Australian Nationalism
John
FOR
AUSTRALIAN NATIONALISM
A paper by
Graeme Campbell
December 2001
"There is nothing new in this paper in as much as everything contained
herein is on the public record somewhere.
What I have attempted to do is to assemble the facts into a coherent
sequence so that the debate that we must have can go forward from a
relatively informed basis.
I see this paper as a starting point and I am well aware
that there is much I have not fully addressed.
I thank all those who have made comments on the draft paper and in
particular - Denis McCormack for his tireless
and accurate research."
Graeme Campbell
1. WINNING CONDITIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN NATIONALISM
We on the moderate nationalist side of politics welcome the give-and-take of
political debate. We believe that our position is the best reasoned and can
only benefit from exposure, but our opponents demand a monopoly in the media
and in our parliaments. They fear the voices who stand up for Australia's
predominant ethnic interest - those of Anglo Celt and European background.
We have seen this intolerance demonstrated incrementally by the chorus of
denunciations of Professor Blainey in 1984 and John Howard in 1988. I then
became a target for my support of Australians Against Further Immigration in
the early 1990's, Australia First, and in more recent times of Pauline
Hanson and One Nation. Bob Hawke had me censured by the Parliament for
saying that we should slow down the rate of South East Asian immigration to
a level that we could accommodate. It did not occur to me that this was
racist as I considered it common sense. This crescendo of intolerance has
been building, ironically but aptly, since 1984.
I believe the cause is that the multicultural elites who have been forcing
radical change on this Country know that their aims, if clearly understood,
would be rejected outright by the Australian people. That is also, why, with
rare exceptions, immigration policy continued to be "bipartisan" even after
the Australian people began to oppose mass immigration after the dismantling
of the White Australia Policy from Whitlam onwards. When Malcolm Fraser
committed the Liberal Party to multiculturalism in 1974, this eliminated
choice for the Australian electorate because Whitlam and Grassby had adopted
the same policy for the Labor Party. The Melbourne sociologist Katharine
Betts has argued that high levels of immigration (and by extension high
levels of non-European immigration) have been imposed on the Australian
people by a bipartisan conspiracy of the political elite. Betts refers to
the same view expressed, though proudly, by ex-Prime Minister Bob Hawke, as
a participant.
Hawke discussed the importance of keeping non-White immigration out of the
hands of the electorate at a Government conference on immigration policy
held in May 1993. He said it was "quite unique" in Australian politics that
for most of the post-World War II period the major parties had maintained
bipartisan support for immigration in the face of public opposition. "with
the common cement of ACTU support to advance the national interest ahead of
where they believed the electorate to be". "Unique" indeed! Australia is a
democratic society, and from the early 1970s onwards, most Australians have
opposed what was being done to them by their major political parties in the
realm of immigration. Katharine Betts has tracked the extent of support and
opposition for immigration from 1954 to 1996, and found a dramatic fall in
support and rise in opposition from around 1967 to 1972, the period when the
White Australia Policy was dismantled.
This helps explain why the multicultural lobby wants to silence nationalist
voices. They sense that their message is so unnatural, so counter-intuitive,
so lacking in common sense, that, to have their message taken seriously,
political and media monopoly was essential. Dissenting voices need to be
silenced. Until the recent post-election reflections, we have seen this
process almost every day as journalists and politicians are intimidated into
toeing the party line, and for the vast majority this is still the case.
The multiculturalists are right to fear the Australian people's good
judgment. That is why the nationalist winning condition is far more modest.
We only need a fair say to have our ideas accepted; we don't need or want to
silence other viewpoints.
2. MORE ON MULTICULTURALISM'S UNDEMOCRATIC NATURE
Dr. Mark Lopez has pointed out in his important book on multiculturalism,
that the multicultural movement has always been secretive, has always
mistrusted the Australian people, and has always relied on infiltrating
committees and agencies to surreptitiously foist a destructive policy on
Australia. Lopez writes:
"The source of the shift towards multiculturalism in public policy was not
parliamentarians, vulnerable at elections, but the influence exerted by
multiculturalists from positions in the Immigration Advisory Council (IAC),
the Migrant Task Force Committees, the Immigration Department's Integration
Branch, non-government organisations like ACOSS, or through lobbying
relevant Government ministers. . . . The multiculturalists could potentially
maintain their degree of influence as long as they maintained their
strategic presence in these committees and agencies."
Even Al Grassby was seen as expendable by the shadowy backroom operators,
who treated our elected representatives as tools, not as honest spokesmen of
sincerely held policies. The ethnic revolution that has taken place in
Australia since the 1970s has never been the result of democratic process.
In fact, it has been quite the opposite. Gough Whitlam destroyed the Old
Department of Immigration for example, because he knew that people loyal to
Australia as a nation in the European tradition manned this Department. It
was a Department painstakingly built up over many decades by governments
whose ethnic policies were publicly stated. The Department was charged with
maintaining a homogeneous Australia, one free of the endemic ethnic
conflicts experienced by multi-ethnic societies overseas. Whitlam dismantled
it, partly because it contained the old guard of Australia's ethnic
interests appointed by true Australian leaders like Labor's Caldwell and the
Liberal's Menzies.
Another reason for Whitlam's mistrust of the old Immigration Department was
that the Australian people had rejected Al Grassby, the departmental
minister from 1972 to 1974. In other words, the dismantling of the
Department of Immigration was a tactic meant to circumvent Australian
democracy. Instead of democratic choice being allowed to dismantle
multiculturalism and the prospect of mass Asian immigration, elite
multiculturalists had dismantled and circumvented expressions of democratic
will.
The multicultural establishment emphasizes the rights of minorities against
the "tyranny of the majority". But what is multiculturalism? What should we
call a regime that has replaced relative ethnic harmony with polarization,
conflict, and a campaign of vilification against the majority ethnic group?
What should we call a situation where racial minorities are displacing our
own people in the professions and therefore poised to play a
disproportionate role in governing the Country? It should not be necessary
to remind those who have led this Country to its present situation that the
worst tyranny is when majority interests are subordinated to a minority.
That is why aristocracy has been overthrown throughout the West. That is why
we resent conquest by other countries, because this usually leads to the
loss of liberty, not only individual liberty, but also the right of a people
to govern their own affairs. Multiculturalism is tyrannical in its methods.
Mass Asian immigration was foisted on the Australian people without their
permission; no referendum or even an election campaign was ever fought on
the issue. Yet survey after survey has indicated that a large majority
preferred a European Australia. Australians, like all other peoples, prefer
to live among their own people.
Compare the undemocratic, surreptitious methods and goals of Whitlam,
Fraser, Hawke, and Keating with the forthright, open declaration of then
Prime Minister Alfred Deakin during the first session of Australia's Federal
Parliament in 1901:
"However limited we may be for a time by self imposed restrictions upon
settlement-however much we may sacrifice in the way of immediate monetary
gain-however much we may retard the development of the remote and tropical
portions of our territory-those sacrifices for the future of Australia are
little, and are, indeed, nothing when compared with the compensating freedom
from the trials, sufferings and losses that nearly wrecked the Great
Republic of the West".
Restrictive immigration was a plank in the nation-building program of the
early nationalists of Federation as they sought to build an egalitarian and
cohesive community - but look in vain for any such common sense in the texts
of the much promoted but misnamed Centenary of Federation Deakin Lectures of
May 2001. They reek of the most perverse anti-Australian multicultural
sentiment, with its characteristic irrationality and ignorance of human
nature and history.
Multiculturalism is the legacy of Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, and Keating who,
for a variety of reasons, put the interests of minorities ahead of those of
the Australian people. What have they done to us? They have tried to change
who we are, as a walk through any capital city attests.
3. DIVERSITY, SOCIAL COHESION, AND WELFARE
The suppression of open debate on Australia's ethnic future has resulted in
some remarkably self-defeating constellations of ideas. For example, the
Left is proudly anti-discriminatory in its immigration policies, but
simultaneously advocates an egalitarian social structure with generous
welfare. In fact, ethnic and racial diversity produces inequality and
depresses welfare. This was known by Australia's founding fathers, but has
become politically incorrect, one suspects precisely because such knowledge
would have impeded the multicultural industry.
The economic rationalist Right is also muddled. Many believe that Australia'
s economic future can only be secured with permanently high levels of
immigration, from anywhere and everywhere that people can be found. In fact,
economic data indicate that the most efficient, prosperous nations are the
most homogeneous. Ethnic diversity creates pressures on government to
conduct "pork-barrel" politics that result in suboptimal economic policies.
In keeping with John Stuart Mills' views on the advantages of ethnically
homogeneous nation states, the global trend is towards ethnic groups seeking
autonomy in their own nations by separating from multi-ethnic states. The
resulting homogeneous states then become more prosperous once freed from the
corruption and inequality endemic in multicultural societies.
It would seem that Australia's architects in the late 19th and early 20th
century were right and the modern elites who imposed multiculturalism and
ethnic diversity on the country were ignorant and short-sighted.
The extreme Left unions actually believe and promote borderless states. The
paradox here is that there is nothing else that would more severely damage
the very quality of life and general welfare of the people they purport to
support. In many cases it is the people they are selling out who pay their
wages as their union leaders.
Borderless states are the golden grail of communists, religious zealots and
extreme capitalists alike. Their joint aim in this desire is not the welfare
of the citizens but their own aggrandisement or the fulfilment of their own
utopian ideology.
A survey of British Muslims carried out in Britain by "The Sunday Times"
October 2001 found that when asked the question "Which is more important to
you: (a) To be Muslim? (b) To be British? 68% of the respondents declared to
be Muslim was more important. 14% said it was more important to be British,
and 18% were undecided." The survey was the largest since the bombing of
Afghanistan began and interviewed 1172 people.
The survey also exposed many other examples of the breakdown of social
cohesion. There can be no reason to believe that a similar poll in Australia
or the USA would be any different.
Some of Australia's intellectual elites would argue that the opposition of
multiculturalism infers an opposition to the tenets of individual freedom,
the freedom of speech, the freedom to succeed, the freedom of faith, and the
freedom to expect a high standard of human rights for example. In fact, the
exact opposite is true with the aim of those opposed to multiculturalism
being to protect these freedoms before they are further eroded. What the
multicultural debate has lacked is truth and honesty.
The official ideal of what the Australian multicultural state is simply
defies the reality. On November 15, 2001, Mr Carr the Premier of NSW
convened a meeting of religious leaders. They predictably pontificated that
all Australians should live in harmony and be united by our differences and
a greater love of humanity. If history has taught us anything, it is that
differences within a nation divide and weaken it, making it vulnerable to
exploitation. It is indeed difficult to imagine how Australian society could
be united along side the "The political objectives of Islam," as promulgated
by Dr. Kalim Siddiquie, which are as follows:
1. To eliminate all authority other than Allah and his prophet.
2. To eliminate nationalism in all its forms, in particular the Nation
States.
3. To reconstruct the world of Islamic movements into a single global
Islamic movement to establish the Islamic state.
4. To reconstruct the world of Islam....to express the unity of the worlds
Islamic community.
5. To eliminate all political, economic, social, cultural and philosophical
influences of Western civilisation that have penetrated ...Islam.
6. To re-establish a dominant and global Islamic civilisation based on...the
unity of Allah.
7. To create the necessary institutions for the pursuit of that which Allah
approves and the forbidding of that which Allah disapproves.
8. To establish justice [Sharia Law] in all human relationships at all
levels throughout the world.
Time and again, we receive examples of what the desires of fundamentalist
Islam are. Their objectives are clear, and yet we still invite them to share
their way of life. The followers of fundamentalist Islam express contempt
for the West especially in relation to the Western concept of
multiculturalism. This contempt is mirrored by the disregard shown by our
own leaders for the wishes of the majority of Australian people.
4. THE DAMAGE DONE
(A) SEPARATION OF CITY AND COUNTRY; AND THE POLARISATION OF THE COMMUNITY
Driving from a country town into a large metropolis is a journey between two
different countries. Rural Australia preserves the old Australia. Post
1960's immigrants, especially Asians, have stayed in the large cities,
transforming them. The distance between city and country, an inevitable
result of differences in economy and lifestyle, has grown into a yawning
chasm of racial divides. Our large cities, especially the poorer suburbs
where the residents are subject to the whims of the politicians, are now
multicultural 'non-nations', while the hinterland remains true to the dream
of our founding fathers. Australia's greatest poet, Les Murray, has
expressed this in heartfelt words:
"They are creating an Australia that is exclusive. Multicultural, they call
it. But they are discriminatory; they exclude. They are the ruling elite of
today's Australia: the cultural bureaucrats, the academics, the
intellectuals . . . They are excluding people like me from their
Australia-the country people, the rednecks, the Anglo-Celts, the farming
people-they have turned their backs on us. They act as though they despise
us . . . We Old Australians, not always Anglo but having no other country
but this one, are now mostly caught and silenced between the indigenous and
the multicultural".
(B) CRIME
The inevitable has happened. The less assailable minorities hold White
Australians in contempt. "Fraser's children" are raping our young women,
feeding the drug plague, terrorizing ghetto suburbs, and murdering those
that try to stand against them; remember John Newman, MP for Cabramatta.
(C) STRATIFICATION BY RACE
Asianisation is proceeding apace in the Australian professional elite. Paul
Sheehan reports that in 1996 Asian-Australians, mainly ethnic Chinese, won
over 36% of the top 5,000 positions in the New South Wales Higher School
Certificate, an overrepresentation of about 500%. Chinese representation
approached dominance in several maths and science-based disciplines. Of the
top ten places, Asians of mainly Chinese ancestry won 8 places in chemistry,
7 in 4 unit mathematics (the most difficult level), 7 in 3 unit music, 6 in
3 unit mathematics, 4 in 2 unit physics, 4 in 3 unit economics, and so on.
The pattern was repeated in 1997, when 17 of the top 42 students were
Asian-Australian, including the only two students to achieve a perfect
overall score. Sheehan remarks, "This is a social revolution".
More accurately, it is an ethnic transition of the professional class. These
outstanding performances will flow through to Asian-Australian
overrepresentation in the university system and actual dominance in some
maths-and-science based disciplines, and, as elsewhere, Chinese performance
in business is exemplary. Even without further Asian immigration, the
outcome will be a disproportionate Asian representation among Australia's
professional and business elites. In fact, Asian immigration, though
marginally slower in recent years, continues, and Asian-Australians, both
immigrants and Australian born, are projected to grow from 8.2% of the
population in 1996 to 19.5% by 2025, by which time "The Anglo Celtic share
will fall to 62.2%."
Australians need feel no embarrassment at the relative success of ethnic
Chinese immigrants. By and large, these immigrants are an elite group
selected from a total population numbering well over one thousand million.
The most enterprising and highly educated tend to present themselves as
immigrants and be selected by our bureaucrats. These qualities are held to
'enrich' Australia, which is true to a point. It also makes them fierce
competitors with our own people. Essentially, our young people are being
pushed into competition with elements of an elite group selected from a
quarter of the world's population.
It is not as if we were not getting along as a Nation. Our traditional
immigration policy had helped maintain Australia as a Country of rare civic
peacefulness, of relative equality, of prosperity and continued economic
growth. Moreover, we were a self-governing society, whose elite was drawn
from families across this great continent and who identified with the
Australian people. The Australia of the 1950s, gratuitously mocked by Donald
Horne in his misnamed book, The Lucky Country, was a work in progress. Our
ancestors had carved a magnificent infrastructure out of a wilderness, and
their grandchildren were poised to take their place in that new society.
Horne and so many other multiculturalists have mocked us for not having
reached Paris or London or New York standards by 1950. They recommended
racial change as a way of breaking down the philistine Australian spirit,
but what has become of these great centres of culture, which embraced racial
change? They are in the process of displacing their own peoples! Official
projections indicate that Britain will be minority white by the end of this
century ; America's ethnic revolution will come much earlier, by 2060.
Why is rapid ethnic change of Australia's elite bad for Australia? The next
generation of Australians will have a minority race making up a
disproportionate number of their elites. This puts White Australians in the
position of the minorities who have complained so long about
under-representation in leading positions. Well, now Fraser and Hawke have
inflicted the same circumstance on their own people. Why? What did we do
wrong that we deserved such punishment from our leaders? What is to become
of our young people who are being pushed out of the careers that are
legitimately theirs?
Why is the infrastructure of schools and universities and the professions
they supply with graduates, an infrastructure built up over generations of
hard work by White Australians, being handed from their own children and
grandchildren to the children of different peoples?
It is never healthy when a minority rules a majority. This is especially the
case when the racial minority is inward looking, endogamous, and has a long
history of ethnic chauvinism.
The contempt felt by many Chinese-Australians for Australians of European
descent is well documented in such books as The Year the Dragon Came (1996)
. This new elite will come to power just as China makes it presence felt in
Australia's region with our pro-Asia policy settings, acting as a magnet to
its 50 million overseas Chinese, let alone the overcrowded mainland Chinese
cities.
Multiculturalism and the ethnic change it promotes are an Hobbesian disaster
for the Australian people of today, and is leading our children and
grandchildren towards loss of resources, dignity, and independence.
5. SOME IDEAS ON AUSTRALIAN ETHNIC INTERESTS
So, what of the rights of the Australian people? We may be a majority, for
the time being, within Australia's borders, but remember that we are a tiny
minority in the region of South East Asia and, further afield, East and
Southern Asia. The combined population of India, China, and Indonesia alone
is about 3,000 million. In that sense, we share an interest with countries
of similar size, with Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and
Burma. It is certainly not in their interests to allow large-scale
immigration of other nationalities, including White Australians. Would we be
terribly offended if another country refused to allow hundreds of thousands
of Australians to enter as immigrants, and gave as one of their reasons a
love of their identity and homogeneity? How insensitive that would be of us!
How rude! How aggressive! We have our own Country, isn't that good enough?
Every ethnic group has an interest in maintaining itself; in retaining a
territory whose borders it controls and which it calls home. In a just
world, every ethnic group would have the right to its own country. This is
the cry of Zionism, of Jews who long for the dignity and freedom to live
among their own people, to be a secure majority in at least one place in the
world. Australia is our Israel, in more ways than one. We have come to
appreciate the lot of the Aboriginal people. How can any honest person feel
sympathy for one people alienated from their land and not understand the
wish of White Australians not to lose their country? Why are the Australian
people held in such contempt by the multiculturalists?
6. ON THE JEWISH ASSAULT ON ONE NATION
I have long been criticised by Jewish commentators for my low immigration
and anti-multiculturalism stance. What is noteworthy is that these critics
refer to their ethnicity as a reason for rejecting our policies of national
interest, in particular our identification with Australia as a predominantly
European nation and the policies on immigration and multiculturalism that
flow logically from that sentiment. The self-proclaimed Jewish
identification of some of our most vociferous critics is puzzling. For one
thing, I am not convinced that these critics represent the average Jewish
Australian. Yet they say that because they are Jewish they oppose us, and
say so in the most unambiguous terms. This is not a passing fashion. Mark
Lopez concludes that the late Walter Lippmann, the leader of the Melbourne
Jewish community was the most important lobbyist for multiculturalism during
the nineteen sixties and seventies.
What is puzzling about this?
These critics are, in effect, criticizing themselves, or rather a broader
and more tolerant version of their own frame of mind. For those who love
Australia, for those whose only homeland is Australia, this continent is our
Promised Land. It escapes me how anyone who loves his or her people cannot
feel sympathy for others who feel likewise about their people. It's like
someone who loves his or her children and who puts them first, failing to
accord other parents the right to treat their children with special
affection. Some of our Jewish critics have very different feelings about
Israel. Isi Leibler, Chairman of the World Jewish Congress, has explicitly
stated that while Israel is for the Jews, Australians must have
multiculturalism. What sort of insensitivity-what sort of hypocrisy-is this?
Is the charge of hypocrisy too strong? Consider the facts. These critics are
Jewish activists who belong to organized Jewish groups. They are similar to
One Nation in the strength of their commitment to their people. They are
Jewish patriots, just as we are Australian patriots. The main difference is
the object of loyalty. They care passionately about Jewish interests and
much of their politics is predicated on that understandable ethnic loyalty.
We make no bones about our ethnic identification. We say that Australia is
populated mainly by people of European descent, but that identity
encompasses Gentile and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Old and New
Australians. While we extend equal respect to Australians of non-European
descent, the fact is that Australia is predominantly European and since
Australia is a democratic country, our ethnic interest is a European one.
This is accepted and indeed welcomed by many minority groups who accept that
the status quo is more tolerant than any of the conceivable options.
1. WINNING CONDITIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN NATIONALISM
We on the moderate nationalist side of politics welcome the give-and-take of
political debate. We believe that our position is the best reasoned and can
only benefit from exposure, but our opponents demand a monopoly in the media
and in our parliaments. They fear the voices who stand up for Australia's
predominant ethnic interest - those of Anglo Celt and European background.
We have seen this intolerance demonstrated incrementally by the chorus of
denunciations of Professor Blainey in 1984 and John Howard in 1988. I then
became a target for my support of Australians Against Further Immigration in
the early 1990's, Australia First, and in more recent times of Pauline
Hanson and One Nation. Bob Hawke had me censured by the Parliament for
saying that we should slow down the rate of South East Asian immigration to
a level that we could accommodate. It did not occur to me that this was
racist as I considered it common sense. This crescendo of intolerance has
been building, ironically but aptly, since 1984.
I believe the cause is that the multicultural elites who have been forcing
radical change on this Country know that their aims, if clearly understood,
would be rejected outright by the Australian people. That is also, why, with
rare exceptions, immigration policy continued to be "bipartisan" even after
the Australian people began to oppose mass immigration after the dismantling
of the White Australia Policy from Whitlam onwards. When Malcolm Fraser
committed the Liberal Party to multiculturalism in 1974, this eliminated
choice for the Australian electorate because Whitlam and Grassby had adopted
the same policy for the Labor Party. The Melbourne sociologist Katharine
Betts has argued that high levels of immigration (and by extension high
levels of non-European immigration) have been imposed on the Australian
people by a bipartisan conspiracy of the political elite. Betts refers to
the same view expressed, though proudly, by ex-Prime Minister Bob Hawke, as
a participant.
Hawke discussed the importance of keeping non-White immigration out of the
hands of the electorate at a Government conference on immigration policy
held in May 1993. He said it was "quite unique" in Australian politics that
for most of the post-World War II period the major parties had maintained
bipartisan support for immigration in the face of public opposition. "with
the common cement of ACTU support to advance the national interest ahead of
where they believed the electorate to be". "Unique" indeed! Australia is a
democratic society, and from the early 1970s onwards, most Australians have
opposed what was being done to them by their major political parties in the
realm of immigration. Katharine Betts has tracked the extent of support and
opposition for immigration from 1954 to 1996, and found a dramatic fall in
support and rise in opposition from around 1967 to 1972, the period when the
White Australia Policy was dismantled.
This helps explain why the multicultural lobby wants to silence nationalist
voices. They sense that their message is so unnatural, so counter-intuitive,
so lacking in common sense, that, to have their message taken seriously,
political and media monopoly was essential. Dissenting voices need to be
silenced. Until the recent post-election reflections, we have seen this
process almost every day as journalists and politicians are intimidated into
toeing the party line, and for the vast majority this is still the case.
The multiculturalists are right to fear the Australian people's good
judgment. That is why the nationalist winning condition is far more modest.
We only need a fair say to have our ideas accepted; we don't need or want to
silence other viewpoints.
2. MORE ON MULTICULTURALISM'S UNDEMOCRATIC NATURE
Dr. Mark Lopez has pointed out in his important book on multiculturalism,
that the multicultural movement has always been secretive, has always
mistrusted the Australian people, and has always relied on infiltrating
committees and agencies to surreptitiously foist a destructive policy on
Australia. Lopez writes:
"The source of the shift towards multiculturalism in public policy was not
parliamentarians, vulnerable at elections, but the influence exerted by
multiculturalists from positions in the Immigration Advisory Council (IAC),
the Migrant Task Force Committees, the Immigration Department's Integration
Branch, non-government organisations like ACOSS, or through lobbying
relevant Government ministers. . . . The multiculturalists could potentially
maintain their degree of influence as long as they maintained their
strategic presence in these committees and agencies."
Even Al Grassby was seen as expendable by the shadowy backroom operators,
who treated our elected representatives as tools, not as honest spokesmen of
sincerely held policies. The ethnic revolution that has taken place in
Australia since the 1970s has never been the result of democratic process.
In fact, it has been quite the opposite. Gough Whitlam destroyed the Old
Department of Immigration for example, because he knew that people loyal to
Australia as a nation in the European tradition manned this Department. It
was a Department painstakingly built up over many decades by governments
whose ethnic policies were publicly stated. The Department was charged with
maintaining a homogeneous Australia, one free of the endemic ethnic
conflicts experienced by multi-ethnic societies overseas. Whitlam dismantled
it, partly because it contained the old guard of Australia's ethnic
interests appointed by true Australian leaders like Labor's Caldwell and the
Liberal's Menzies.
Another reason for Whitlam's mistrust of the old Immigration Department was
that the Australian people had rejected Al Grassby, the departmental
minister from 1972 to 1974. In other words, the dismantling of the
Department of Immigration was a tactic meant to circumvent Australian
democracy. Instead of democratic choice being allowed to dismantle
multiculturalism and the prospect of mass Asian immigration, elite
multiculturalists had dismantled and circumvented expressions of democratic
will.
The multicultural establishment emphasizes the rights of minorities against
the "tyranny of the majority". But what is multiculturalism? What should we
call a regime that has replaced relative ethnic harmony with polarization,
conflict, and a campaign of vilification against the majority ethnic group?
What should we call a situation where racial minorities are displacing our
own people in the professions and therefore poised to play a
disproportionate role in governing the Country? It should not be necessary
to remind those who have led this Country to its present situation that the
worst tyranny is when majority interests are subordinated to a minority.
That is why aristocracy has been overthrown throughout the West. That is why
we resent conquest by other countries, because this usually leads to the
loss of liberty, not only individual liberty, but also the right of a people
to govern their own affairs. Multiculturalism is tyrannical in its methods.
Mass Asian immigration was foisted on the Australian people without their
permission; no referendum or even an election campaign was ever fought on
the issue. Yet survey after survey has indicated that a large majority
preferred a European Australia. Australians, like all other peoples, prefer
to live among their own people.
Compare the undemocratic, surreptitious methods and goals of Whitlam,
Fraser, Hawke, and Keating with the forthright, open declaration of then
Prime Minister Alfred Deakin during the first session of Australia's Federal
Parliament in 1901:
"However limited we may be for a time by self imposed restrictions upon
settlement-however much we may sacrifice in the way of immediate monetary
gain-however much we may retard the development of the remote and tropical
portions of our territory-those sacrifices for the future of Australia are
little, and are, indeed, nothing when compared with the compensating freedom
from the trials, sufferings and losses that nearly wrecked the Great
Republic of the West".
Restrictive immigration was a plank in the nation-building program of the
early nationalists of Federation as they sought to build an egalitarian and
cohesive community - but look in vain for any such common sense in the texts
of the much promoted but misnamed Centenary of Federation Deakin Lectures of
May 2001. They reek of the most perverse anti-Australian multicultural
sentiment, with its characteristic irrationality and ignorance of human
nature and history.
Multiculturalism is the legacy of Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, and Keating who,
for a variety of reasons, put the interests of minorities ahead of those of
the Australian people. What have they done to us? They have tried to change
who we are, as a walk through any capital city attests.
3. DIVERSITY, SOCIAL COHESION, AND WELFARE
The suppression of open debate on Australia's ethnic future has resulted in
some remarkably self-defeating constellations of ideas. For example, the
Left is proudly anti-discriminatory in its immigration policies, but
simultaneously advocates an egalitarian social structure with generous
welfare. In fact, ethnic and racial diversity produces inequality and
depresses welfare. This was known by Australia's founding fathers, but has
become politically incorrect, one suspects precisely because such knowledge
would have impeded the multicultural industry.
The economic rationalist Right is also muddled. Many believe that Australia'
s economic future can only be secured with permanently high levels of
immigration, from anywhere and everywhere that people can be found. In fact,
economic data indicate that the most efficient, prosperous nations are the
most homogeneous. Ethnic diversity creates pressures on government to
conduct "pork-barrel" politics that result in suboptimal economic policies.
In keeping with John Stuart Mills' views on the advantages of ethnically
homogeneous nation states, the global trend is towards ethnic groups seeking
autonomy in their own nations by separating from multi-ethnic states. The
resulting homogeneous states then become more prosperous once freed from the
corruption and inequality endemic in multicultural societies.
It would seem that Australia's architects in the late 19th and early 20th
century were right and the modern elites who imposed multiculturalism and
ethnic diversity on the country were ignorant and short-sighted.
The extreme Left unions actually believe and promote borderless states. The
paradox here is that there is nothing else that would more severely damage
the very quality of life and general welfare of the people they purport to
support. In many cases it is the people they are selling out who pay their
wages as their union leaders.
Borderless states are the golden grail of communists, religious zealots and
extreme capitalists alike. Their joint aim in this desire is not the welfare
of the citizens but their own aggrandisement or the fulfilment of their own
utopian ideology.
A survey of British Muslims carried out in Britain by "The Sunday Times"
October 2001 found that when asked the question "Which is more important to
you: (a) To be Muslim? (b) To be British? 68% of the respondents declared to
be Muslim was more important. 14% said it was more important to be British,
and 18% were undecided." The survey was the largest since the bombing of
Afghanistan began and interviewed 1172 people.
The survey also exposed many other examples of the breakdown of social
cohesion. There can be no reason to believe that a similar poll in Australia
or the USA would be any different.
Some of Australia's intellectual elites would argue that the opposition of
multiculturalism infers an opposition to the tenets of individual freedom,
the freedom of speech, the freedom to succeed, the freedom of faith, and the
freedom to expect a high standard of human rights for example. In fact, the
exact opposite is true with the aim of those opposed to multiculturalism
being to protect these freedoms before they are further eroded. What the
multicultural debate has lacked is truth and honesty.
The official ideal of what the Australian multicultural state is simply
defies the reality. On November 15, 2001, Mr Carr the Premier of NSW
convened a meeting of religious leaders. They predictably pontificated that
all Australians should live in harmony and be united by our differences and
a greater love of humanity. If history has taught us anything, it is that
differences within a nation divide and weaken it, making it vulnerable to
exploitation. It is indeed difficult to imagine how Australian society could
be united along side the "The political objectives of Islam," as promulgated
by Dr. Kalim Siddiquie, which are as follows:
1. To eliminate all authority other than Allah and his prophet.
2. To eliminate nationalism in all its forms, in particular the Nation
States.
3. To reconstruct the world of Islamic movements into a single global
Islamic movement to establish the Islamic state.
4. To reconstruct the world of Islam....to express the unity of the worlds
Islamic community.
5. To eliminate all political, economic, social, cultural and philosophical
influences of Western civilisation that have penetrated ...Islam.
6. To re-establish a dominant and global Islamic civilisation based on...the
unity of Allah.
7. To create the necessary institutions for the pursuit of that which Allah
approves and the forbidding of that which Allah disapproves.
8. To establish justice [Sharia Law] in all human relationships at all
levels throughout the world.
Time and again, we receive examples of what the desires of fundamentalist
Islam are. Their objectives are clear, and yet we still invite them to share
their way of life. The followers of fundamentalist Islam express contempt
for the West especially in relation to the Western concept of
multiculturalism. This contempt is mirrored by the disregard shown by our
own leaders for the wishes of the majority of Australian people.
4. THE DAMAGE DONE
(A) SEPARATION OF CITY AND COUNTRY; AND THE POLARISATION OF THE COMMUNITY
Driving from a country town into a large metropolis is a journey between two
different countries. Rural Australia preserves the old Australia. Post
1960's immigrants, especially Asians, have stayed in the large cities,
transforming them. The distance between city and country, an inevitable
result of differences in economy and lifestyle, has grown into a yawning
chasm of racial divides. Our large cities, especially the poorer suburbs
where the residents are subject to the whims of the politicians, are now
multicultural 'non-nations', while the hinterland remains true to the dream
of our founding fathers. Australia's greatest poet, Les Murray, has
expressed this in heartfelt words:
"They are creating an Australia that is exclusive. Multicultural, they call
it. But they are discriminatory; they exclude. They are the ruling elite of
today's Australia: the cultural bureaucrats, the academics, the
intellectuals . . . They are excluding people like me from their
Australia-the country people, the rednecks, the Anglo-Celts, the farming
people-they have turned their backs on us. They act as though they despise
us . . . We Old Australians, not always Anglo but having no other country
but this one, are now mostly caught and silenced between the indigenous and
the multicultural".
(B) CRIME
The inevitable has happened. The less assailable minorities hold White
Australians in contempt. "Fraser's children" are raping our young women,
feeding the drug plague, terrorizing ghetto suburbs, and murdering those
that try to stand against them; remember John Newman, MP for Cabramatta.
(C) STRATIFICATION BY RACE
Asianisation is proceeding apace in the Australian professional elite. Paul
Sheehan reports that in 1996 Asian-Australians, mainly ethnic Chinese, won
over 36% of the top 5,000 positions in the New South Wales Higher School
Certificate, an overrepresentation of about 500%. Chinese representation
approached dominance in several maths and science-based disciplines. Of the
top ten places, Asians of mainly Chinese ancestry won 8 places in chemistry,
7 in 4 unit mathematics (the most difficult level), 7 in 3 unit music, 6 in
3 unit mathematics, 4 in 2 unit physics, 4 in 3 unit economics, and so on.
The pattern was repeated in 1997, when 17 of the top 42 students were
Asian-Australian, including the only two students to achieve a perfect
overall score. Sheehan remarks, "This is a social revolution".
More accurately, it is an ethnic transition of the professional class. These
outstanding performances will flow through to Asian-Australian
overrepresentation in the university system and actual dominance in some
maths-and-science based disciplines, and, as elsewhere, Chinese performance
in business is exemplary. Even without further Asian immigration, the
outcome will be a disproportionate Asian representation among Australia's
professional and business elites. In fact, Asian immigration, though
marginally slower in recent years, continues, and Asian-Australians, both
immigrants and Australian born, are projected to grow from 8.2% of the
population in 1996 to 19.5% by 2025, by which time "The Anglo Celtic share
will fall to 62.2%."
Australians need feel no embarrassment at the relative success of ethnic
Chinese immigrants. By and large, these immigrants are an elite group
selected from a total population numbering well over one thousand million.
The most enterprising and highly educated tend to present themselves as
immigrants and be selected by our bureaucrats. These qualities are held to
'enrich' Australia, which is true to a point. It also makes them fierce
competitors with our own people. Essentially, our young people are being
pushed into competition with elements of an elite group selected from a
quarter of the world's population.
It is not as if we were not getting along as a Nation. Our traditional
immigration policy had helped maintain Australia as a Country of rare civic
peacefulness, of relative equality, of prosperity and continued economic
growth. Moreover, we were a self-governing society, whose elite was drawn
from families across this great continent and who identified with the
Australian people. The Australia of the 1950s, gratuitously mocked by Donald
Horne in his misnamed book, The Lucky Country, was a work in progress. Our
ancestors had carved a magnificent infrastructure out of a wilderness, and
their grandchildren were poised to take their place in that new society.
Horne and so many other multiculturalists have mocked us for not having
reached Paris or London or New York standards by 1950. They recommended
racial change as a way of breaking down the philistine Australian spirit,
but what has become of these great centres of culture, which embraced racial
change? They are in the process of displacing their own peoples! Official
projections indicate that Britain will be minority white by the end of this
century ; America's ethnic revolution will come much earlier, by 2060.
Why is rapid ethnic change of Australia's elite bad for Australia? The next
generation of Australians will have a minority race making up a
disproportionate number of their elites. This puts White Australians in the
position of the minorities who have complained so long about
under-representation in leading positions. Well, now Fraser and Hawke have
inflicted the same circumstance on their own people. Why? What did we do
wrong that we deserved such punishment from our leaders? What is to become
of our young people who are being pushed out of the careers that are
legitimately theirs?
Why is the infrastructure of schools and universities and the professions
they supply with graduates, an infrastructure built up over generations of
hard work by White Australians, being handed from their own children and
grandchildren to the children of different peoples?
It is never healthy when a minority rules a majority. This is especially the
case when the racial minority is inward looking, endogamous, and has a long
history of ethnic chauvinism.
The contempt felt by many Chinese-Australians for Australians of European
descent is well documented in such books as The Year the Dragon Came (1996)
. This new elite will come to power just as China makes it presence felt in
Australia's region with our pro-Asia policy settings, acting as a magnet to
its 50 million overseas Chinese, let alone the overcrowded mainland Chinese
cities.
Multiculturalism and the ethnic change it promotes are an Hobbesian disaster
for the Australian people of today, and is leading our children and
grandchildren towards loss of resources, dignity, and independence.
5. SOME IDEAS ON AUSTRALIAN ETHNIC INTERESTS
So, what of the rights of the Australian people? We may be a majority, for
the time being, within Australia's borders, but remember that we are a tiny
minority in the region of South East Asia and, further afield, East and
Southern Asia. The combined population of India, China, and Indonesia alone
is about 3,000 million. In that sense, we share an interest with countries
of similar size, with Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and
Burma. It is certainly not in their interests to allow large-scale
immigration of other nationalities, including White Australians. Would we be
terribly offended if another country refused to allow hundreds of thousands
of Australians to enter as immigrants, and gave as one of their reasons a
love of their identity and homogeneity? How insensitive that would be of us!
How rude! How aggressive! We have our own Country, isn't that good enough?
Every ethnic group has an interest in maintaining itself; in retaining a
territory whose borders it controls and which it calls home. In a just
world, every ethnic group would have the right to its own country. This is
the cry of Zionism, of Jews who long for the dignity and freedom to live
among their own people, to be a secure majority in at least one place in the
world. Australia is our Israel, in more ways than one. We have come to
appreciate the lot of the Aboriginal people. How can any honest person feel
sympathy for one people alienated from their land and not understand the
wish of White Australians not to lose their country? Why are the Australian
people held in such contempt by the multiculturalists?
6. ON THE JEWISH ASSAULT ON ONE NATION
I have long been criticised by Jewish commentators for my low immigration
and anti-multiculturalism stance. What is noteworthy is that these critics
refer to their ethnicity as a reason for rejecting our policies of national
interest, in particular our identification with Australia as a predominantly
European nation and the policies on immigration and multiculturalism that
flow logically from that sentiment. The self-proclaimed Jewish
identification of some of our most vociferous critics is puzzling. For one
thing, I am not convinced that these critics represent the average Jewish
Australian. Yet they say that because they are Jewish they oppose us, and
say so in the most unambiguous terms. This is not a passing fashion. Mark
Lopez concludes that the late Walter Lippmann, the leader of the Melbourne
Jewish community was the most important lobbyist for multiculturalism during
the nineteen sixties and seventies.
What is puzzling about this?
These critics are, in effect, criticizing themselves, or rather a broader
and more tolerant version of their own frame of mind. For those who love
Australia, for those whose only homeland is Australia, this continent is our
Promised Land. It escapes me how anyone who loves his or her people cannot
feel sympathy for others who feel likewise about their people. It's like
someone who loves his or her children and who puts them first, failing to
accord other parents the right to treat their children with special
affection. Some of our Jewish critics have very different feelings about
Israel. Isi Leibler, Chairman of the World Jewish Congress, has explicitly
stated that while Israel is for the Jews, Australians must have
multiculturalism. What sort of insensitivity-what sort of hypocrisy-is this?
Is the charge of hypocrisy too strong? Consider the facts. These critics are
Jewish activists who belong to organized Jewish groups. They are similar to
One Nation in the strength of their commitment to their people. They are
Jewish patriots, just as we are Australian patriots. The main difference is
the object of loyalty. They care passionately about Jewish interests and
much of their politics is predicated on that understandable ethnic loyalty.
We make no bones about our ethnic identification. We say that Australia is
populated mainly by people of European descent, but that identity
encompasses Gentile and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Old and New
Australians. While we extend equal respect to Australians of non-European
descent, the fact is that Australia is predominantly European and since
Australia is a democratic country, our ethnic interest is a European one.
This is accepted and indeed welcomed by many minority groups who accept that
the status quo is more tolerant than any of the conceivable options.
Bibliography
Mark Lopez, 2000, The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics
1945-1975, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, p. 259. Fraser had been
converted to multiculturalism in 1973 when he visited two Greek-Australian
activists, one a Marxist. The public had no idea of this conversion. Fraser
remarked two decades later, without remorse, "Anglo-Saxon Australia is dead.
This isn't the kind of society we are" (quoted by Lopez 2000, p. 440).
K. Betts, 2000, "Immigration: Public opinion and opinions about opinion."
People and Place: pp. 60-67. Vol.8 No.3
Melbourne Herald Sun, 25 May 1993, "Hawke Reveals Political Pact". See also
"The Social Contract" Vol.3 No.4 Summer 1993 (www.thesocialcontract.com) "Om
Mane Padme Hum" by Denis McCormack
Betts, 2000.
Lopez, Origins of Multiculturalism, p. 337.
The late Walter Lippmann, the Melbourne Jewish leader, who Lopez considers
to have been the most influential agitator for multiculturalism in Australia
"did not regard Grassby as indispensable, but perceived Whitlam's position
as crucial" (Lopez, p. 336).
Lopez, Origins of Multiculturalism, p. 339. "Whitlam . . . regarded the
senior officers of the Department as the custodians of the White Australia
policy, which he had abolished." Also: "No other minister wanted the
position after they had seen how Grassby and his family had suffered due to
the racist hate campaign. If the functions of the Department of Immigration
were shared among other departments, the racist groups could no longer
target one minister." Needless to say, these "racists" included many
ordinary Australians who would never attack a minister's family but voiced
legitimate opposition to Grassby and the undemocratic reversal of Australia'
s traditional immigration policy through the ballot box.
Quoted in R. Birrell, 1995, A Nation of Our Own. Citizenship and
Nation-Building in Federation Australia, Longman, Melbourne, p. p. 252,
originally from Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 12 September 1901, p.
4806.
A. Alesina, R. Baqir, W. Easterly, 1999, "Public goods and ethnic divisions"
, Quarterly Review of Economics, 114 (Nov.), pp. 1243-84). See also "Putting
the Good in Good Government" by Richard Morin, Washington Post, 1 Nov 1998.
A. Alesina and E. Spolaore, 1997, "On the number and size of nations", The
Quarterly Review of Economics, 112(Nov.), pp. 1027-56.
Alesina and Spolaore, 1997.
Dr Kalim Siddiquie (b.1931, d.1996) well known Islamic intellectual and
Director of the Muslim Institute, England.
Quoted in Paul Sheehan, 1998, Among the Barbarians: The Dividing of
Australia, Random House, Milsons Point, p. 141.
Sheehan, 1998, p. 200.
Sheehan, 1998, p. 201.
Charles Price, 1997, "The Asian element in Australia: 1996", People and
Place, 5(4), p. 35.
Charles Price, quoted in Sheehan 1998, Among the Barbarians, p. 126.
Charles Price, quoted in the Australian, 7 January 2000, "More ingredients
stirred into melting pot", by John Kerin.
Melbourne, The Age, 4 September 2000, "UK whites will be a minority by 2100"
by Simon Mann
See for example P. Brimelow, 1995, Alien Nation. Common Sense about America'
s Immigration Disaster, Random House, New York. Also see President Clinton's
Portland (Oregon) State University Speech, 13 June 1998, "In a little more
than 50 years there will be no majority race in the United States. Today,
largely because of immigration there is no majority race in Hawaii, or
Houston or New York city."
Sang Ye, 1996. Also "The Grand Plan, Asianisation of Australia, Race Place
and Power by Denis McCormack. A paper presented at the 20th Anniversary
conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia. Latrobe University
10 July 1996, Hansard 22 October 1996.
Melbourne Herald Sun, 27 September 2000, "Multiculturalism not for Israel -
Leibler" by John Masanauskas.
scott
good idea.
infidel
I.
"scott" <n...@nah.com> wrote in message
news:vzhN9.2361$YN6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
melanie
from Asia.
"John" <jo...@wn.com.au> wrote in message news:3e06...@quokka.wn.com.au...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 6/12/2002
Stan Pierce
a
> good idea.
>
>
I read it. It was actually printed twice, but if you are alert you soon
know it.
Mostly common sense really. We all thought like that thirty years ago. I
wish someone could actually get to the original shit stirrer who infiltrated
the Labour Party and got multicrapism as a policy. There must be a document
with a name on it somewhere.
Stan Pierce.
Stan Pierce
"melanie" <mel...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:r7iN9.2424$YN6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> A great deal of bull if followed will mean action to eliminate all
migrants
> from Asia.
No action to eliminate anyone. Action to stop any more of the madness that
is dividing people in this nation. It's been a course of social engineering
gone wrong and no-one can be locked up for it.
All he is doing is directing the finger along the line to a group of the
usual suspects. Had they kept to asians it wouldn't have been difficult for
our children and grandchildren to handle.
It was the bringing of Muslims in that has set the social disintergration.
No one seems to have learned about the foxes, rabbits, and cane toads. At
least you can shoot them, poison them or run over them in a car...but
Muslims. Needs a bit of thinking about.
Stan Pierce.
Neville Duguid
> I wonder if anyone read that. I saw it was 56k and decided a sandwich was a
> good idea.
The body of the article is repeated before the endnotes, giving an
impression the article is twice as long as it is.
Perhaps the original poster could edit it down to size and post it
again?
It is well worth the read for anyone interested in seeing in a coherent
summary of issues frequently raised in this newsgroup.
Neville Duguid
> WINNING CONDITIONS
> FOR
> AUSTRALIAN NATIONALISM
>
> A paper by
> Graeme Campbell
> December 2001
I concur with most of what the article says. It is well researched and
provides a coherent background for those who may be mystified by some of
the discussions about Aussie culture, nationalism and immigration policy
they have witnessed in progress in this newsgroup.
If you wince at the size, the body text seems to have been accidentally
repeated, giving the impression the article is twice as long as it
really is.
fasgnadh
> FOR
> AUSTRALIAN NATIONALISM
>
> A paper by
> Graeme Campbell
Whose political judgement caused him to align himself with the
most corrupt, unrepresentative, and unsuccessfull bunch of
bigots and fringe loonies ever seen on the Australian political scene! B^D
> December 2001
>
Shit, it's made such an impact in the YEAR since it was published
that no one has ever heard of it, and Lance Baker's Phonie remnant
have wheeled it out again for another tilt at the old windmill! B^D
> "There is nothing new in this paper
and the political judjement on it's contents was made at previous
federal elections where it was repudiated. B^p
.....
>
>
> 1. WINNING CONDITIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN NATIONALISM
>
> We on the moderate nationalist side of politics welcome the give-and-take
of
> political debate. We believe that our position is the best reasoned and
can
> only benefit from exposure, but our opponents demand a monopoly in the
media
> and in our parliaments. They fear the voices who stand up for Australia's
> predominant ethnic interest - those of Anglo Celt and European background.
Not fear, simply prefer those who speak for ALL australians, not some
unassimilated ethnic enclave like this paper speaks for.
> We have seen this intolerance demonstrated incrementally by the chorus of
> denunciations of Professor Blainey in 1984 and John Howard in 1988.
Howard has presided over RECORD IMMIGRATION, you can hardly portray an
attack on Howard as an attack on restrictive immigration! B^D
Within the opening paragraphs we have already seen how irrational
this self proclaimed 'best reasoned' position is.
> I then
> became a target for my support of Australians Against Further Immigration
in
> the early 1990's, Australia First, and in more recent times of Pauline
> Hanson and One Nation.
The only logical connection advanced here is the claim that
Howard was 'attacked' and Campbell was 'attacked' , but in fact
Campbell is against immigration from many cultures, and Howard
is supporting it in RECORD NUMBERS! B^D
What a bogus attempt to paint himself as somehow aligned to the mainstream,
when in fact he is part of a rejected racist rump, assigned to the dustbin
of history
with Hanson and One Nation.
> Bob Hawke had me censured by the Parliament for
> saying that we should slow down the rate of South East Asian immigration
to
> a level that we could accommodate.
And Howard has accellerated it. B^)
Those two parties represent the vast majority of ordinary Aussies...
The PHONies represent less than 2% B^D
This whole paper is of minor curiosity value only. An interesting insight
into how those whose political analysis was so faulty as to lead them to
constant failure, division, infighting, corrupt leaders and un-democratic
organisations, persist in rationalising and mythologising, rather than
understanding they cause of their failure and rejection.. themselves.
> It did not occur to me that this was
> racist as I considered it common sense. This crescendo of intolerance has
> been building, ironically but aptly, since 1984.
>
> I believe the cause is that the multicultural elites who have been forcing
> radical change on this Country know that their aims, if clearly
understood,
> would be rejected outright by the Australian people.
B^D Howard and the tory government are perpetuating a Multicultural
conspiracy! B^p I LOVE IT! This is so funny!
> That is also, why, with
> rare exceptions, immigration policy continued to be "bipartisan" even
after
> the Australian people began to oppose mass immigration after the
dismantling
> of the White Australia Policy from Whitlam onwards. When Malcolm Fraser
> committed the Liberal Party to multiculturalism in 1974, this eliminated
> choice for the Australian electorate
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!
If Australians thought multiculturalism was an important issue, and that the
major parties were operating contrary to the people's view, they had only to
start a
new party and be swept to popular triumph! B^D When the tiny minority
who think this way DID start a party, they were seen as a bunch of petty,
divisive, bickering, undemocratic, ignorant, bigoted fools and rejected
by the Australian voters, despite getting constant media attention the
greens
and other real parties would kill for!
And all the rest is post-hoc whining and self-indulgant myth making in a
rather
amusing, if sad, attempt to find someone else to blame! B^D
Note that these One Nation rejects, who pretend to be prompted by
Australian nationalism, in fact have loyalties to foreign models, based
on oligarchic control, slavery and the fundamentalist opression of women;
Asked point blank to nominate a 'better working system' than our
Australian Democracy, Ned nominated a period containing the
Spartan Oligarchy (sic) and Athens when A Fair Go for All
was systematically denied to women and slaves, a majority;
> >
> > # From: Ned Latham (nen...@news.apex.met.au)
> > # Subject: Re: I need an aussie flag photo
> > # Newsgroups: aus.culture.true-blue, aus.politics
> > # Date: 2002-03-13 06:12:14 PST
> > #
> > #
> > # fasgnadh wrote
> > # > Ned Latham wrote:
> > # > > Dave Godwin wrote:
> > # > > > "Aussieplayer" wrote:
> > # > > > >
> > # > > > > I'm looking for a photo of the flag flying proudly
> > # > > > >... Anybody got one
> > # > > > > or can point to one online.... Prefferably high quality....
> > # > > >
> > # > > > G'day mate,
> > # > > >
> > # > > > Here's some choices;
> > # > > >
> > # > > > Where it flies most proudly, over our parliament,
> > # > > > the best working system of government yet devised by man:
> > # > >
> > # > > Nope.
> > # >
> > # > Then point to a better working system.
> > # >
> > # > (Not more of Ned's armchair general theories!
> > # > We are talking PRACTICAL!)
> > #
> > # Ancient Athens, c. 500 BCE - c. 340 BCE.
Nev Duigood leapt to defend and support this disloyal stand;
"Ned cited the Ancient Greek system of democracy as a more direct form of
democracy than that currently practiced in Australia"
So, to these racist and sexist oligarchs, slavery and misogyny are 'more
direct forms of democracy' than a Fair Go for All.
melanie
> FOR
> AUSTRALIAN NATIONALISM equals AMERICAN KU KLUX CLAN NATIONALISM.
DemSoc
"fasgnadh" <fasg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:au71gv$16su$1...@arachne.labyrinth.net.au...
>
> John <jo...@wn.com.au> wrote in message news:3e06...@quokka.wn.com.au...
> > WINNING CONDITIONS
> > FOR
> > AUSTRALIAN NATIONALISM
> >
> > A paper by
> > Graeme Campbell
>
> Whose political judgement caused him to align himself with the
> most corrupt, unrepresentative, and unsuccessfull bunch of
> bigots and fringe loonies ever seen on the Australian political scene!
B^D
Like Fasgnadh, TheMan, Peter Terry, Shearman....
>
> > December 2001
> >
>
> Shit, it's made such an impact in the YEAR since it was published
> that no one has ever heard of it, and Lance Baker's Phonie remnant
> have wheeled it out again for another tilt at the old windmill! B^D
Unlike your unworkable marxist myths, the wind mill is as useful as the day
it first was used and has found use as a source of electricity gerneration.
>
> > "There is nothing new in this paper
>
> and the political judjement on it's contents was made at previous
> federal elections where it was repudiated. B^p
>
The one the ALP lost.
> .....
> >
> >
> > 1. WINNING CONDITIONS FOR AUSTRALIAN NATIONALISM
> >
> > We on the moderate nationalist side of politics welcome the
give-and-take
> of
> > political debate. We believe that our position is the best reasoned and
> can
> > only benefit from exposure, but our opponents demand a monopoly in the
> media
> > and in our parliaments. They fear the voices who stand up for
Australia's
> > predominant ethnic interest - those of Anglo Celt and European
background.
>
> Not fear, simply prefer those who speak for ALL australians, not some
> unassimilated ethnic enclave like this paper speaks for.
You all for ethnic enclaves like muslims who want to make everyone
mono-cultural drones. Or marxists who like you who want everyone else to
slave away for them
>
> > We have seen this intolerance demonstrated incrementally by the chorus
of
> > denunciations of Professor Blainey in 1984 and John Howard in 1988.
>
> Howard has presided over RECORD IMMIGRATION, you can hardly portray an
> attack on Howard as an attack on restrictive immigration! B^D
>
> Within the opening paragraphs we have already seen how irrational
> this self proclaimed 'best reasoned' position is.
>
Projecting or commenting on your oppening paragraphs?
> > I then
> > became a target for my support of Australians Against Further
Immigration
> in
> > the early 1990's, Australia First, and in more recent times of Pauline
> > Hanson and One Nation.
>
> The only logical connection advanced here is the claim that
> Howard was 'attacked' and Campbell was 'attacked' , but in fact
> Campbell is against immigration from many cultures, and Howard
> is supporting it in RECORD NUMBERS! B^D
>
> What a bogus attempt to paint himself as somehow aligned to the
mainstream,
> when in fact he is part of a rejected racist rump, assigned to the dustbin
> of history
> with Hanson and One Nation.
More marxist lies. What do you expect, they jealous someone got elected.
>
> > Bob Hawke had me censured by the Parliament for
> > saying that we should slow down the rate of South East Asian immigration
> to
> > a level that we could accommodate.
>
> And Howard has accellerated it. B^)
>
> Those two parties represent the vast majority of ordinary Aussies...
>
> The PHONies represent less than 2% B^D
Like the greens, marxists and muslims. Minorites who want to dictate over
the majority.
Typical of your hysteria, a mind twisted and warped by marxist lies.
What fair go. You want all tax payers to pay for child care. You want Santa
banned because it offends muslims (how is pandering to minorities fair).
Racists like you and Shearman. Sexists like Germaine Greer. You lie about
misogyny in Australia, we don't have woman beaten to death over what they
wear, go to Pakistan.
>
>
>
DemSoc
should get an education and join the real world. Try reading a book instead
of photocopied pamphlets from parasites who want others to do all the work
while they "quote marx to the masses".
You are a hysterical lunatics shout lies at people.
You got no proof, no evidence. All you have is your pathetic marxist myths.
Australian nationalists don't want marxists, muslims and feminists in power;
you have nothing to offer but hate, lies and vilification.
"melanie" <mel...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:uzUN9.9843$YN6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Neville Duguid
> Howard has presided over RECORD IMMIGRATION, you can hardly portray an
> attack on Howard as an attack on restrictive immigration! B^D
fasgnadh experiences weird shuddery sensations in the flesh between his
shoulder blades, accompanied by orgasmic contractions of his rectum, as
he views his former nemesis in a STRANGE NEW LIGHT.
Thereafter he
> rejected racist rump ...
and, fired up with zeal by his conversion, enthused:
Neville Duguid
> If Australians thought multiculturalism was an important issue, and that the
> major parties were operating contrary to the people's view, they had only to
> start a
> new party and be swept to popular triumph! B^D When the tiny minority
> who think this way DID start a party, they were seen as a bunch of petty,
> divisive, bickering, undemocratic, ignorant, bigoted fools and rejected
> by the Australian voters, despite getting constant media attention the
> greens
Try to recall what happened in practice. John Citizen goes to his first
One Nation meeting. He sits between Brian Ross and Tony Hancock just
behind Scott Steel and right in front of Pete Wix. OF COURSE he gets the
willies - and GETS THE HELL OUT OF THERE like any other member of the
public. Apart from undercover representatives of other political
organizations like yourself, of course.
Chris
that.
Until recent years, multiculturalism has been great in Aus - you need only
look at the UK to compare. It is people like Hanson who tried to destroy
the goodwill between Aussies who'd accept anyone with a good attitude and,
eg Vietnamese. Anglo-Celts and the indigenous. It is a tragedy that while
ON is now six feet under, the spirit lingers. Start with our PM.
An Anglo-Celt, sock me any day South American music, a Schezuan beef,
lemon-grass chicken, knowledge of the histories of countries we have
ignored. But most importantly, the hand of friendship from people every bit
as decent as us - in some cases, more decent than us.
A very properly spoken Indian surgeon once told me of a flight from
Townsville to Brisbane he'd been on. The Ansett (RIP) hostess fussed over
him in his business class seat, insisted that if anything was wrong, they'd
be only too happy to hear his complaints, find him a new seat etc. He was
puzzled until a certain red-headed lady sat next to him. He explained he'd
studied surgery in London, she replied "oh, don't get me wrong, I have
nothing against the ENGLISH!".
"Neville Duguid" <nevi...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:1fnsyyn.fksmjk19w9n32N%nevi...@bigpond.net.au...
The Enlightenment
"Chris" <c_l...@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
news:3e0d...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> Well for a start, multiculturalism has outlived One Nation, thank God for
> that.
Why? I also doubt you're even religious given your standard politically
correct opinions.
>
> Until recent years, multiculturalism has been great in Aus - you need only
> look at the UK to compare.
What is happening in the UK will likely happen here. Our policies have been
more sane
but we seem to be following the UK's footsteps now. The recent influx of
Africans
will ultimately lead to the high crime (by a factor of 4-8), welfare
dependency and
poor job performance that large unselected African groups are known for
throughout
the world. We've seen horrors already from our Islamic community recently.
Racial and also
culural mayhem.
It all becomes a burden and drain on us and our own deserving poor no matter
how
generous, warm and empathetic you feel towards 'diverse' people.
> It is people like Hanson who tried to destroy
> the goodwill between Aussies who'd accept anyone with a good attitude and,
> eg Vietnamese. Anglo-Celts and the indigenous. It is a tragedy that
while
> ON is now six feet under, the spirit lingers. Start with our PM.
If you keep pushing 'diversity' ad nauseum and ad infenitum you will
destroy the European derived peoples. This IS the hostile intent
of some ethnic groups, (one in particular) and certain leftists who
uncritically
regurgitate political correctness and "anti-white" "anti-racism". Most
however
simply don't care about 'us'.
Is that what you want?
The statistics of low birth rates and high immigration show that we are
being
destroyed as a race and as a culture within a remarkably short time; perhaps
less than 50 years.
The spirit of one nation (a very mild group of people) certainly lingers on
despite
the most hysterical and lie based campaign against them in Australia's
history that will
one day be rued by all. Every crap ethnic lobbyist can have his funded
multicrapist
center but euro-anglo-celts are attacked for having their own unique
culture.
Completely hypocritical ..
Incidentally the majority of Australians have always thought that
immigration is to high.
The majority of Australians were cynical and rejected our new 'multicultural
driven
immigration policy but were reassured that ending regional quotas wouldn't
lead to domination
by non European ethnic groups. They were lied to. Every reassurance has
been broken.
You can thrown in the maligned john Howard and Phil Ruddock who have
increased immigration (for which they shall be punished)
While you are on the topic of Vietnamese did you know they have been a pain
in the arse
with massive unemployment and crime statistics several times higher than
Australian mean and much higher than the Chinese who are about equal.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/May00/Crane.htm
(Note 25% of the 'Australian' crime rate is aboriginal)
>
> An Anglo-Celt, sock me any day South American music, a Schezuan beef,
> lemon-grass chicken,
Fuck, not the 'restaurant rationale' again. Variety and cheapness of foods
has
more to do with the following:
1 Much higher disposable incomes,
2 The experience of jet travel.
3 Both partners in a family working and not preferring to cook.
4 Cheaper produce. (A chicken is 1/4 the price in real terms today than 25
years ago)
5 Much Cheaper transport: trucks, container vessels and big jets that
let Europeans eat Cheaper Argentinean Beef for instance.
I'm one of the most welcome customers or the Vietnamese lady down
the road, however I find cheap family run Asian resturaunts with their
over spiced food get a bit tiresome. I can live without it and they've
destroyed a great many fine soup kitchen to eateries. Here is some fine
'international' cooking that owes little to diversity:
<http://www.charlietrotters.com/cuisine/menu.asp?menu=kitchen>
-Terrine of Skate Wing with Shellfish
-South African Langoustine with Wasabi & Ton Buri
-Braised Kombu with Organic Soy
-Hawaiian Big Eye Tuna with Pomelo, Garlic & Shallot
-Warm Organic Potatoes with Sweet & Sour Vadalia Onions
-Steamed Turbot with Olive-Leek Sauce
-Matsutake Mushroom Soup & Souffle
with Preserved & Dried Matsutake Mushrooms
& Pine Nut Vinaigrette
-New England Striped Bass
with Pineapple & Water Chestnut Vinaigrette
-Roasted Muscovy Duck Breast
with Cauliflower& Black Truffle
-Organic Colorado Veal
with Minnesota Wild Rice
-Grilled Millbrook Farm Vension Loin
with Yellowfoot Mushrooms
-Cheese Service
-Canistel, Papaya, Nino Banana, Guava
& Cactus Pear Sorbets with Rambutans
-Hazelnut & Cranberry Financier with Maple & Ginger
Vanilla Panna Cotta with Huckleberry Gelee
Chocolate-Coffee Tuile with Espresso Sauce
> knowledge of the histories of countries we have ignored.
Ignoring them is not sin and it is idiocy to claim otherwise. Following and
focusing on our own way is completely moral and honorable and we owe
no apologies. We (Europeans, whites) produced fantastically prosperity, a
world of freedom, fantastic science, engineering and medicine. A REAL
technological civilization based on steam, internal combustion,
metallurgy, electricity etc. Beautiful art of impressive realism. In all
these areas
we were splendid like no others before us.
This does not detract from anyone else but to detract from our achievements
to
'relativistcaly' increment others is moronic.
> But most importantly, the hand of friendship from people every bit
> as decent as us - in some cases, more decent than us.
Fine, friendship and appreciation is nice, who'd argued with friendship?
HOWEVER
no one is entitled to stay in my house because I built or have a better
and nicer one.
We are not obliged to open our country to others and let them displace us
and
marginialise the culture that provides the environment that nurtures us.
So frindship and multicultural immigration have NOTHING to do with each
other.
Good fences make good neighbors.
That comment about "people every bit as decent as us - in some cases, more
decent than us." Is just silly and pointless comparison. I reject it's
abhorrent
implications of self loathing.
>
> A very properly spoken Indian surgeon once told me of a flight from
> Townsville to Brisbane he'd been on. The Ansett (RIP) hostess fussed over
> him in his business class seat, insisted that if anything was wrong,
they'd
> be only too happy to hear his complaints, find him a new seat etc. He was
> puzzled until a certain red-headed lady sat next to him. He explained
he'd
> studied surgery in London, she replied "oh, don't get me wrong, I have
> nothing against the ENGLISH!".
An old joke.
I'm not English in origin myself but they are a superb people.
Bagging them is no longer fun.
Lev Lafayette
> "scott" <n...@nah.com> wrote in message
> news:vzhN9.2361$YN6....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> > I wonder if anyone read that. I saw it was 56k and decided a sandwich was
> a
> > good idea.
> >
> >
>
> I read it. It was actually printed twice, but if you are alert you soon
> know it.
> Mostly common sense really.
Not really. Some parts were OK, pointing out the real and perceived
difficulties of multi-ethnic states (and it is ridiculous to avoid
them), but as a whole it was terribly inappropriate for Australia's
conditons - and will be increasingly so.
> We all thought like that thirty years ago. I
> wish someone could actually get to the original shit stirrer who infiltrated
> the Labour Party and got multicrapism as a policy. There must be a document
> with a name on it somewhere.
It was mentioned in the paper. Al Grasby took it up following Malcom
Fraser lead in the Liberal Party.
Regards,
Lev Lafayetet
Neville Duguid
> Good fences make good neighbors.
I am sure any suburban solicitor would attest to that ;-)
Contact between the earth and our feet is probably the least noticed yet
most significant stabilising influence to have gone missing during the
last two decades.