> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://goodoil.news/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# The Heresy They Can’t Even Explain
- URL: https://goodoil.news/the-heresy-they-cant-even-explain/
- Published: 2026-09-03T22:00:13.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-03T22:00:12.000Z
- Description: The left attacked Pauline Hanson for advocating monoculturalism: they can’t even explain what it is.
- Author: Lushington Brady
- Tags: AUS Politics, Culture

When the mediaeval folk reacted with violent horror against heresy, they at least had the excuse of sincerity. They knew perfectly well what heresy was and why it was such a threat. Heresy was not, to the mediaeval mind, just an individual sin. It was a collective existential calamity, because it ran the real risk, they thought, of God withdrawing his favour from the entire community.

When **Pauline Hanson** committed the modern heresy of advocating Monoculturalism, the gibbering chorus of howler monkeys screeching in outrage didn’t even have the excuse of sincerity. The Church of the Multicult couldn’t even define what Monoculturalism means, let alone why it’s apparently such a dire threat to their cherished order.

Sydney University sociologist **Salvatore Babones**, on the other hand, has a very good idea of what Monoculturalism is. Not only that, but why it is in fact the perfect fit for the precious ‘social cohesion’ Hanson’s detractors bang on so much about. Definitions, as **Konstantin Kisin** has also pointed out, actually matter. In a *Civilisational Moment* essay for **John Anderson**, Babones argued that Hanson was, in the only sense that counts, right.

> [“Australia ‘must be monocultural’](https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2026/08/31/pauline-hanson-monocultural-cohesion/?ref=goodoil.news) in order to successfully absorb massive numbers of immigrants while maintaining social cohesion.”  
>  
> Monoculturalism, he said, allows for assimilation.  
>  
> Without a monoculture to integrate into, immigrants are segregated into us vs them ghettos.

That is not cohesion. It is a holding pen.

Assimilation, for Babones, an American academic who has spent his working life in Australia, means adopting the country you moved to. That is why Australia, America, Canada and New Zealand have been, for the most part, immigration success stories. Emphasis on the past tense.

Beginning in the 1970s, the left turned assimilation into a swear-word almost as offensive as ‘racist’. But when people refuse to assimilate they do not merely stall themselves. They split the host society “with terrible consequences”. Multiculturalism invites sectarianism, then slaps a slogan over the crack and calls anyone who notices a racist. Diversity is our strength, until it isn’t.

> The “promise of monoculturalism”, Babones argued, is the process of assimilation. Adults leave the tribal hatreds of their origin countries at the port of entry.

Instead, now they’re not just expected to import them into their tribal ghettos, but the left openly encourage them. As poet **Les Murray** put it, “Ethnics who praise their home ground while on it are called jingo chauvinists. All’s permitted, though, when they migrate; the least adaptable are the purest then, the narrowest the most multicultural.”

“Successful immigrants,” says Babones, “adjust their behaviours to the cultural expectations of their new homes.” In other words: you came here. This is how we do things. Join in, or do not expect the rest of us to rearrange the furniture around your imported grudges.

> Aligning with arguments about why multiculturalism has failed, Babones notes that assimilation in the United States is a success because the immigrants have joined that community.  
>  
> By contrast, Western Europe is vastly different. “Natives and immigrants live in separate and unequal communities,” he explained. “‘Integration’ is the goal these countries have spectacularly failed to achieve.”  
>  
> The European mass immigration, multicultural story speaks of “crime, social exclusion and welfare dependency.”

Turning their own pieties back on them, Babones says that activists who “disparage assimilation… are unwitting segregationists”. Today’s ‘Multicultural’ ghettos are a far cry from the Chinatowns or Little Italys of old, where the faces might be different, but the shopkeepers spoke English and no one ran the risk of being beaten up for wearing a cross or raped for being a white woman unaccompanied by male relatives.

> Most people, Babones said, don’t even understand the term multiculturalism.  
>  
> It’s thrown about by politicians because it’s the nice “inclusive” thing to say, not because it’s right.  
>  
> “Ironically,” Babones said, “true multiculturalism is in effect a philosophy of separateness,” not inclusion.  
>  
> “It’s a terrible policy.”

True ‘Multiculturalism’ would mean openly advocating that female genital mutilation, cousin marriage, child marriage and even cannibalism are valid lifestyle choices. The left are almost there, but almost every sensible person who mouths the required platitudes would recoil in horror.

But that would require the sort of honesty that’s the deepest heresy the Multicult could imagine.

---

💡

****If you enjoyed this article please share it using the share buttons at the top or bottom of the article.**