The Dark Age of a Race Inquisition by Peter Ewer
All that the present multicult, politically correct regime in the West lacks, which would make it a new form of the Medieval Inquisition, is the systematic use of physical torture to subdue dissent, or anyone in any way bucking the system, or misbehaving.
Consider the case of the “racist banana.”
There is no doubt that the red-headed Port Adelaide supporter, who in the heat of an angry moment, threw a banana at indigenous Crows star, Eddie Betts, acted in poor taste. But, once upon a time, before race became the politically charged issue it is today, people would have laughed this off. The player would have given a rude finger sign to the girl, or even threw the banana back, with some witty line to put her in her place. Everyone, even members of the opposing team would marvel at this displace of masculinity, taking it on the jaw.
The Premier would not have taken time off from running the state to comment on playground incidents. And that is what politically correct football is now – little more than an extended version of high school, literally a politically correct football.
Perhaps it is time for Australians to move on beyond a game where grown men in rude shorts, chase a ball. How about we all stop going to the football, and ban ourselves for life?
Migrants who came to Australia after the war got their unfair share of Aussie banter, but it did not stop them from going on to success. They gave back as good as they got, and nobody cried about name calling, banter, or the shame of “racism.” What shows the inconsistency of the multicult and the hyper-anti-racist culture, is that the girl was subjected to extreme sexual and racial abuse on the social media by Social Justice Warriors, who exist as attack dogs against anyone transgressing their cosmopolitan norms.
If you doubt the level of abuse, some of which is criminal, go surf the net. This is a modern version of the Inquisition, with psychological abuse standing in for torture. Of course, if the Social Justice Warrior can get their target in public, then they resort to violence, and are always allowed to do this by the Multicult State. Why did nothing happen to the socialists who smashed up Cory Bernardi’s office and terrified staff? The police could prosecute. But they don’t. It never happened with the protests against Pauline Hanson as well.
One of the results of this psycho-political terrorism, imposed by the open-borders state, is a breakdown of social capital. This was observed by sociologist Robert D. Putnam, with the research published in Scandinavian Political Studies, Vol. 30 – No. 2, 2007, under the imposing title: “E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century, The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.” Here is the article abstract:
“Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to “hunker down.” Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.”
In other words, immigration and ethnic diversity “lead to mistrust, challenge social solidarity, break down community and are poison to social capital.” That is a quote from an article from The Australian that commented on Putnam’s research. But fast forward to August 24, 2016, and we find in The Australian (p. 5) “Racism Worsens Divide on Migrants.”
What is really interesting about this article is that it reports on a Monash University survey, funded by the Scanlon Foundation (supportive of Big Australia and increasing migration). This report found that there are divisions over immigration and “racism” and a polarisation of attitudes, and migrants have a declining trust in the social institutions of Australia. So, is this the “racism” referred to in the article, or is it only something found in the now dying/dwindling Anglo-Australian population? The survey found that 19 percent of third-generation citizens thought that too many migrants was what they liked least of all about their “home” country. This confirms Putnam’s thesis about mass migration and forced diversity breaking down social capital. Imagine, if the social glue of consumer culture continues to disintegrate: what will produce social cohesion then beyond the monopoly of state violence?
In summary, the great race/immigration debate indicates that the multicult state is an extremely fragile entity, an unnatural one, that is only held together by repressive laws. It exists to serve a political elite who merely manipulate the ideology of equality, but by no means consistency apply it. Although this elite seem all-powerful now, historically they will be viewed as the weakest of tyrants, and their regime will be relatively short-lived.