A wrong turn? Have you ever read an article which begins well but then takes a disastrously wrong turn? There’s an article being praised amongst some conservative groups here in Melbourne, written by Augusto Zimmermann. Augusto hails from Brazil but is undertaking his Ph.D in law at Melbourne’s Monash University (he appears to be of German descent). Augusto is an obviously intelligent young man, who appears regularly in the Christian conservative press. His latest article takes aim at Victoria’s religious vilification legislation. Augusto begins by noting that the legislation contradicts the Western legal tradition by disallowing the truth of a statement as a defence. That’s why two Christian pastors could be prosecuted under the legislation for accurately quoting parts of the Koran to a private church gathering. Augusto then criticises the idea that the legislation will help to create a “multicultural democracy”. He argues that not all cultures are equally committed to democracy, and that democracy and the rule of law might not be preserved if Australia “eventually decides to reject its own culture on account of multiculturalism”. Augusto’s article then reaches its high point when he observes that,
To this point the article can be read as a defence of the mainstream Anglo culture of Australia against the inroads of the multiculturalists. It is therefore conservative in the sense of contributing to the preservation of a distinct national culture. But Augusto then steers the argument in the wrong direction. He attacks multiculturalism by rejecting the whole idea of ethnic identity in favour of liberal individualism. He writes,
Now, I can see what Augusto is up to here. He doesn’t like traditional Muslim culture and so doesn’t want Muslim immigrants to Australia to be encouraged to stick with this culture. He wants them to choose to jettison it in favour of something else. Hence the argument against ethnic identity in favour of personal choice. But it’s an argument which throws out the baby with the bathwater. It not only undermines the Muslims’ ethnic identity and traditional culture, it does the same for the mainstream culture which Augusto originally set out to defend. Australians will not preserve their own traditional culture if they are told that they are not “organically integrated into their ethnic group” nor “emotionally or psychologically connected” to their own ethny, but are, in contrast, “free individual citizens”. If being free means having no ethnicity, then why should I worry if the culture of my ancestors is lost? I should be happy to see it lost as a final remnant of a burdensome ethnic inheritance. I should welcome the arrival of foreign cultures, and choose to identify with them and with cultural ‘diversity’ in order to show how free I am as an individual from any ethnic loyalty. What Augusto doesn’t realise is that it is his kind of liberal individualism which paves the way for multiculturalism. Once individual freedom is set against ethnic identity, then multiculturalism and cultural diversity will be seen by many as a positive and progressive development on the road to personal liberty. A better and more coherent defence against multiculturalism has two parts. First, the positive value of ethnic identity needs to be applied to Westerners and not just to immigrant groups. If this were achieved Western countries would once again be seen as established homelands to distinct peoples (ethnies), rather than as neutral areas to be filled from outside sources. Second, immigration controls need to be applied to prevent the growth of incompatible cultures within the Western homelands. In other words, if Augusto doesn’t like Muslim culture, he could simply argue for changes to immigration policies, rather than attempting to void all traditional culture in favour of a deracinated individualism. Comments:2
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:49 | # I guess Mr. Zimmerman never heard of France? He must’ve missed his theory failing there recently. 3
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 17 Nov 2005 22:52 | # What we on the outside should take away from the establishment comes not from what it says but from what it cannot say. One logical conclusion is that it cannot say it precisely because it should. 4
Posted by John S Bolton on Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:52 | # Criticizing the left for hypocrisy on racism or egalitarianism is a hopelessly weak and ineffectual approach. They are unprincipled opportunists, and could care less if their hypocrisy is exposed. Further, it reinforces their pseudo-ideals; as if the government should have power to eradicate racist beliefs. He may be aiding the left by helping along their equivocation, in which the literal meaning of racism, that ideas are inherited genetically and racially, is corruptly equivocated with not wanting to give the tropical-adapted all that could possibly be just given. If the writer were sincere, he could have much to say about offcial anticaucasianism, but how would that fit with intellectual image-primping? Post a comment:
Next entry: Voltaire’s letters and cultural confidence
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Al Ross on Thu, 17 Nov 2005 21:16 | #
When Mr Zimmerman’s country was under construction as a Portuguese colony, the Imperial Governor, the Marquis of Pombol, devised a plan whereby all Portuguese citizens who married Brazilian indigenous people were given a free land-grant.As a result, Brazil today is a racial cesspool with intractable poverty, horrendous crime-rates and an undercurrent of resentment towards the Whites who largely run the blighted and backward nation. It would be unusual if Mr Zimmerman’s worldview were not jaundiced by the mistakes of history.