While ‘punching right’ should conventionally be avoided, in establishing an authentically nationalist Australian movement, we must unpack John Howard’s past critiques of multiculturalism, and explain its shortcomings.
As Australia’s longest serving Prime Minister since Sir Robert Menzies, John Howard is worshipped by many on the Australian Right. Among other things, many have applauded Howard’s objection to multiculturalism, which saw him rename the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. Howard also soothed many post 9-11 nativist anxieties, by stopping illegal immigration into Australia.
While these were were positive steps, John Howard’s leadership was ultimately inconsequential in altering Australia’s future demographic and cultural course. One only needs observe the radically changed Australian suburbs of Lakemba, Broadmeadows and Balga to understand this. But paradoxically, Howard has repeatedly affirmed his support for multiracialism, while opposing multiculturalism.
These thoughts epitomise the civic nationalist view: that countries should base themselves around a shared culture, without regard to demographics. So while Howard understands that cultural differences are unenviable he misses one crucial fact: that culture and people are inextricably linked.
Culture is downstream from race, as mean IQ scores naturally direct groups towards certain behaviour. East Asians are studious in nature: in part because their high average IQ’s means reward for effort. Africans living in Australia, Britain and the United States are more attracted to criminal/ gang-oriented lifestyles, given their higher time preferences and testosterone levels.
Given race is foundational to identity, people drift towards cultures they are truly connected to and are ostensibly the product of their own. This is why Anzac Day ceremonies are overwhelmingly white, why Chinese-Australians most celebrate Chinese New Year, why African-Americans gravitate to Hip hop, and why Aboriginal people most identify with the Aboriginal flag.
Moreover, when large numbers of people migrate, they will congregate together along genetic grounds. Then, they will express these genetic/ cultural interests by claiming territory and power on behalf of their group, which commonly leads to ethnic conflict. This may be different when migration is minimal and stemming from similar countries, as integration at this stage is imperative. Nevertheless, when mass immigration occurs and there emerge viable alternatives to integration, race and loyalties become principally inseparable.
Howard’s contention Australia has been ‘enriched’ by immigration from ‘all parts of the world’ is likewise incompatible with mass Muslim immigration. Islam commands its followers to wage war against the Dar al-Harb until Sharia has been established. And these divine commandments have real-life consequences, as more Muslim Australians have fought for ISIS than against it. Thus, save for a remarkably secular Islamic population, the promises of an eternal paradise that transcends our temporal world, will always appeal more to Muslims than muh values.
Having said that, John Howard’s initial critique of multiculturalism is easily relatable to ordinary, sensible people: as countries cannot be continually pulled in different cultural directions without causing national disunity.
But we must move beyond this dead-end conservatism that is not only misleading, but incapable of solving multicultural-related problems. For while John Howard has proposed half-hearted solutions that hardly mitigate multicultural change, the Left proactively engineers demographics towards multicultural ends. In light of this opposition, Howard’s civic nationalism is an unwinnable, untenable long-term strategy for combating multiculturalism.