Multiculturalism is just a fancy word for “cheap foreign labour & ethnic cuisine”.

Beyond that, there are few benefits & very little cultural exchange. There aren’t a huge number of Australians fascinated with Bollywood movies just because we have so many Indian taxi drivers. Outside their respective diasporas, Indian or Chinese or Arab or African culture holds very little interest for other Australian residents beyond a very superficial level.

We are not “culturally enriched” by foreigners. We just import them for their labour & eat their cuisine.

This is the most egregious example I’ve personally encountered, but it reflects a mindset common among national socialists who claim to be“nationalists”.

They are ideologues, not nationalists. They have solidarity only for those of their nation who also share their ideology. These people consider their compatriots to be enemies & traitors to their nation if they do not accept their ideology. Several of them fantasise about the violence they would inflict on their compatriots if they could do so.

Their loyalty is to their ideology, not their nation.

Poor developing countries need the human capital of immigrants much more than rich developed countries do.

Very unironically, it would make much more sense for educated but opportunity-deprived Indian people to move to sub-Saharan Africa instead of Western countries. I'll let Grok fill in the details of why it makes sense, but the basic idea is that there are lot of Indian people in, say, the 4th income quintile who are more educated than the average person in sub-Saharan Africa. Moving a lot of them there would be mutually beneficial.

Opposition to mass immigration in Australia, like most political movements, has a Team Purity & a Team Electability.

TP = ethno-nationalists #heritage
TE = civic nationalists #values

TP & TE don't get on & don't really co-operate. But their independent efforts can get results. Right now, TP is very focussed on arguments about the demographic mix. That’s perfectly valid but does not resonate with, & even antagonises, a significant number of voters.

TE is more focussed on housing affordability, which has broader appeal but does ignore valid concerns.

Most Australians are unaware of how long & difficult was the process of incorporating Irish people into the mainstream culture founded here by English & Scottish people.

And yet we now think we can easily accommodate huge numbers of people from dozens of very different cultures. I’m GenX & the product of a “mixed marriage” between a Catholic with Irish ancestry & an Anglican. I just caught a glimpse of the sectarian divisions that existed in Australia but which had largely faded by the time I was born. But those divisions took a LONG time to fade.

Multiculturalism means there is no shared national culture. There are just multiple cultures co-located in the same economic zone.

That means Australian culture is the culture of Anglo-Celtic people & whoever assimilates with us.

Everyone else here is part of OTHER cultures. It is nonsensical to talk of a shared national culture when a society becomes multicultural.

Australian culture now is just one of many cultures that now exist in multicultural Australia. Many people here are not part of that culture, even if they have Australian citizenship.

Those in charge of Australian Rules football often decry its lack of diversity. But to little effect.

Player surnames - at both the elite & community level - still look a lot like a list of surnames on a local First World War memorial.

Our game is only somewhat multicultural. Indigenous people & assimilated Europeans have been a big part of our sport for a long time. Their contributions are very significant.

Recently there have also been a few African & Muslim players emerge.

But Australian Rules football remains an overwhelmingly Anglo-Celtic game.

Mass immigration means even our recent history means nothing to huge numbers of people in Australia.

Most arriving today would know little & care less about the 2019/20 fires, our pandemic experience, the Voice referendum & the Matildas buzz.

Why would they? They weren’t here. With more than 30% of residents not born here, there are huge numbers of people who have little or no shared experience with Australians.

When Australia is a foreign country to a critical mass of those living here, integration becomes impossible. We are an island of strangers.

Like the famous Boston Globe “Spotlight” investigation, Australia’s Royal Commission into child abuse was largely focused on the Catholic Church.

Where the spotlight is directed, abuse is exposed. Good.

But in areas the spotlight ignores - like public schools - abuse is hidden. The RC did not establish that historical abuse & cover-ups were more prevalent in Catholic schools & institutions than in public schools.

It COULD not establish that. That’s because it had so little INFORMATION about what was going on in public schools.

Why are Western nations in decline?

Because they are not LOVED.

When something is not loved, it is neglected, exploited & disregarded.

This absence of love is widespread.

For Western nations to be great again, their people need to love them again. Progressives in the West clearly do not love their nation.

They look at the history & institutions & traditional culture of their nations, & all they see is oppression & prejudice & ignorance.

Progressives seek to transform. You don't seek to transform that which you love.

In August 1988, opposition leader John Howard suggested the pace of Asian immigration should be reduced to support social cohesion.

The reaction of elites was predictable. But polls suggest Howard also had little public support. In May 1989 he was replaced by Andrew Peacock. Howard’s comments:

“I do believe that if in the eyes of some in the community it is too great, it would be in our immediate term interest and supportive of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so that the capacity of the community to absorb was greater.”

Australia, like most multicultural Western nations, is on track for the majority culture to become a minority.

Can anyone name a successful multicultural society where the biggest cultural group is less than 50% of the population?

I can't. Canada is interesting. It's a bit complicated because of the way authorities account for "visible minorities" & the Anglophone/Francophone split in official data, but the picture looks something like this:

"Immigration is lower."

It's a flow, not a stock.

The cold water tap (births) is turned down low. The hot water tap (overseas arrivals) has been turned up very high.

Lower immigration means the hot water tap has been turned down a bit. But the bathtub is still getting fuller. As of March 31st 2025, there were 27.5 million "drops of water" in the Australian bathtub.



Water flows into the bathtub through the cold tap (births) & the hot tap (overseas arrivals).

Water drains out when people die or leave Australia for 12+ months.abs.gov.au/statistics/peo…

The Voice. Victoria's "Treaty". "Muslim Votes Matters". Ethnic voting blocs.

It's very clear that the left in Australia wants ethnic-based politics.

Malaysia is one example of what that looks like. Maybe we will soon see a party like the UNMO represent Anglo-Celtic Australians. 70% of Malaysia's population are classified as "Bumiputera": sons of the soil. That includes the 58% who are ethnically Malay & the 12% who are indigenous in Borneo & elsewhere.



22% are Chinese & 7% are Indian. tableau.dosm.gov.my/t/BPPD-Bahagia…

Probably about half of foreign-born voters live in Sydney & Melbourne, but those 2 cities only account for around a third of lower-house seats.

That means these voters have less political influence than they would if they were dispersed more evenly across seats.

LNP take note. I'm not aware of data that shows exactly how many voters (as opposed to residents) are foreign-born, but ABS data indicate that about 50% of foreign-residents live in Sydney & Melbourne. So it's probably similar for voters.

51 of the 151 lower house seats are in those 2 cities.

A race-based immigration policy would be rejected by a clear majority of Australian voters. Just like the Voice was.

But a policy that allows immigration only from nations that are culturally-compatible & have similar living standards would likely have clear majority support. Alternatively, we could just restrict immigration to non-honking nations.

Honkers & non-honkers probably need their own countries.

It's not widely understood, I suspect, just how sociopathic towards their own community some advocates of open borders are.

Here are three of the most striking examples of this that I am familiar with:

@AlexNowrasteh
@bryan_caplan
@captgouda24

Receipts in the thread. @AlexNowrasteh supports open borders because he knows that will reduce solidarity among people in a society & he thinks (naively) that weaker social solidarity is good for economic growth.

https://x.com/AlexNowrasteh/status/1628192876336226305

@AuronMacintyre is basically being criticised by @KeithWoodsYT because he doesn't believe that Americans are solely defined by their ancestry.

But if Americans are just defined by ancestry, the fact is they have been breeding with successive waves of immigrants for a long time.

https://twitter.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1957907910597411268

There seems to be an idea that if you reject the civic nationalist idea that an American is defined by "values", you must accept the "blood & soil" idea that an American is defined by ancestry.

But the "blood & soil" definition does not make the category particularly exclusive.

Because Australia is a settler nation, defining “Australian” is a bit complicated.

It’s definitely not just a piece of paper defined by “values”.

But nor is it an ethnicity defined by DNA.

It’s a cultural identity created by Anglo-Celtic settlers that can include other people. I’m no anthropologist, but my understanding is that the blend of British & Irish people who settled & built Australia from 1788 to 1950 do not meet the criteria for being a new, distinct ethnicity.

A big reason for that is that we never saw ourselves as a completely new people.

I care deeply about 2100. All my children will be old but still may be alive then. And I hope there will be many of my grandchildren & great-grandchildren around too.

But a large & increasing number of adults in Western countries have no children. How important is 2100 to them? Deliberately childless people have no interest in passing on their culture to the next generation, suggesting indifference to that culture’s survival. So it wouldn’t be surprising, for example, if they prefer the convenience of cheap foreign labor delivered by mass immigration.

Anglo-Celtic Australians are at an intermediate stage where our demographic majority is quickly eroding but we are still too self-conscious or browbeaten to assert & express pride in our identity like minority groups do. I suspect that will change at some point.

https://twitter.com/SSFCRABBITOHS/status/1952285881890725894

When Anglo-Celtic people were 90% of the Australian population, I guess we just took it for granted that our culture & our values defined the national identity. But that changed once the demographics began to shift.