Yesterday Fraser Anning delivered his maiden Senate speech, which has since been condemned across the political spectrum.
Anning expressed support for the past White Australia policy, and as critics deliberately misconstrued his proposed ‘final solution’ for immigration, the speech was equated with Nazism. Never mind that those who actually fought against Nazism, virtually all agreed with Anning’s conception of racial identity.
Nevertheless, as critiques of both the White Australia policy and Nazism are well known, there are other other areas that demand consideration.
In rebutting Anning’s remarks, we’ve seen much virtue-signalling from both the Left and ‘Right’ about multiculturalism’s benefits. Despite these unenlightened gestures, can any member of the multiculturalist establishment explain:
- Why does Australia need the highest rate of immigration in the OECD?
- At what point will our country be deemed sufficiently multicultural? Would this be when Australia is 60, 50, 40, 30, or 20 % white, while hosting a variety of other ethnicities and admixtures? If multiculturalism is desirable and represents more than replacing the native population, why haven’t its objectives been coherently defined?
- If they’re aware that no multiracial society without a clear majority has yet survived? And if so;
- What does the multiculturalist establishment intend to unite our country around? With racial identity surrendered by the majority, what shared traits can possibly unify Australians, when we increasingly disagree on matters of morality, gender, values, nationality, culture, language, history, and religion?