Labor takes step toward statue treachery


The problem with discounting an argument on the grounds that it is employing the slippery slope, is that when an entire political movement bases its entire approach on incrementally doing away with everything that makes the West what it is, it is effectively weaponising the slippery slope to its advantage. Take Bill Shorten’s suggestion today of a second plaque on the Captain Cook statue:

“While not condoning the act, Mr Shorten said Australia needed to address how it has treated its Indigenous people since European settlement – and postscripts to its historical monuments was one visible way.

“An additional plaque on Captain Cook’s statue is fine by me,” he said.

“I am not proud of the way they have been treated since 1770 and we need to close the gap.

“You know, for the people who want to have that argument, they do this country a disservice. Let’s own our history, the good and the bad and the ugly.

“Let’s own the fact that we are a very lucky country and have done very well but First Australians haven’t shared the success that many other Australians have enjoyed.”

Bill Shorten, file photo.

This is how it starts. They call for a “national conversation” on an issue. Then they label their opponents bigots. Then, they can’t understand how anybody could have any opposition to their perfectly reasonable requests. Finally, we urgently have to pull down the statues, because nazis.

The left creates disunity, then offers a solution to that disunity, ie, give in to our demands.

Over at pushingrubberdownhill, Adam Piggott has summed up the dynamic:

  • They begin some outrageous act.
  • Our side responds by saying that this is outrageous and that finally things have gone too far.
  • They get the oxygen that they need to continue living.
  • Either they are victorious or we are.
  • They do it again and we react again.

“I’m getting to the point where they can just go and tear down statues. Just do it. I simply don’t care. Like children having an epic temper tantrum they just want to destroy everything. There is no stopping them by stopping an isolated act; one thing just continues to another.

“The only way to stop this cycle is to do something about them. Not their acts, but them. But we’re not prepared to do that. We talk about things going too far but we’re never really prepared to actually go too far ourselves. And so it will continue.”

So, how do we do something about them?

The first step is to jettison a foundational error from our thinking. We need to drop a concept to which we have wrongly attributed the success of our civilisation: the concept of equality.

Now, to this, every properly educated classic liberal and libertarian says that they oppose equality of outcomes, but that equality of opportunity and equality before the law are essential. The problem with this is that if we give the concept of equality any credence whatsoever, we find ourselves immediately on the slippery slope, and the left have the higher ground.

The right support equality of opportunity because it is ultimately of most benefit to society, and because those of us who support equality of opportunity generally benefit from it the most. As Ayn Rand points out though, the former is irrelevant – one does not need to justify the utility to society of one’s choices, as long as no-one is harmed, the sanctity of the individual is all the justification one needs for one’s own choices.

The problem is that there will always be a greater constituency for those who promote equality of outcomes. Because of the bell curve, the less intelligent or diligent half of the population will always be drawn to promises of income redistributed to them, and there will always be those from the right side of the bell curve who see more benefit in promoting equality of outcomes rather than equality of opportunity. Again, the fact that although equality of outcomes is ultimately more harmful to society than equality of opportunity, yet it is promoted on the grounds that it is more beneficial to society, is neither here nor there.

If you accept any type of equality as a good thing, equality of outcomes, you accept the oppression, starvation and genocide that, sometimes slowly, sometimes quickly, but always inevitably, it brings. Equality is its own slippery slope.

Cultural Marxism, and the tactics of Saul Alinsky, utilise this slippery slope perfectly. The key insight of Cultural Marxism was that traditional ties to family, religion and nation in the West were the buffer against the mobilisation of the proletariat in favour of socialism. Thus, Cultural Marxism works to tear down these pillars of Western civilisation in order to bring about economic Marxism. Equality is its nuclear bomb.

Equality is how we have gone from freeing the slaves to enacting laws which threaten jail for not using someone’s preferred pronoun, and tearing down or otherwise altering statues commemorating its past, in barely a century and a half. You may want to return to basing suffrage on property ownership alone, but there will always be the less diligent landowners for whom backing labor over capital proves more beneficial. There will always be the beta for whom backing women’s suffrage will always appear a likely way to get him a sympathy shag. And once women get the vote, the government is more inclined to intervene in people’s affairs rather than let the best man win.

So, you want to protect the statue of Captain Cook? You want to keep Australia Day as Australia Day? You want to defend our European heritage, history, and culture?

Stuff equality.

Embrace your European heritage.

Identity trumps equality every time.

Identity is love, love of one’s heritage, history and culture. The 300 Greeks didn’t fight off the Persian army for equality. Rome wasn’t built on equality. China hasn’t lasted for 3000 years on equality. Our diggers didn’t go over the top for equality. Hell, Australia wasn’t even discovered and then civilised on the basis of equality. It was for fealty, duty and loyalty, to one’s king, country and family, by people who knew who they were and weren’t the slightest bit sorry for it.

Unlike equality of opportunity, identity doesn’t need a constituency of 50% to win. It just needs a critical mass.

You want to defend your civilisation?

You want to win?

Embrace your identity, white man.