There’s been another email message circulating the inner-body of cyberspace like a virus, or an anti-body, depending upon how you look at it. Even though the news is old hat, the email still attempts to drum-up support for Australia’s Prime Minister, John Howard, who lit the fuse to Australia’s Muslim community with seemingly un-PC remarks about Muslim extremists.
Is that true? Has he really crossed that line and become one those socially acceptable opponents of political correctness?
He has indeed.
According to Australia’s Sydney Morning Herald, “He said a commitment to jihad and extreme attitudes towards women were two problems unique to Muslims that previous intakes of migrants from Europe did not have, and that Australia wanted people to assimilate and adopt Australian ways.” Howard also said that Australians want people to assimilate.
By social convention, there’s acceptable and unacceptable departures from PC, you know. An example of an acceptable departure from PC is welcoming asylum-seekers and migrants of any phenotype with the unenforceable condition that they assimilate. Of course, Jewish migrants are the exception to that example: they would find such demands impudent and Czarish. The Jewish population of Australia goes back to the beginning of that country, and so does its struggles against assimilation. But that’s the socially acceptable, un-PC voice. That is what passes as the alternative and remedial view to the fanatical advocates of political correctness. It’s very much akin to the positions of socially acceptable PC apostates in America and Europe.
In the marketplace of ideas, you have only two options if you’re to avoid any real stigma. You can either be a socially acceptable pluralist who embraces migrants of any phenotype unconditionally, or you can be a socially acceptable PC heretic who welcomes them with superficial conditions.
Don’t get me wrong. Dismissing the demands of outsiders, who insist on changing the ways of the country which had been gracious enough to grant them refuge, solely to accommodate the culture of the nation from which they fled, is always a sign of sanity. But it’s a perfunctory exercise of sanity. It not only fails to subject the melting pot model of coexistence to adversarial testing, but it presupposes that the melting pot isn’t boiling over at all! And if any difficulties are recognized, the solutions are always more diversification or assimilation. Never separation.
Sometimes the socially acceptable deviation from political correctness appears to make sense. But that’s only because you’re being told that all is not well in the melting pot (and you can see that with your own eyes). A good example of this is former Governor Richard D. Lamm’s I Have A Plan To Destroy America. Lamm identifies racial identity, bilingualism and multi-culturalism as causal factors in national suicide. He even suggests there are explanations other than prejudice for the drop-out rate in the black and hispanic communities.
Hymm, interesting. Has Lamm read Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein’s Bell Curve? Or Richard Lynn’s Race differences in Intelligence: an Evolutionary Analysis? Or Philippe Rushton’s Race, Evolution and Behavior? At first glance, Lamm appears to make sense, just as all socially acceptable opponents of political correctness appear to make sense. But upon closer inspection, his rhetoric is nothing short of rubbish.
Lamm, like John Howard, suggests that “assimilation” and “unity” will magically cure the problems we see in the melting pot, making it a Utopian smorgasbord with national longevity. How exactly do genetically different races, with genetically different brains and genetically different hormones, assimilate? Will the population be processed through an assimilation machine to equalize cranial capacity, brain size, cerebral cortex convolutions, IQ, and testosterone levels? In walks your average, crotch-grabbing, low-IQ negro with sagging pants and crime-prone behavior, and out walks a business man with a hsapien V.2.1 upgrade, with new features like adjusted hormones, larger cranium and brain sizes and higher-IQ. Civilized behavior guaranteed. SAT scores will be so high that sports scholarship offers will be an insult. No more rapping the national anthem.
If you haven’t guessed it yet, the unacceptable departure from political correctness is the racist one, and it’s condemned by liberals and conservatives alike. The racialist view is also the causal view. This view doesn’t stop analyzing the problem after realizing that multi-culturalism isn’t working, or that differences exist in the drop-out rate and values of various races. The racialist does not simply realize that races are not alike. The racialist asks why races are not alike. What differences exist and why do these differences exist? Are these differences genetic? And if the differences are genetic, can they ever be changed? Furthermore, how sane is it to base social policies upon the fallacy that all races are equal, when biologically they are not, and never will be?
So John Howard made a socially acceptable, politically incorrect remark. Big deal. He’s hardly worthy of patriotic applause.
He’s not even a true-blue assimilationist. A real assimilationist would have rejected pressure from Jewish activists to create criminal offenses prohibiting anyone from subjecting the holocaust to historiography. Rather than standing up for free speech, a tradition of freedom-loving Australians and Americans alike, John Howard allowed historian David Irving to be arrested, jailed and prosecuted, solely to accommodate the whims and conceits of Jewry, particularly those Jews who exploit human suffering for profit and political advantage. A real assimilationist would have said “No. This is Australia. We don’t create laws to imprison historians who disagree with other historians. This is Australia and we value free speech. Assimilate now or leave!”
PC-infidel John Howard is merely a part-time assimilationist. When he’s not making assimilationist demands to Lebanese and other Arab migrants, he’s a Jew-appeaser.
If you get the same email, return to sender, so the forwarders can get it through through their heads. We don’t want non-European immigrants at all; and as for the ones already here, we don’t want them to assimilate. We want to racially segregate without public or private interference.
Filed under: Politics | Tagged: assimilation, Australia, Charles Murray, Conservative, David Irving, jew, Jewish Supremacism, John Howard, Liberal, multi-culturalism, Muslim, national suicide, PC, Philippe Rushton, pluralism, political correctness, politically correct, politically incorrect, prime minister, race, racial differences, racialism, Richard Herrnstein, Richard Lamm, Richard Lynn, un-PC, unity
