Bob Carr, Lowy Institute Speech
... The danger of us being attracted to speak about an anglosphere, I think there's a great danger in this.So, if Australians express any form of identity, China will immediately respond with antagonism towards us? Carr believes that China is inherently intemperate, unstable, insecure, flammable, suspicious, volatile, etc.
... no-one is fonder of the common heritage ... but I just caution Australians that to nod too vigorously in the direction of that concept would be misinterpreted immediately in the nations to our north ...
... Remember the danger we got into in the first year of the Howard Government when Pauline Hanson was running wild and when we tripped up in some key elements in our relationship with China.
... the misunderstandings ... in the region to our north, took a lot of correction.
With our heritage, that heritage of white Australia and membership of the British Empire ... it's too risky for us even to glance in the direction of talk of an anglosphere. It revives all those – what would be considered, all those unfortunate recollections and associations ...
And if we even hint to the world that our self-definition is tied up in being part of the anglosphere, we give the impression we're fundamentally more comfortable with that sphere, if it exists – if anyone wants to belong to it or define themselves as being in it ...
We'll confirm the most out-dated stereotypes about Australia. Stereotypes that a lot of people, a lot of Australian leaders, a lot of Australian spokespeople have worked hard at living down and stereotypes that are supported by the nature of the Australian population, which is more culturally diverse than the population of any other country you can think about.
A higher percentage of Australians born overseas than Americans born overseas and talk of an anglosphere is antique and presents us as something different from what we are.
If we limit ourselves, we deal ourselves out. If we allow an impression, even for a flickering moment, that Australia prefers the anglosphere, that Australia's only comfortable on the anglosphere we sell ourselves short ...
In Singapore one Australian businessman said to me, we see Singapore as an extension of the Australian economy and Singaporeans see us as an extension of their economy. And there you had, I thought, a model of Australia's economic integration with Asia. That is a good starting point for the considerations that will flow from the whitepaper on the Asian century ...
Carr's response to this unstable superpower is thus to watch our words, lest we say anything wrong.
But what is Carr's unspoken message? Our economic trade is facilitating the rise of a volatile superpower.
Does Carr contemplate the wisdom of facilitating this rise? Nope, he just parrots the mantra: "I'm honoured to represent an Australia ... committed to free trade".
Does Carr still think that a Pauline Hanson (Australian nationalist) is a bigger risk to national security than a volatile China? Amazingly, yes. Apparently China has no "unfortunate recollections" that should worry us.
In reality, Carr facilitates an increasingly insecure world because he is afraid to say 'boo'. He has already self-censored to appease a volatile superpower, justified by the
If we know a country is volatile, we should not facilitate its rise with our trade. We need strategic trade, not free trade.
File under: trading our way to insecurity, led by a reckless bloviating appeaser.
(Via Chris Berg: There is something good in the Anglosphere)
I had high hopes for Carr, but it turns out that he is just another post-national, Anglophobic, anti-Australian, anti-white clown.
ReplyDelete"With our heritage, that heritage of white Australia and membership of the British Empire ... it's too risky for us even to glance in the direction of talk of an anglosphere. It revives all those – what would be considered, all those unfortunate recollections and associations."
What was so wrong with White Australia? What's wrong with our British connection? Why must Australia deny its heritage in order to placate Asian countries, all of which are fiercely nationalistic?
Chris Berg: ".. in his speech, Carr threw every barb he could at the Anglosphere, dragging up the spectre of Pauline Hanson. This is a standard trope when anybody raises our English-speaking heritage - a suggestion that conservatives are not so much interested in the Anglosphere, per se, but the Anglo-Saxon race.
ReplyDeleteThat charge is total nonsense. The English-speaking world includes the most successful multicultural nations. All but Britain and Ireland are built almost entirely on immigration. And their success is entirely due to their institutional heritage - a liberalism that says all people, regardless of background, can peacefully coexist under a legal system that treats them neutrally. It is thanks to our inheritance that Australia's multiculturalism functions as well as it does. We must not forget the former while we pursue the latter."
So, according to Berg, the Anglosphere is good because its liberalism and institutions allowed multiculturalism to work. Hardly a robust conservative defence of our heritage.
Berg fails to realise that those institutions were the product of a particular people - Anglo-Saxons. Moreover, he fails to grasp that the future prospects of both are inextricably linked. Without Anglo-Saxon peoples at the helm, Britain, the United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand would not have become the prosperous, stable countries they are today. Nor will those countries remain rich and stable if Anglo-Saxons and other related European kin groups are replaced by non-Western immigrant populations.
While we're on the topic of the 'Anglo-Saxon race', I'd like to take this opportunity to recommend Andrew Fraser's important book "The WASP Question."
ReplyDeleteFrom the publisher:
""The WASP Question" deals with the question of Anglo-Saxon life in the United States, Australia and everywhere across the world where they have settled. Having for the most part lost a sense of their own ethnic identity in a time of increasing globalism and international multiculturalism which values nearly every culture except their own, the ‘WASPs’ – White Anglo-Saxon Protestants – are alternatively mocked, attacked and ignored in their own lands. Professor Fraser addresses the many questions involved in the matter with impeccable erudition and proposes possible solutions for the future. Constitutional and legal history, evolutionary biology and Christian theology all come into play as Fraser tackles one of the most burning questions of our time. As an analysis of the problems, and possible way forward, faced by a European ethnic group, the book will be of interest to anyone concerned about the fate of not just the Anglo-Saxons, but any specific cultural and racial identity in the postmodern, multicultural age."
http://www.amazon.com/The-WASP-Question-Andrew-Fraser/dp/1907166297
Why must Australia deny its heritage in order to placate Asian countries, all of which are fiercely nationalistic?
ReplyDeleteYeah, fiercely nationalistic. And Carr treats them like scared little children in need of a little comforting. Reckless.
So, according to Berg, the Anglosphere is good because its liberalism and institutions allowed multiculturalism to work
Berg's haircut gives away his limp politics straight away, but I give him credit nonetheless for rowing against the tide of the braindead media.
While we're on the topic of the 'Anglo-Saxon race', I'd like to take this opportunity to recommend Andrew Fraser's important book "The WASP Question."
Yeah I read some reviews. Looks good. Fraser previously said:
"Within two to three decades, it is not unreasonable to expect that Australia will have a heavily Asian managerial-professional, ruling class that will not hesitate to promote the interests of co-ethnics at the expense of white Australians."
Fraser was right. He also argued:
ReplyDelete"Given the relentless and revolutionary assault on their historic national identity, white Australians now face a life-or-death struggle to preserve their homeland. Whether effective resistance to their displacement and dispossession can be mounted is another question. Unlike other racial, ethnic or religious groups well-equipped to practice the politics of identity, white Australians lack a strong, cohesive sense of ethnic solidarity. As a consequence, ordinary Australians favouring a moratorium on non-white immigration cannot count on effective leadership or support from their co-ethnics among political, intellectual and corporate elites. On the contrary, our still predominantly Anglo-Australian rulers are indifferent; some profit from, and others actually take pride in their active collaboration with the Third World colonization of Australia. None of the major parties, indeed, not one member of the Commonwealth Parliament, offers citizens the option of voting to defend and nurture Australia's Anglo-European identity. The problem, in short, is clear: The Australian nation is bereft of a responsible ruling class."
http://www.vdare.com/articles/banned-in-oz-posted-on-vdarecom-frasers-rethinking-the-white-australia-policy-with-comment-
The Australian nation is bereft of a responsible ruling class.
ReplyDeleteYep, totally bereft, apart from a few fringe political parties.