Unlike the flora that covers the countryside, their culture will remain a unique and complex expression of humanity. Unless we radically change course, change our elite and change our thinking, the same cannot be said for us. Our culture will be the lowest common denominator of the globalist cultural bilge. We will sink into the same beige dysfunction as every other Third World slum nation, and the particular expression of humanity that our forefathers created here in the South Pacific will be gone forever. Is ‘diversity’ really worth that?

[ecwid_product id=”80825923″ display=”picture title price options addtobag” version=”2″ show_border=”1″ show_price_on_button=”1″ center_align=”1″]

  • loker

    You should distinguish the divisive cancer of ‘multiculturalism’ from ‘cultural pluralism’.

    The Multiculturalism ethos is based on the implicit premise that all cultures are inherently equal therefore insinuating that the heavily pronounced idiosyncratic disparities between groups are consequences of intolerance on part of the larger society. In other words, groups that are lagging behind are not to change the cultural factors which necessitate the lagging, rather it is the society which must accommodate them.

    Cultural pluralism is based on the idea that a society can have a diverse ethnic and cultural composition in so far as those individual ethnic group adhere under the banner of one national identity. This ensures equality under the law, universality of human rights, protection of property rights and individual freedom. Ethnic and cultural groups are to assimilate into the standards set by the host country.

    If you want to live here, you MUST learn English
    you MUST adhere to and respect our shared values and beliefs of equality under the law and freedom etc;

    I feel you put too much emphasis on ‘white- demographic composition’. I’m more interested in the value system individuals uphold and subscribe to rather than the colour of their skin.