The Meeting Place

Multiculturalism should not be a State policy


Multiculturalism is an unsound political theory, advocated by liberals, academics, media personnel, social theorists, government officials, and politicians. While it is supported by a majority of those people, it is actually opposed by the overall majority of Australians.


It is a deliberate policy to actively maintain, support and build(1) foreign cultures in Australia, to the direct detriment of the Australian identity, culture and way of life.


Instead of allowing immigrants, and their native-born offspring, to naturally assimilate into the Australian culture, governments are knowingly creating bases of foreign culture in this country. These deliberately divisive policies are carried out in two areas.


First, through the multicultural policies themselves, whereby foreign cultures are sustained and encouraged. Large sums of money are granted to "ethnic" organisations, which boosts the abilities of such organisations to service and perpetuate their "ethnic culture". In schools, multicultural policies are actively pursued, whereby children are encouraged to identify with their "ethnicity", rather than to become "fully" Australian. Many, if not all, aspects of public life are touched in a myriad of ways by official multicultural policies, all of which actually encourage a "them and us" attitude between "new Australians" and "old Australians".


Secondly, immigration policies are based upon continuing mass immigration, which gives foreign cultures in Australia the ability to self-sustain their separate



These deliberately divisive policies are turning Australians against each other, and are creating a country populated by a collection of separate communities, instead of a nation populated by a nationally unified society.


Multicultural Australia has thus become a breeding ground for a whole range of "micro-nations", each with their own political and cultural agendas. Indeed, Geoffrey Blainey has warned that "multiculturalism ... is a new form of colonialism, in which we are the colony of every nation on earth".(2) As Australia struggles to encompass the many little Chinas, little Japans, little Italys, and little Croatias, all determined to preserve their own national, cultural and ethnic peculiarities (including not only "lovely" dancing and foods, but sometimes strange, if not barbaric, customs; as well as some extremely strong ethnic hatreds), it is very easy to see the disunity created among these ethnic communities; as well as between them and those who see themselves as "Australians", foremost loyal to Australia.


Large-scale immigration programmes run the risk that ethnic enclaves will develop, a risk that is heightened by multicultural policies which give immigrants "little incentive to learn English and become socially and economically integrated with those outside their group". Such ethnic ghettos can provide a stimulus to the creation of "ethnic gangs that prey on their own community". Another dark side of this situation is that such enclaves "provide ideal bases for groups to engage in politically motivated violence. Indeed, the conflict over the former Yugoslavia has in Australia resulted in several incidents, including 11 unsolved fire bombings". The ethnic and political rivalry witnessed between the Greek and Macedonian communities in Australia involved "a demonstration outside Parliament House by 60,000 Greeks, a brawl at a soccer match and firebombings and vandalism", but such incidents are minor - compared with the potential for widespread inter-ethnic rivalry and violence. Such a situation is indicative of what multiculturalism can bring about.(3)


As Professor Blainey has stated: "Recent governments emphasize the merits of a multicultural society and ignore the dangers. And yet the evidence is clear that many multicultural societies have failed and that the human cost of the failure has been high. Many of our refugees actually come from multicultural societies that are faltering or in disarray". Also, Professor Loring Danforth has admitted that "Ironically, Australia's own commitment to multiculturalism may also encourage immigrants to involve themselves in the national conflicts of their homelands. This policy of multiculturalism ... defines people in ethnic categories and makes it possible for them to maintain their identities as Italians, Greeks, or Macedonians. Multiculturalism, with its emphasis on community languages and ethnic media, promotes the development of these ethnic identities and impedes the development of a strong Australian national identity."(4)


We do not need a crystal ball to see where multiculturalism will lead us. The future will bring a vast amount of inter-ethnic rivalry and resultant clashes, even leading to race riots reminiscent of those clashes in the UK and USA. Australia faces the spectre of being another disunified "multicultural" society like Sri Lanka, South Africa, Northern Ireland, Lebanon, the former Yugoslavia, Fiji, etc.; not to mention the USA and the UK, with their continually strained communities, and occasional race riots. The prospects of such a disunified nation are appalling.


Shared via the Google app



Sent from my iPad







“We should not have a multicultural society. America is so much better than every other country because of the values that people share — it defines our national identity. Not race or ethnicity, not where you come from. When you create pockets of isolation — and in some cases the assimilation process is retarded because it’s slowed down — it’s wrong. It limits peoples’ aspirations.”

Jeb Bush 

The US does not have a State sponsored Multicultural program costing billions . But is the most successful country in the world in integrating immigrants from EVERY country .

Another reality of multiculturalism is the cost to the Australian community, not only in social terms, but also in economic terms. Stephen Rimmer, an economist and author, has made a estimate of the monetary effects of multicultural policies as being
"more than $7.2 billion a year ... in addition to the $7 billion or $8 billion a year which immigration is estimated to add to the annual deficit on the current account of the balance of payments" and that "The gross cost of multiculturalism amounts to about 2% of Australia's Gross Domestic Product of $369 billion", while stating that these "estimates are conservative ... The real economic cost of multiculturalism is likely to be higher".(59)

Pensioners first 

Many cultures reflected their suspicion of diversity by using pejorative nouns for the “other.” In Hebrew, the “goyim” were all the other non-Jewish nations and peoples. “Odar” in Armenian denoted the rest of the world that was not ethnically Armenian. For Japanese, the “gaijin” are those who by nationality, ethnicity, and race cannot become fully Japanese. In 18th-century Castilian Spain, “gringo” meant any foreign, non-native speakers of Spanish. 


America ishistory’s exception. It began as a republic founded by European migrants. Like the homogenous citizens of most other nations, they were likely on a trajectory to incorporate racial sameness as the mark of citizenship. But the ultimate logic of America’s unique Constitution was different. So the United States steadily evolved to define Americans by their shared values, not by their superficial appearance. Eventually, anyone who was willing to give up his prior identity 


Read more at:



Nonetheless, for those who see America becoming a multicultural state of unassimilated tribes and competing racial groups, history will not be kind.

The history of state multiculturalism is one of discord, violence, chaos, and implosion.  So far, America has beaten the odds and remained multiracial rather than multicultural, thereby becoming the most powerful nation in the world. 

We should remember that diversity is an ornament, but unity is our strength. 

Read more at:


All those who want to replace Australia Day remember ...

We should remember that diversity is an ornament, but unity is our strength. 

"We should remember that diversity is an ornament, but unity is our strength."

Yep stirring words uttered by Victor Davis Hanson a noted neoconservative who believes American greatness is measured by having unlimited global military involvement in the world. Not a nice person to quote IMO.


Normal family response that does not address the topic . 

Decrying smeones views on one topic to dismiss their views on another is not intellectual discussion but bullying.

Brocky when quoting someone, always a good idea to know what that person stands for. I don't think Victor Hanson's views adds anything to multicultural Australia.

Do you have any views on the topic? 

I can't see how U.S.A in not multicultural, they seem to go out of their way to demonstrate that the country is made up of people from different countries who have blended together.  African American, Itailian American, Spanish American, Asian American, the list goes on, all of these people willingly demonstrating that they are part of a blended society.

I do not see multiculturism as a system that isolates, I see it as a system that blends different cultures together, is it not about recognising other cultures and taking on that which is worth while?  People who make this country their home don't just impart their cultural traits to us, they take on some of our traits and make them theirs.

I do agree though that no government can legislate to bring about multiculturism, if it happens it must happen naturally, the Brits, Italians, Greeks and many others did not need legislation in order for them to blend their cultures with the ones from this country.

You may be able to control what people say, but you will never control what they think.

Australia Day is what it is, nothing more than a celebration that gives thanks for our ancestors being able to start a new life in a new country and the opportunity it gave others to come here and thrive, though the convicts probably did not see it that way.  But I think even some of them looked at the change of circumstances as a good thing long term,  I wonder how many of them served their terms and went back?


The difference between the USA and Australia , the two countries that have invited more immigrants than any other is .

Australia has a State imposed policy of Multiculturalism 

The US does not.

A State imposed policy of Multiculturalism means the State spends money to support other cultures . 

I don't believe this is a role for the Government and in my campaign for more government money to be spent on pensioners I would like this money to be redirected . 

The US as you say has successfully integrated people from every country in the world without this Government expenditure . 

Although I will probably never see even a part O.A.P, I also support a move to ensure that retirees are given enough to live an independant and fullfilling life in retirement.  But I do believe that if we encourage immigration we should also take an active role in the intergration process, in the long run it could save us money.

I too am a self funded retiree PS . 

I don't know what role you want the State to play in integration of our migrants . 

It is a selection process that we bring in our migrants . Including a skill that we need according to a points lists we issue and includes proficiency in English . 

I think that we do need to assist our refugees to integrate . But they are 20,000 . 

The 200,000 immigrants I don't believe we should be spending billions on to satisfy a Multicultural industry which is self serving . 

Once again I believe this money better spent on our own poor pensioners .

Surely once we give these people the Ok toimmigrate, they become our own.  I don't believe that passing a test does much to help people integrate.  

I have no problem with government sponsored civics or language classes.

According to the Australian Bureau of statistics (ABS), the proportion of Australians who were born overseas, currently at 6.6 million people, has hit its highest point in 120 years. 


This corresponds to nearly a third of Australia's population. Pushing a bit further, almost half of all Australians were either born overseas or have at least one parent who was. In fact, virtually no Australians alive today can dispute having at least one foreign ancestor. We are a nation of migrants.


Still the present debate on immigration rests on newcomers. More specifically, whether or not new migrants net contribute to overall living standards. Fortunately, we also have data on that.


According to the 2015 IGR, about 88 per cent of migrants are aged under 40 years, as opposed to only 54 per cent of resident Australians; almost half of newcomers are aged 20-34 years versus only one in five resident Australians. Migrants are mainly young and at their prime working age.


In November 2013, the ABS released a survey on the characteristics of recent migrants. Of those who obtained Australian citizenship since arrival, the labour participation rate was 80 per cent, which is above the national average rate of about 65 per cent. The balance of migrants are family members . 


Claims that migrants are a net pressure on welfare payments do not stack up. Migrants are likely to be working.


The Department of Immigration also has some interesting statistics on the current migration programme. Of the last 190,000 places available in Australia's Migration Programme, more than two thirds corresponded to skilled migration, where deeply-valued human capital needs to be

The above report shows that our immigrants are young skilled and in work to a higher degree than locals . 

They are already integrated . 

I don't' say our refugee program which is quite separate to our immigration program has problems both of integration and employment .

My argument is that we spend billions on a Multicultural programme which is not needed. 


To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment