Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old February 13th, 2008 #1
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder
Default Race; Jews; Immigration Policy

Jews behind Australian apology to Abo monkeys

SYDNEY, Australia (JTA) -- In what could be described as Australia's
Yom Kippur, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd expressed Wednesday the one word
his predecessors refused to utter to indigenous Australians: Sorry.
Rudd's Labor Party wrested power from John Howard's Liberals Last
November on a platform that included apologizing to the "Stolen
Generations" -- up to 100,000 mostly mixed-blood Aboriginal children
who were forcibly removed from their families between 1910 and 1970.
The text of the motion on the Stolen Generations, which won bipartisan
support, acknowledged the "profound grief, suffering and loss"
inflicted on Aborigines.

Australian Jews, some of whom have been at the forefront of the
decades-long reconciliation effort, applauded the apology. "To the
mothers and the fathers, the brothers and the sisters, for the
breaking up of families and communities, we say sorry," Rudd said.
"And for the indignity and degradation thus inflicted on a proud
people and a proud culture, we say sorry." In a historic speech that
drew cheers and tears, Rudd said he hoped the apology would remove "a
great stain from the nation's soul." Mark Leibler, the co-chair of
Reconciliation Australia, a national organization that promotes
reconciliation, said Rudd's apology marked a "watershed" in Australian
history but that this should be just the beginning of the
reconciliation process.

"The shame as far as this country is concerned will not be cleared up
until we bridge the 17-year gap in the life expectancy between
indigenous and non-indigenous Australians," said Leibler, who attended
the apology ceremony in Canberra on Wednesday. Leibler is also the
chairman of the world board of trustees of Keren Hayesod/United Israel
Appeal and national chairman of the Australia/Israel and Jewish
Affairs Council. "We've suffered 2,000 years of persecution, and we
understand what it is to be the underdog and to suffer from
disadvantage," he said. Jews have been at the forefront of pushing for
civil rights in Australia.

In 1965, Jim Spigelman, a cousin of the Pulitzer Prize-winning
cartoonist Art Spiegelman and now chief justice of the Supreme Court
of New South Wales, led 30 students on the first Australian Freedom
Ride -- a journey into Outback Australia to protest racial
discrimination against Aborigines, who were not entitled to vote and
were prohibited from swimming pools, pubs and other public places. In
the country town of Moree, a racist mob attacked the students and,
according to newspaper reports at the time, Spigelman was smacked to
the ground. The man most Jews and Aborigines hail as having made the
greatest contribution to the cause of Aboriginal rights is Ron Castan,
a Jewish Australian dubbed by Aboriginal leaders as the "great white

Castan, who died in 1999, was the lead counsel in the landmark 1992
Australian Supreme Court "Mabo judgment" -- named for plaintiff Eddie
Mabo -- which overturned the legal fiction that Australia was "terra
nullius," or an uninhabited land, when white settlers first arrived in
1788. Aborigines now own more than 10 percent of Australia's land
mass.In a 1998 speech, Castan implored the government to say it was
sorry, citing Holocaust denial in his argument. "The refusal to
apologize for dispossession, for massacres and for the theft of
children is the Australian equivalent of the Holocaust deniers --
those who say it never really happened," Castan charged.
In 1999, Howard proposed a motion expressing "deep and sincere regret"
for the injustices suffered by Aborigines, but the then-prime minister
said Australians "should not be required to accept guilt and blame"
for the policies of previous governments.

Aborigines number about 450,000 in an Australian population of 21
million. They are the most disadvantaged group in Australia, suffering
high rates of infant mortality, unemployment, alcohol abuse and
domestic violence. More than 100 members of the Stolen Generations
were present at Wednesday's ceremony, which was broadcast live on
national television and on giant screens across the country. "Our
faith teaches and emphasizes the universal principles of coexistence
and respect for human dignity and rights," Rabbi Mordechai Gutnick,
the president of the Organization of Rabbis of Australia, said in a
statement. "It teaches the need to recognize and rectify any failings
we may display in our interaction between our fellow man. To say
'sorry' in a meaningful manner goes a long way in ensuring that
mistakes and discrimination will not be repeated."

In addition to their activism on Aboriginal issues, Jews were
instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia
Policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-white
immigration to Australia. The president of the Executive Council of
Australian Jewry, Robert Goot, said he is proud of the Jewish
community's ongoing commitment to reconciliation. Rudd's apology
marked "the beginning in a new chapter in the quest by indigenous
Australians for complete equality with their fellow Australians," Goot
observed. Rabbi Jeremy Lawrence of the Great Synagogue in Sydney said
in a speech on reconciliation last week that Jews must not "deny nor
stand by nor stand silent in the face of the pain of the Stolen
Generations. It is incumbent on us to acknowledge the wrong, to
apologize for the damage caused."

Noting the importance to Jews of the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in
Jerusalem, the British-born rabbi said Australia should have a similar
institution for Aborigines. "There ought to be a national place where
people who have suffered can come and identify with their past and
understand that the incursion of their culture and heritage has been
recognized and an apology has been made," he said. Rudd's apology
comes more than a decade after a 1997 inquiry in Australia's
parliament, called the "Bringing Them Home" report, concluded that the
Aborigines suffered "an act of genocide aimed at wiping out indigenous
families, communities and cultures." The report urged the government
to apologize and offer compensation to the victims and their families.
The apology offers no recourse to compensation, although the issue is
now being hotly debated. It also reignited the so-called "history
wars" between those who believe the Stolen Generations were kidnapped
in a sinister attempt to breed out their Aboriginality and others who
say it was a benevolent attempt to save half-caste children from the
ills of Aboriginal society.
Old February 16th, 2008 #2
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Discussion of The Apology in second hour of

Radio Istina, February 14, 2008

Old March 2nd, 2008 #3
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Rethinking the White Australia Policy

By Andrew Fraser*

[Not even scholars challenging the orthodox view that the White Australia Policy was a "racist" blot on the nation's honour support suggestions that its abolition was a catastrophic mistake. An unshakeable consensus among managerial, professional, political and academic elites in favour of racial egalitarianism has prevented a long overdue re-assessment of the policies permitting mass Third World immigration into Australia. Recent advances in genetics, paleo-anthropology, psychology and medical science have demonstrated the existence of significant racial differences in cognitive and athletic ability, temperament and behaviour. That newly-emergent racial realism confirms the wisdom of the nation's founders. They understood that the comparative ethnic homogeneity of the Anglo-Australian people was a source of strength and unity. The later shift toward a multiracial society has been the product of an ongoing, transnational, managerial revolution from above which can and should be resisted by all patriotic Australians.]


Over the past thirty years, Australia, along with just about every other Western society, has been transformed by a revolution engineered from the top down by the leading echelons of the corporate welfare state [1]. New Class cadres of managers, professionals, politicians and academics have dismantled the foundations of Australian nationhood laid down at the time of Federation [2]. The arbitration system, the protective tariff and the White Australia Policy: all have gone in order to facilitate the free flow of capital, technology and labour in a globalist economy.

The most revolutionary, by far, of these radical changes has been the decision to open Australia to mass Third World immigration. In taking this step, the managerial regime has, in effect, followed the wry advice tendered by Bertolt Brecht to the East German government on the occasion of the worker's revolt in 1956: Rather than relying on crude repressive measures, Brecht suggested, the Communist regime should simply dissolve the people and elect a new one [3]. Indeed, since the end of the Second World War a strange alliance of Communists, Christian churches, ethnic lobbies and other pressure groups working through the corporate sector and within the centralised apparatus of state power set out deliberately to flood the Anglo-Australian homeland with a polyglot mass of Third World immigrants.

Chief among the ideological weapons deployed in that campaign have been the interwoven myths of equality and universal human rights [4]. The official ideology of the globalist regime has been enshrined in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [5]. According to that document, "any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous." There can therefore be "no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere." Those who subscribed to the doctrine of racial egalitarianism were bound to oppose a colour bar on immigration to Australia as being both immoral and pointless: it was axiomatic that "racial differences are not significant differences that need divide mankind."

Racial egalitarianism rather obviously flies in the face of the more realistic premises of the White Australia Policy. The founding fathers of the Australian nation regarded racial differences as a fact of life and racial conflict as the inevitable consequence of a multiracial society. In their view, ethnic homogeneity was one of the great strengths of the Australian nation, one that ought to be preserved and not squandered or thrown away in pursuit of utopian visions of universal harmony in which lions could be re-educated to lie down with lambs [7].

Forty years after Australian governments began to distance themselves from the White Australia Policy, advances in genetics, paleo-anthropology, psychology and medical science are placing the universalist doctrines of racial egalitarianism under serious pressure. A vast range of studies in a number of disciplines have revealed real and important differences between the races in cognitive and athletic ability, behaviour and temperament [8]. Faced with such intellectual challenges, defenders of the ruling orthodoxy are resorting to social ostracism, legal repression and even the sort of physical coercion deployed against members of the One Nation Party some years back [9]. The time is clearly ripe for a courageous and well-informed reappraisal of the White Australia Policy and the decision to dismantle it. Unfortunately, racial realists, concerned to bring common sense to contemporary Australian debates over race and immigration, will be disappointed with two recent books on the White Australia Policy. Both promise much but deliver little because of their authors' determined refusal to take race seriously.

Was the White Australia Policy "Racist"?

The first of these books to appear was written by Keith Windschuttle, a former Marxist academic turned independent neo-conservative writer. Hot on the heels of his controversial revision of the "black armband" view of Aboriginal history, Windschuttle has upset yet another academic applecart. In The White Australia Policy, he sets out to refute the orthodox leftist charge that the immigration legislation enacted shortly after Federation was "racist". On the formal level that is easily done since the Immigration Restriction Act, 1901 (Cth) did not explicitly prohibit non-white immigration. Instead, prospective immigrants were required to pass a dictation test by writing out 50 words in any European language selected by immigration officials.

But, because both the intent and the practical effect of the dictation test were to sharply limit coloured immigration, Australia was open to attack from progressives around the world and, especially during the Cold War, from newly assertive post-colonial regimes in Asia and Africa. Over the last 40 years, a home-grown generation of New Left historians routinely portrayed Australia as a racist pariah nation on a par with South Africa. Ever since the Sixties generation began its long march through the institutions, Australians have been taught to approach their past in a self-hating mood of enthusiastic shame. To his credit, Windschuttle has been one of the few historians to resist this form of intellectual self-flagellation.

Unfortunately, Windschuttle's rehabilitation of the White Australia Policy is premised on a familiar, if pernicious, tenet of neo-conservatism: Like those who claim that the United States is a "creedal nation," [12] Windschuttle maintains that the operating premise of Australian society is the proposition that all people are equal in principle and in potential. Supposedly, Australia's national identity is "based on a civic patriotism," thereby fostering "loyalty to Australia's liberal democratic political institutions rather than to race or ethnicity." He contends that the White Australia Policy, far from being the reactionary spawn of an irredeemably racist nation, grew out of a long-established, progressive program aiming "to extend both the freedom and the dignity of labour." [13]

Earlier movements to end slavery throughout the British Empire and the transportation of convicts to Australia culminated in a concerted campaign to prevent the importation of cheap coolie labour from Asia and the Pacific islands. He claims, therefore, that opposition to Asian immigration was not grounded in fears of "racial contamination." Rather, politicians were concerned both to protect the standard of living of Australian workers and to prevent the emergence of "a racially-based political underclass" that would undermine Australia's egalitarian democracy.

This argument rests upon a false dichotomy. Australia's egalitarian democracy was conceived as a new and better Britannia. [15] Who could have doubted that antipodean Britons, too, were white Europeans? By the turn of the twentieth century, references to the "crimson thread of kinship" binding Australians to the mother country had become a staple of political rhetoric [16]. Most Australians hardly needed to be reminded that blood is thicker than water; nevertheless, Windschuttle portrays their leaders as proto-Boasian anthropologists [17], convinced that race is a nothing more than a social construct. Windschuttle maintains that most early twentieth century Australians were confident that Chinese and Indian labourers would become indistinguishable from white Australians of British stock, once they were detached from the environments fostering their historic cultures of servility [18].

Windschuttle concedes that the immigration restriction movement did attract support from "unequivocally racist" elements. Indeed, he savours the irony in the fact that in early twentieth century Australia, the most sympathetic audience for racial nationalism was found among the bohemian writers, artists and intellectuals of the leftist intelligentsia. That elite minority, then famously associated with the Bulletin magazine, bears an "uncanny resemblance" to the "chattering classes" now: "they agree on almost everything, with the conspicuous exception of immigration policy, where their positions are reversed." [19]

Racial Egalitarianism: Revolution from Above?

By contrast, Windschuttle insists, mainstream Australians have never subscribed to biological theories of race. Influenced instead by the universalistic principles of both evangelical Christianity and the Scottish Enlightenment, they have refused to treat white Europeans as superior and other races as innately and permanently inferior. This, then, is the crux of Windschuttle's argument: Because the White Australia Policy was never based on racial nationalism, it could be-and was-readily jettisoned once the original political, economic and cultural justifications for its adoption lost their potency. "The proof that Australia wore the policy lightly was the ease with which it discarded it." [20]

In other words, if the White Australia Policy really had been steeped in "racist paranoia," it would be difficult to explain the fact that dismantling it in the twenty years from the mid-1950s onward "required no major cultural upheaval and was accomplished with a minimum of fuss by liberal politicians with values similar to those held by the original sceptics and critics when immigration restrictions were introduced in 1901." [21]

Windschuttle is mainly concerned with the rise of the immigration restriction movement. His argument with the academic establishment is pitched as a simple matter of historical fact: Was the White Australia Policy "racist" or not? Another recent book, The Long, Slow Death of White Australia by Gwenda Tavan, deals with its demise. In her first chapter, Tavan differs from Windschuttle on the reasons for the ascendancy of White Australia, insisting that racism and xenophobia were driving forces in the campaign to restrict non-white immigration. But, like Windschuttle, she is struck by the ease with which opponents of the White Australia Policy were able to overturn it. Her brief is to rebut the most obvious explanation for the lack of massive popular resistance to such a fundamental change: namely, that the White Australia Policy was dismantled by an ,lite conspiracy operating in stealth, leaving the Australian people in the dark concerning the nature and magnitude of the mass Third World immigration soon to be inflicted upon them. [22]

Tavan is not especially convincing in her effort to demonstrate that the Australian public readily accepted higher non-European immigration as early as the 1970s. Her main evidence is the fact that the Whitlam government was re-elected in 1974, even after its Minister for Immigration, Al Grassby, publicly proclaimed his determination to bury the White Australia Policy. Of course Whitlam's Labor government was soundly rejected by the electorate in 1975. The incoming Fraser government certainly had no mandate to promote a massive influx of non-white immigrants. Nevertheless, it joined with the Australian Labor Party to forge a bipartisan consensus in favour of Third World immigration.

For decades, there was no effective political opposition to the revolution from above in immigration law and policy. Among the managerial and professional classes, a complacently "cosmopolitan" consensus reigned supreme; the political equilibrium was not upset until the meteoric rise of the One Nation party in the late 1990s. Then, for a brief, shining moment, the patriotic instincts of the more "parochial," outer suburban, white Australians found a political voice. [23] However, much to the relief of the political class, that too often tongue-tied voice of populist protest was largely ineffectual and, in any case, was soon silenced.

Concerned to counter suggestions that the new regime lacked popular support from the beginning, Tavan cites opinion polls from the mid-1970s favouring the then-current rate of Asian migration. When weighing such evidence, one wonders how citizens then would have responded to pollsters had they been presented with an accurate picture of how Sydney and Melbourne, in particular, would look after thirty years of colonisation by Third World immigrants. Tavan acknowledges that, "debate still continues" over how many non-whites should be allowed to enter while insisting that "a majority of Australians since the 1960s have unequivocally rejected any policy that would completely bar non-Europeans from settling." White Australia, she maintains, is no longer a "dominant worldview;" at most, it persists as a "residual cultural form." Even so, she concedes that "the battle against White Australia is not completely won." From Pauline Hanson to the Tampa incident, recent events have revealed that "the (white, Anglo-Celtic) racial-cultural ideals" of Australian nationhood have never been completely extinguished. Tavan fears that, like the slow, silent combustion of an underground coal seam, the fiery force of white racial consciousness may burst, without warning, through the surface somnolence secured, so far, by the multiracialist mullahs of the media, the human rights industry and the educational establishment. [24]

Tavan is clearly ad idem with Windschuttle on the contemporary political issues relating to the nature and significance of race. As committed racial egalitarians, both writers desperately want to drive a stake through the heart of racial realism, once and for all. Tavan and Windschuttle still worry that, despite having been in a state of suspended animation for several decades, residual forms of racial identity might someday reawaken in the hearts of white Australians, perhaps even with renewed vigour and enhanced vitality. For that reason, Windschuttle happily joins the left in its attack upon race as "an unscientific category," as a thoroughly modern, bad idea "engendered by the new social sciences and brought to maturity by the evolutionary biology of the nineteenth century." [25] In the battle between racial realism and racial egalitarianism, former Professor Windschuttle joins his old revolutionary comrades on the barricades, resolutely denying that differences between "races" have a biological or genetic foundation.

In his thoroughly orthodox view, nineteenth century anthropology and biology took a wrong turn when they denied "Enlightenment and Evangelical ideas about the unity of humanity." For him, the evident differences between the various races of mankind are the malleable product of their cultures and the particular stage each may have reached in the long ascent from savagery to civilization. No race is permanently incapable of change and development. Somewhat imprudently, Windschuttle suggests that to take any other view on this question "is to betray one's ignorance of the subject." [26] In fact, to anyone familiar with the rapidly expanding literature on the genetic character of racial differences, Windschuttle's dogmatism is a clear case of what American commentator Steve Sailer calls racial flat-earthism.

Racial Realism Redux?

There is still room for debate on the precise genetic contribution to any given racial difference in, for example, intelligence, temperament, criminality and athletic ability. But, that such racial differences do exist and that they have a biological basis is not any longer open to serious scientific question. As Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele put it, "the case for race hinges on recognition that genetic variation in traits that affect performance and ultimately survival is the fuel on which the evolutionary process runs." Without that "functional genetic variation, there can be no adaptive evolution." Variation "is the norm.and not.the exception in the case of humans." In fact, Sarich and Miele suggest that the range of genetic variation between different races of Homo sapiens is much greater than for any other species, including domesticated dogs. They observe that commonly used genetic tests can determine with great precision not just an individual's race but also "the percentage of racial background in people of mixed ancestry." But until very recently it was impossible to detect the genetic markers distinguishing a cocker spaniel from a wolf. [28]

Race exists and it matters across a wide range of public policy issues. It is of particular relevance to any analysis of immigration law and policy. Windschuttle, however, is determined to remain uncontaminated by the new sciences of racial difference. He does recognize the seemingly insuperable cultural barriers alienating mainstream Australians from other racial groups, particularly the Chinese. Nevertheless he asserts that it is a fundamental error "to slide from the concept of culture to that of race." [29] Cultural differences are not inbred and immutable.

But what if Windschuttle is wrong? What if racial differences are, in large part, biologically or genetically grounded? What if even culture is not simply a social construct but, rather, a phenomenon with a substantial biological component? Windschuttle does document the dominance of Enlightenment and Christian influences in middle Australia, demonstrating that explicitly racialist ideologies have had little appeal to opinion leaders in Australia. But that may mean only that Australians, like other ethnic groups tracing their ancestry to North-western Europe, are predisposed to individualism, exogamy and small nuclear families and, as a consequence, display a relative lack of ethnocentrism.

Thus what Windschuttle describes as a creedal commitment to racial egalitarianism may actually be a defining characteristic of a distinctive European racial identity not shared by other peoples. Kevin McDonald explains Western "cultural" traits as an evolutionary adaptation to the rigours of life in cold, ecologically adverse climates. Natural selection worked there to favour the reproductive success of those individuals capable of sustaining "non-kinship based forms of reciprocity." [30]

Over time, individualistic social structures encouraged the emergence in England of the common law of property and contract and, later still, the emergence of impersonal corporate forms of business enterprise, all requiring cooperation between strangers. The distinctive culture that emerged from the interaction between the genotype of the English people and their environment can be understood as what Richard Dawkins calls an extended phenotype. [31] Like the spider's web or the beaver's dam, the, extended phenotypes of Western civilization are part of a biocultural feedback loop linking our genes with our environment over countless generations. [32]

The extended phenotype produced by the English people founds its greatest political expression in the phenomenon of nationhood. Appearing first of all in England, the idea of the nation could be understood as what Richard Dawkins might call a "meme" [33] that has been only imperfectly or not at all replicated in the bioculture of other, particularly non-European, races. Some scholars, however, deny that English nationhood is the product of a primordial English ethnicity. It is often remarked that there are very few nations that seem to be ethnically homogeneous and England is not one of them. On this view, the English nation "emerged out of populations deposited by successive waves of alien conquest." It was "through the merging or assimilation of peoples who were originally distinct" that a single English nation arose. According to Margaret Canovan, English nationhood "was in no sense a reflection of primordial ties of blood." On the contrary, the English nation was remarkably inclusive, taking in, not only the scions of Danish, Norman, Saxon and some Welsh stock "but also (and, at the time, more significantly) nobles and commoners." Canovan's case would appear to be clinched by the "subsequent expansion of English into British identity," carrying "the nation even farther away from anything resembling primordial ethnicity." [34]

It seems, then, that civic rather than ethnic nationalism has been the defining feature of not just Australian and American but British identity as well. Roger Scruton lends support to that suggestion when he remarks that modern citizenship presupposes a society of strangers: "The good citizen recognizes obligations towards people who are not, and cannot be, known to him." Such a society of strangers cannot survive without "the kind of courage, discipline and self-sacrifice that stem from civic patriotism." [35] But neither Canovan nor Scruton embrace the bloodless vision of civic patriotism promoted by Keith Windschuttle and the American neo-conservatives. For her part, Canovan acknowledges that nations "are political communities that are experienced as if they were communities of kin." She adds, however, that "the `as if' is vital." [36] In doing so, she seeks to mark out a middle position between ethnic and civic nationalism.

Neither Canovan nor Scruton believe that a nation can be grounded in an abstract loyalty to a particular political regime or constitutional order. For Scruton, it is axiomatic that citizens belong to an inherited community inhabiting an ancestral homeland. Citizens are members of a pre-political community that includes the living, their ancestors and their unborn offspring. Absent generations are among the strangers to whom the good citizen is bound in "a common web of rights and duties." [37] Canovan, too, affirms both that, within any particular nation, "many fellow-nationals really will be blood relations" and that "nations depend upon the symbolism of kinship for much of their emotional appeal." But she rejects the claims of ethnic nationalism, pointing out that "much of that kinship is imagined kinship, and a good deal of it is always fictitious." [38]

The problem with Canovan's argument is that she does not give sufficient weight to the "peculiarities of the English." [39] As a consequence, like Windschuttle, in relation to the White Australia Policy, she sets up a false dichotomy between ethnic and civic nationalism. In the case of England and the old white dominions settled by people of British stock, including the United States, there is simply no contradiction between the two. That is part of the reason why, for two hundred years after the emergence of the English nation, it was the only nation. [40] Even those citizens of a modern nation who are blood relations or co-ethnics are expected to treat each other publicly "as if" they were strangers bound together by a willingness to recognize the fundamental constitutional norms associated with the rule of law, representative government and individual rights. [41] Only a people such as the English, characterized by the "non-kinship based forms of reciprocity" associated with Protestant Christianity, monogamy and companionate marriage, nuclear families, a marked de-emphasis on extended kinship relations, and a strong tendency towards individualism could possibly succeed in creating such a "society of strangers." [42]

It is true, of course, that the English nation was the hybrid product of many pre-existing ethnic groups. But the fact is that the ingredients in the ethnic stew that ultimately produced the English people and, later still, British nation, were not all that genetically remote from one another. Indeed, the Danes, the Saxons, and the Normans were closely related Germanic peoples and the genetic distance between the English, the Scots and the Irish was not much more significant. Precisely because all of the Germanic peoples were relatively individualistic and comparatively less ethnocentric than other Eurasian and African races, they were able to overcome their group differences when they encountered each other in England, merging into a new ethny possessed of its own distinctive language, religion and way of life.

The relative inclusiveness of English national identity was replicated in the settler dominions. In fact, the English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh and even continental European settlers in colonial America, English Canada, Australia and New Zealand fused together to become more British than the British in their new homelands. The creation of those colonial British cultures was an important first step on the road to creating new national identities as Americans, Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders. [43] Civic nationalism was, therefore, a meme replicated best and most easily through the vehicle provided by the Anglo-Saxon genotype. This exposes a fundamental paradox built into the free and open societies of the West: The only racial groups able to fit seamlessly into the society of strangers constituting a civic nation are those whose members can easily shed the deeply-ingrained ethnocentrism and xenophobia characterizing most non-European peoples. Receptivity to civic nationalism, in other words, is found only in a relatively few, mainly North-western European, ethnic or racial groups. In any case, over the past two centuries the nationhood meme has undergone a monstrous mutation. Originally, the English nation created the state as a medium for political self-expression. Since then, the transnational corporate welfare state has taken on a life of its own, asserting its power and right to recreate the nation and its people in whatever form it chooses.

The Downside of Diversity

Other races have produced their own distinctive extended phenotypes; these may not mesh easily with the biocultural interest that Anglo-American societies, in particular, have in the survival and enhanced vitality of their historically unique civic cultures. Black Africans, for example, have been present in large numbers in America, the pre-eminent civic nation, for almost four hundred years without ever having been successfully integrated into the common culture of white Americans. It remains an open question whether other races can be absorbed into the American or the Australian nations more easily than the militantly hyphenated African-Americans. Experience with the overseas Chinese diaspora throughout the Pacific Rim already gives cause for concern. [44] As the Chinese colonies in Australia grow in size, wealth and power, even their Australian-born members may be reluctant to dissolve their ancient collective identity into an individualistic society of strangers owing allegiance to nothing beyond a modern paper constitution, now divorced from its own ancestral roots. Thousands of years ago, the Chinese took an evolutionary path favouring the growth of centralized, authoritarian regimes; not surprisingly, the Chinese today place a premium on clannish behaviour and downplaying the worth of individual creativity. The result has been a people marked by higher average intelligence-but more conformity and hierarchy-than North-western European societies as well as rampant xenophobia and ethnocentrism.

Even when faced with competition from such highly cohesive ethnic groups, a great many individualistic Australians remain utterly oblivious to their own genetic interest in a racially homogeneous society. That interest is threatened, to varying degrees, by the arrival of immigrants genetically distant from the host population. Like any other ethno-nation, white Australians constitute a large, partly inbred, extended family. [45] Since an ethny is "analogous to a population of cousins," even distant kin "carry genetic interests for each other." But, because-at any given level of technology-the Australian landmass has a finite carrying capacity, mass immigration must replace future Australian children with those of other, more or less unrelated, ethnic extended families. If immigrants are genetically remote from the European gene pool, the damage to Australia's genetic interests will be especially pronounced. Frank Salter has calculated that if England, for example, received 12.5 million closely-related Danish immigrants, the genetic loss to the remaining English would be relatively low, amounting to the equivalent of 209,000 children (still a large family to lose.) But the same number of immigrants from India would cause a corresponding loss of 2.6 million children. Since black, sub-Saharan Africans are even more genetically distant from the English, an influx of 12.5 million Bantus would displace the equivalent of 13 million English children. The genetic losses to the English would be greater still if Indians or Bantus had fertility rates higher than the host population. [46]

Apart from the objective genetic interests at stake, a multiracial society forces white Australians to bear other, more subjectively painful social, economic and political costs. At the high end of Australia's immigrant intake, a growing cognitive elite of East Asians threatens to become similar to "market-dominant minorities" such as the overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia, Jews in Russia or Indians in East Africa. [47] Faced with competition from a growing East Asian population, white Australians will find themselves outgunned: Western-style "old boy" preference networks are only weakly ethnic in character, and, thus, permeable, making them no match for the institutionally-directed, in-group solidarity or "ethnic nepotism" practised by other groups. Endowed with an edge in IQ and a temperament conducive to rigorous regimes of coaching, rote learning and stricter parental discipline, young East Asians already dominate the competition for places in universities and professional schools. 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. [48]

At the low end of the market for Third World immigrants, tensions are already appearing between white Australians and the growing numbers of black, sub-Saharan Africans settled here by the transnational refugee industry. [49] One can safely predict that, no matter how large this particular Third World colony becomes, black Africans will never become a "market-dominant minority" in Australia. On the contrary, experience "practically everywhere in the world tells us that an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems." [50] Unfortunately, experience also demonstrates that any such suggestion will produce nothing short of a hysterical reaction among Australian journalists and academics.

For Australian intellectual and cultural elites, it does not seem to matter that support for such observations can be found in countless academic and official sources. After all, it is hardly news that violent criminals of any race are likely to be people with low IQs who display poor impulse control. [52] Nor is it difficult to establish that, on average, black sub-Saharan Africans score around 70-75 on IQ tests while white Europeans have a mean score of 100 and East Asians about 105. [53] It is equally well-known that young black men have higher levels of serum testosterone-often associated with impulsive behaviour and poor judgement-than whites or East Asians. Now, this does not mean that black Africans carry a "crime gene." Nor can one say that "blacks are genetically more crime-prone than whites." But, as Michael Levin points out, "it does make sense to say that blacks are more prone to behaviour that is in fact criminalized in virtually all societies." [54]

Australians will ignore these racial realities at their peril. Windschuttle, confident that immigrant groups will lose their distinctive racial identities as they become assimilated into the individualistic norms of Western culture, sees no cause for concern in the ethnic replacement of white, Christian Europeans by Chinese or Muslim newcomers. He has "accepted this with equanimity," perhaps even "with a sense of self-congratulation." [55] Like his former academic colleagues, Windschuttle looks upon both "racial prejudice" and "religious intolerance" not as essential ingredients in collective identity but as embarrassing social diseases. [56]

Managerial Multiculturalism

Like the managerial class generally, Windschuttle does not experience his membership of the Australian nation "as if" he belongs to a community of kin. Unlike the bourgeois pioneers of Anglo-American capitalism, managerial-professional elites are no longer rooted in particular communities; they are "at best indifferent and actually hostile to ...specific identities ...derived from class, ethnicity and race, religion, region and gender." Because the power of the managerial class is heightened by the eradication of such identities, its preferred brand of civic nationalism is based upon a "colour-blind" universalism and egalitarianism that is "open to the world." [57] Openness to the world requires the repudiation not just of ethnic nationalism but also of any civic nationalism grounded in "pre-political loyalties of a territorial kind-loyalties rooted in a sense of the common home and of the transgenerational society that resides there." [58] The flip side of the universalism and egalitarianism sponsored by the managerial regime is, therefore, the multicultural politics of identity. Doctrines of racial egalitarianism and official multiculturalism may appear to contradict one another but the social and political function of both is to undermine the white, Christian, masculine and bourgeois values and institutions "that remain the principal constraints on managerial reach and power." [59]

Under the aegis of the globalist regime, the shared civic culture that is the greatest achievement of Anglo-American constitutionalism is being displaced by a neo-feudal system of group representation. Promoting this program, James Tully attacks modern Western constitutionalism because it threatens "the extinction or assimilation of different cultures." Not only did modern constitutionalism authorize "imperial rule of former colonies over Indigenous peoples," it still underwrites "cultural imperialism over the diverse citizens of contemporary societies." [60] Tully's vision of "intercultural" constitutionalism aims to replace the individualistic society of strangers with the politics of cultural recognition. Unfortunately there is one culture that cannot be accommodated within what Tully calls the convention of mutual recognition. To embrace Tully's concept of the constitution as an endless process of intercultural negotiation is to reject the common civic culture of Anglo-American constitutionalism.

Faced with the reality of cultural diversity, the Anglo-American civic culture has been expansive in nature. In other words, it has been "geared toward the assimilation of difference." Tully's multicultural constitutionalism, by contrast, is separatist or exclusive in that it is "geared toward the magnification and encouragement of difference." These two very different constitutional cultures cannot co-exist; a choice between them must be made. Anglo-American civic cultures developed "a strong momentum towards political connectedness" in order to "overcome the separatist pull of diversity and disagreement." Building on long experience with non-kinship based forms of reciprocity, the civic cultures of British-derived societies stimulated the "development of imaginative empathy" among citizens. Everyone was required to imagine himself "in the position of a person whose starting point is radically different" from his own.

Multicultural constitutionalism, by contrast, is already causing our shared civic culture to fragment; the momentum towards separatism is growing. [61] Managerial elites have an obvious interest in dividing subject populations, the better to dominate them. In line with that strategy, multicultural constitutionalism "encourages the citizenry to divide itself into groups in order to win politically controlled benefits." Not surprisingly, once interest groups succeed in "winning special benefits, the separatist pull grows stronger." Group representation spawns new elites with a vested interest in thickening the boundaries between citizens. One corollary of the perennial process of intercultural negotiation is that there can be no possibility of general agreement on public goods. Multicultural constitutionalism assumes "that diversity can be acknowledged and empowered only through constant political battle pitting the races and genders against each other in a never-ending contest for recognition and public benefits." [62]

Tully maintains the pious hope that every group will be able to stand on an equal footing in the contest over recognition and the political rewards that flow from it. However, it has long been an axiom of corporatist interest intermediation that not all groups possess equal procedural status. Groups lacking functional relevance to the globalist system (or which are actually dysfunctional) will be shunted aside unless they possess some other resource that enables them to generate destabilizing conflict. [63] The basic premise that interest groups are not all created equal is particularly true of racial and ethnic groups. Tully is careful to cite William McNeill to make the point that polyethnicity has been the rule rather than the exception in the life of all advanced civilizations. He does not dwell on McNeill's companion observation that ethnic intermingling has produced a "complex ethnic hierarchy" whenever it has occurred. [64]

Any constitutional order that sets out deliberately to grant special privileges to particular ethnic groups inevitably will produce a still more complex ethnic hierarchy. The relative standing of any given group probably will depend to a significant degree on its performance within the global system of needs. There can be no automatic right to consent or cultural continuity or even recognition of group rights within the context of that dynamic system. A group that is functionally relevant or possesses a significant conflict potential today may find itself in the dustbin of history tomorrow. While it may be difficult to predict permanent winners in the incessant competition for increasingly scarce resources in a multiracial Australia, we can be sure that the civic culture created and nurtured by generations of white Anglo-Australians will be the sure loser. As continued Third World immigration provides further impetus to the multiracialist politics of identity, the individualistic society of strangers will be extraordinarily vulnerable to competition from other, tightly-knit, racial groups. In retreat from "the rising tide of colour," [65] white Australians may be forced to reinvent themselves as a people comme les autres, shedding their customary civic universalism in favour of a less natural but more powerfully particularistic racial consciousness. Windschuttle would be among the first to deplore any such development, even as his deracinated model of civic patriotism becomes an ever-more maladaptive threat to the survival of the historic Australian nation.

Racial realists who read Windschuttle's book will discover ample evidence that, if his tender-minded attitudes prevail, white Australians are destined to be displaced by immigrant groups much less sensitive to charges of racism and xenophobia. One example: Windschuttle informs us that the most violent race riots in Australian history were led, not by murderous white racists, but by Japanese pearl divers determined to eliminate competition from Timorese rivals. There were three such riots in Broome, Western Australia, in 1907, 1914, and 1920. The last continued for a week and involved more than half the town's population of 5,000. Seven people were killed and more than 60 seriously injured, dwarfing the casualty figures for the worst of the anti-Chinese goldfield riots of the mid-nineteenth century. [66]

Almost every immigrant group encountered in Windschuttle's narrative, not to mention the Aboriginal population, displays a strong sense of racial solidarity and an aggressive determination to advance its particular ethnic genetic interests. Much the same can be said for the post-war governments in Japan and the Third World leading the diplomatic offensive against the White Australia Policy. Tavan is, of course, sympathetic to their relentless attacks upon Australia's immigration policies; she remains strangely uninterested in the simultaneous determination of those governments to retain tight control over their own borders. Unfortunately this is par for the academic course; "educated" white Australians, leftist "idealists" and right-wing "ratbags" alike, remain, at best, resolutely indifferent and, at worst, actively hostile to the survival of their own ethno-nation. Should "the long, slow death of white Australia" finally come to pass, it will have been due, in no small measure, to the brazen "treason of the intellectuals" marching under the banner of managerial multiculturalism. [67]


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 colonisation 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. The solution is, in principle, no less obvious: namely, the restoration of a ruling class rooted in the reinvigorated folkways of an authentically Anglo-American civic patriotism, a ruling class re-attached to the history and destiny of its own people. Only time will tell whether and how any such constitutional reformation could take place. [68]

But the problem of an irresponsible ruling class wedded to open borders is not confined to Australia; it threatens the survival of European civilisation as a whole. The growing Islamic presence throughout the West is perhaps the most visible sign of our spiritual decline. [69] As the secular crisis of European modernity deepens, the soul of our society cries out, unheeded, for salvation. Like the Soviet empire before it, the managerial regime in the West rests upon a shaky foundation of deception and fraud. Charles Murray puts the point bluntly. Western elites, he charges, "are living a lie, basing the future of their societies on the assumption that all groups of people are equal in all respects." [70] A great many politicians and scholars know or suspect, privately, that there are real differences between racial groups; still they support immigration policies demanding public prevarication about the putative evils of racial discrimination (even though any immigration policy-short of completely open or completely closed borders-inevitably favours some groups over others.) Such mendacious elites pose a greater threat to Western civilization than the Islamic militants they choose to harbour in the heart of the citadel.

Unfortunately, so long as the postmodernist boundary between fact and fiction remains in the eye of the beholder, the truth about that threat becomes a mere matter of opinion. The directorate of the globalist regime draws its deepest inspiration from Hollywood dream factories where manufactured images become the new reality. Organized social and political life in the Western world is largely driven by the psychic power of carefully crafted illusions. One fears, therefore, that it may take a serious and prolonged systemic breakdown to free us from the self-destructive taboo against discussion of innate group differences.

The orthodox doctrine that race is only skin deep is only one of the official fictions underpinning the transnational system; more fundamental to the regime's legitimacy is the cornucopian myth of endless economic growth. Seen through the eyes of the managerial class, Australia is an economy, not a country. Nevertheless, a folk memory still survives of a time when Australia was "the lucky country," the homeland of a particular people of British stock with their own particular way of life. Should the globalist economy first falter and finally fail, regime change may yet become possible for this and other Western countries. It may well be that only a miracle can save us now; all the more reason, then, to recall that God helps only those who help themselves. The capacity to act remains the key to our political salvation. [71]

*Associate Professor, Department of Public Law, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia 2109. Thanks to Kathe Boehringer, Frank Salter and the anonymous referees for the Deakin Law Review for their helpful comments on various drafts of this article.


1. On the first stage of the managerial revolution see, James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution: What is Happening in the World (1941). But the use of mass immigration and multiculturalism as weapons in that revolutionary movement assumed primary importance from the 1960s onward see, Paul Edward Gottfried, After Liberalism: Mass Democracy in the Managerial State (1999) and id., Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Towards a Secular Theocracy (2002); see also, Samuel Francis, Power Trip 3(2) Occidental Q. 69 (2003) (last visited on Sept. 7, 2005); and Andrew Fraser, A Marx for the Managerial Revolution: Habermas on Law and Democracy, 28 J. L. & Soc. 361 (2001).
2. On the New Class, see Alvin w Gouldner, The Future of Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class (1979).
3. Bertolt Brecht, The Solution quoted in Peter Brimelow, Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster 58 (1996).
4. See, generally, Samuel Francis, Equality as a Political Weapon in Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993).
5. Included as the Schedule to the Racial Discrimination Act, 1975 (Cth).
6. Immigration Reform Group, Immigration Control or Colour Bar? The Background to `White Australia' and a Proposal for Change 92-3 (Kenneth Rivett, ed, 1962).
7. Douglas Cole, `The Crimson Thread of Kinship': Ethnic Ideas in Australia, 1870-1914, 14 Historical Studies 511 (1971).
8. For an introduction to this literature, see, eg, Vincent Sarich & Frank Miele, Race: The Reality of Human Differences (2004); Michael Levin, Why Race Matters: Race Differences and What They Mean (1997); and J Phillipe Rushton, Race, Evolution and Behaviour: A Life History Perspective (1997). The entire June, 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law is devoted to the issue of racial differences in cognitive ability. See, in particular, the lead article by J Phillipe Rushton & Arthur Jensen, Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability 11 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 235 (2005). See also, Charles Murray, The Inequality Taboo Commentary (September 2005), a fully annotated version is available online at: (last visited on Sept. 7, 2005).
9. See, eg, Tim Dick, Uni suspends outspoken academic, Sydney Morning Herald, July 30-31, 2005, at 9; Bernard Lane, African groups take aim at uni lecturer, The Weekend Australian, August 6-7, 2005, at 3; Andrew Fraser, The Trials and Tribulations of Populism in Australia, Telos 127 (Spring 2004) 119-148.
10.Keith Windschuttle, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History (2002).
11. Keith Windschuttle, The White Australia Policy (2005).
12.See, eg, Walter Berns, Making Patriots (2001).
13. Windschuttle, supra note 11, at 5-6. The suggestion that the White Australia Policy was based upon a civic rather than ethnic nationalism had already been made earlier in Robert Birrell, A Nation of Our Own: Citizenship and Nation-building in Federation Australia (1995).
14. Id, at 6, 8.
15. Humphrey McQueen, A New Britannia (1970).
16. Cole, supra note 7.
17. Franz Boas was a Jewish anthropologist who played a key role in the anti-Darwinian remaking of American social science. According to Carl Degler, "Boas' influence upon American social scientists in matters of race can hardly be exaggerated." He engaged in "a life-long assault on the idea that race was a primary source of the differences to be found in the mental or social capabilities of human groups." It was "through his ceaseless, almost relentless articulation of the concept of culture" that he effectively expunged race from American social science. See, Carl Degler, In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought 61, 71 (1991). Boas did not approach his work in the neutral spirit of objective scientific inquiry. On the contrary, his pronounced "out-group sensibility" led him to transform anthropology into a formidable ideological weapon, thereby promoting Jewish ethnic interests in what he conceived as a struggle against anti-Semitism. See, Sarich & Miele, supra note 8, at 86-91; and Kevin McDonald, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements 21-30 (1998).
18. Windschuttle, supra note 11, at 174-181.
19. Id, at 5, 82.
20. Id, at 67-74, 326.
21. Id, at 9.
22.Gwenda Tavan, The Long, Slow Death of White Australia 227-9 (2005). Tavan, supra note 22, at 210, 225.
23. On the conflict between "cosmopolitans" and "parochials" in contemporary Australia, see Katharine Betts, The Great Divide (1999).
24.Tavan, supra note 22, at 210, 225.
25. Windschuttle, supra note 11, at 28-35.
26.Id, at 34, 27.
27. Steve Sailer, Race Flat-Earthers Dangerous to Everyone's Health, available at: (last visited on Sept. 7, 2005).
28. Sarich & Miele, supra note 8, at 8, 21, 184-7.
29. Windschuttle, supra note 11, at 285.
30. Kevin McDonald, What Makes Western Culture Unique?, 2(2) Occidental Q. (2002) (last visited on Sept. 7, 2005).
31. Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype (2d ed. 1999).
32. Louis R Browning, Bioculture: A New Paradigm for the Evolution of Western Populations 4(1) Occidental Q. 31 (2004) (last visited on Sept. 7, 2005).
33. Dawkins defines a meme as follows: "A unit of cultural inheritance, hypothesized as analogous to the particulate gene, and as naturally selected by virtue of its `phenotypic' consequences on its own survival and replication in the cultural environment," dawkins supra note 31, at 290.
34. Margaret Canovan, Nationhood and Political Theory 58, 75-7 (1996).
35. Roger Scruton, The West and the Rest: Globalization and the Terrorist Threat 52, 56 (2002).
36.Canovan, supra note 34, at 87-92, 59.
37. Scruton, supra note 35, at 51-60.
38. Canovan, supra note 34, at 59.
39. On which, see, Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism: The Family, Property and Social Transition (1978). The phrase itself was coined in 1965 by EP Thompson, see, The Peculiarities of the English, in The Poverty of Theory (1978).
40. Canovan, supra note 34, at 63.
41. Scruton, supra note 35, at 51.
42. McDonald, supra note 30.
43. Donald Harman Akenson, The Historiography of English-speaking Canada and the Concept of Diaspora: A Skeptical Appreciation, 76 Canadian Historical Rev. 377 (1995).
44. See, generally, Sterling Seagrave, Lords of the Rim (1995); Joel Kotkin, Tribes: How Race, Religion and Ethnicity Determine Success in the Global Economy (1992); Thomas Sowell, Migrations and Cultures: A World View (1996).
45.See, eg, Steve Sailer, It's All Relative: Putting Race in its Proper Perspective, available at: (last visited on Sept. 7, 2005). Note that Sailer's definition of "race" as an inbred extended family, means that some such descent groups are closely related, such as Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland while others, such as the classic continental races (Africans, Europeans and East Asians), that evolved separately for 40,000 years or so were relatively remote from each other, both genetically and geographically. Race is a fuzzy category precisely because any genetically distinct descent group could be classified as a race. Remember, however, that the concept of a species is no less fuzzy: Are dogs, wolves and coyotes separate or members of the same species?
46. Frank Salter, On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethny and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration 47, 42, 59-75 (2003).
47.On "market-dominant minorities," see, Amy Chua, World on Fire: How Exporting Free-Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability (2003). An excellent review of Chua's book is available online at: (last visited on Sept. 7, 2005). On Jews as the classic "market-dominant minority:" see, Kevin McDonald, A People That Shall Dwell Alone: Judaism as a Group Evolutionary Strategy (1994); and Yuri Slezkine, The Jewish Century (2004).
48. Welfare, Ethnicity and Altruism: New Findings and Evolutionary Theory (Frank Salter ed., 2004).
49. Greg Roberts, Refugees from Africa focus of hate campaign, The Weekend Australian, July 23-24, 2005, at 6.
50. Andrew Fraser, Refugees and "Anglo-Australians", Parramatta Sun, July 6, 2005, at 6.
51.Greg Roberts, Top academic accused of neo-Nazi links, The Australian, July 20, 2005, at 6.
52. Levin, supra note 8, at 291-332.
53. Rushton & Jensen, supra note 8.
54. Levin, supra note 8, at 148, 105-6; Rushton, supra note 8, at 169-170, 267-8. Authorities in many Western countries, including Australia, do not collect or publish comprehensive and reliable statistics showing the relationship between ethnicity and crime. Where statistics on black crime rates, in particular, are available, clear patterns emerge. See, eg the data sets available online at: (last visited on Sept. 7, 2005).
One analysis of US government crime statistics concluded that blacks were responsible for 90% of the incidents of violent interracial crime involving blacks and whites. Blacks in the USA "are as much more violent than whites (four to eight times) as men are more violent than women." See, New Century Foundation, The Color of Crime: Race, Crime and Violence in America (1997) available at: (last visited on Sept. 7, 2005).
British experience with black crime can be examined at: <> (last visited on Aug. 14, 2005). 55. Windschuttle, supra note 11, at 25.
56. Immigration Reform Group, supra note 6, at 123.
57. Francis, supra note 1, at 76.
58. Scruton, supra note 35, at 60.
59. Francis, supra note 1, at 76-7.
60. James Tully, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in an Age of Diversity 70, 96 (1995).
61. Cynthia V Ward, The Limits of `Liberal Republicanism': Why Group-Based Remedies and Republican Citizenship Don't Mix 91 Colum. L. Rev. 581, 585-6 (1991).
62.Id, at 593, 606.
63.Julian Triado, Corporatism, Democracy and Modernity 9 Thesis Eleven 33 (1994).
64. William H McNeill, Polyethnicity and National Identity in World History 76 (1986).
65. See, the prescient work by lothrop Stoddard, The rising tide of color (1920).
66.Windschuttle, supra note 11, at 201.
67. Cf. julien benda, la trahison des Clercs (1927).
68. For one possible strategy, see Andrew Fraser, Reinventing Aristocracy: The Constitutional Reformation of Corporate Governance (1998).
69. Oriana Fallaci, The Rage and the Pride (2002); Scruton, above n 35; Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet: History, Theology, Impact on the World (2002).
70. Murray, supra note 8, at 8 [online version].
71. Andrew Fraser, Monarchs and Miracles: Australia's Need for a Patriot King, 5(1) The Occidental Quarterly 35 (2005).

This rendering of the article into html has been placed online by John Ray

Go to Index page for this site

Go to John Ray's "Tongue Tied" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Dissecting Leftism" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Australian Politics" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Gun Watch" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Education Watch" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Socialized Medicine" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Political Correctness Watch" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Greenie Watch" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Leftists as Elitists" blog (Not now regularly updated)
Go to John Ray's "Marx & Engels in their own words" blog (Not now regularly updated)
Go to John Ray's "A scripture blog" (Not now regularly updated)
Go to John Ray's recipe blog (Not now regularly updated -- Backup here)

Go to John Ray's Main academic menu
Go to Menu of recent writings
Go to John Ray's basic home page
Go to John Ray's pictorial Home Page (Backup here)
Go to Selected pictures from John Ray's blogs (Backup here)
Go to Another picture page (Best with broadband)
Old March 2nd, 2008 #4
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[BOOK: Red Over Black: Behind the Aboriginal Land Rights - 1982 book by Geoff McDonald analyzes forces working to overthrow White Australia policy]


by James Reed

July 2007

That great writer Geoffrey Dobbs penned in the Home Journal of Spring 1989 : "Although it is necessary to look backwards to maintain continuity with the past, this becomes urgent only with a view to carrying a living policy into the future."

It is in this context which we shall examine more deeply the Howard government's "discovery" and now "war" on Aboriginal sexual abuse.

I have written over and over again that the plight of Aboriginal children and women in these communities is shocking. But this situation has been known of for well over ten years. It has been ignored until now. One article which I received summed it all up by saying that Howard is doing a parting favour for the mining industry, having been their faithful servant. His aim is to roll back Aboriginal ownership of tribal lands, an aim hidden under the multi-coloured cloak of humanitarianism. Although the article which I received has a left-wing orientation, I cannot but agree. But one must join the dots and go further, following the trail of the one-worlders.

Red Over Black

In this process of discovery, there are many illuminating League books to help us. Geoff McDonald's "Red Over Black : Behind the Aboriginal Land Rights" is a true classic. If you do not have a copy of this book, you should purchase one.

In clear prose Geoff McDonald explains how multiculturalism and Aboriginal land rights were used as political weapons by hard-line communists to attack traditional Australia. McDonald was a former member of the Communist Party, joining in 1948. He learned first hand that at the time the White Australia Policy was one of their main targets. Their goal, McDonald said was to change "Australia from an Anglo-Saxon country into one that would be predominately Asian." Today, that goal, once unthinkable, is almost realised.
The strategy of gradualism, of incremental change and deception, is also described by Tony McGillick in his book, "Comrade No More : The Autobiography of a Former Communist Party Leader" another important book.

Communism IS Globalism

The essence of communism is centralised control over the economy, politics and the individual. It is a mistake to see communism as primarily an economic system - what is more important are questions of power and control. To simplify this somewhat : in both systems, despite cosmetic differences in the sphere of production, a group of technocratic elite control the fate and freedom of the individual. Just like "two prongs on the one fork". At the end of this article we recommend some books on this theme including some by that great man Eric D. Butler.

An insightful book which helps to open one's eyes to the evils of the centralised world view is "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man,"(2004) by John Perkins.

Perkins describes how from 1971 to 1981 he worked as an economic hit man or EHM. Economic hit men are skilled professionals, who, like economic versions of James Bond cheat countries out of trillions of dollars and shovel money into the coffers of the mega-corporations, and the wealthy elite who own almost everything, and want the world plus 100 %. The economic hit men use various tools in their trade, including payoffs, fraudulent financial reports, rigged elections, and even murder.

Perkins is careful to point out that there is no organised conspiracy for if there was the conspiracy could be uncovered and the guilty one brought to justice. Instead he points the blame at the greed/profit principle underlying modern capitalism, that more growth, more materialism is better. On this point Perkins is partly right. There is on the basis of the evidence presented in his book an organised conspiracy in the sense of a semi-secret or discrete "grand plan" and its goal is indeed power and profit.

The essence of the conspiracy theory of history - by contrast to what Eric Butler once called the "idiot view of history" (i.e. things just happen) - is that society and social events are a human creation. People do things and powerful people do evil things and plot and plan. The conspiracy view of history sees hidden mechanisms behind the most significant events of history. Perkins shows that there are indeed hidden mechanisms behind some of the most significant events in recent history - such as the death of Panamanian president Omar Torrijos, the fall of the Shah of Iran and the US invasions of Panama and Iraq.

Perkins has many stories to tell in his book "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", but the fate of Panamanian president Omar Torrijos is an instructive lesson in what the elites of the new world order will do to anyone who poses a real threat to globalism/communism. Terrijos was no communist : he merely said that Panama had its own sovereign rights. Torrijos also objected to the US Southern Command's tropical warfare training centre located in the Canal Zone. There, Latin American dictators sent their military leaders to learn interrogation and covert operational skills and military tactics to protect the assets of the dictators and US corporations and oil companies. There, death squads and torturers were trained. Torrijos refused to co-operate with the Reagan administration on a number of policies including the Canal Treaty. Torrijos died in a plane crash on 31 July 1981.

Perkins quotes famed writer Graham Greene who in his book "Getting to Know the General" says that Torrijos' security guard Sergeant Chuchu told Greene that he knew there was a bomb on the plane. It was another CIA assassination. Torrijos had forced the US to return the Panama Canal to its rightful owners and had closed down the tropical warfare centre, which angered the military chiefs. In this case the economic hit men had failed so the jackals of the CIA were called in. If the jackals fail, as they did in Iraq, then the military finishes the job.

Perkins book is an important one to read because it is not written from "our side" of politics, but it still constitutes evidence for the view championed by Eric Butler, which looked for the inner workings behind events. "Confessions of An Economic Hit Man" is gripping reading, far superior and more interesting than most of the fiction on today's bookshelves.

All relevant to what is happening to Australia today:-
- Alexander Downer "Our Christian Heritage at Risk"
- Bevan O'Regan "Your Council the Target"
- Eric D. Butler "The Fabian Idea Throughout History".

Last edited by Alex Linder; March 2nd, 2008 at 06:19 PM.
Old March 2nd, 2008 #5
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[Online BOOK: Race: John Howard and the Remaking of Australia, by Andrew Markus],M1
Old March 12th, 2008 #6
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[Ad: Nigs are Superior, You Need Our Gear to Compete]

Racist charge on sportswear campaign

March 13, 2008

THE Sydney sportswear company fighting a case against misleading advertising is about to sail into controversy again with the launch this weekend of an ad campaign that has already been rejected for being racist.

During the documentary-style 45-second commercial for Skins, African-American athletes are filmed airing their views that black men and women are superior athletes because they are genetically stronger and tougher.

The idea behind the campaign is that if you want to compete with black athletes then you have no option other than to wear a Skins compression garment.

The company and its advertising agency, The Furnace, have had the ad knocked back by Clearcast, an organisation in Britain that vets ads, because it was deemed racist and the claim was "unproven and offensive".

Three US networks, NBC, Fox and ABC, have also expressed "varying degrees of unease" about running the ad, according to Furnace managing director Anthony Gregorio.

Mr Gregorio went to New York last year to present storyboards to network executives. "They ranged from complete disbelief that a company would display such chutzpah to unease and unwillingness to do anything that could possibly come across as racist or race-related," he said.

The company will now wait to see the impact of the ad in Australia and in other European countries before going back to the US networks with an edited version. Mr Gregorio admitted that gaining as much public relations coverage as possible was part of the marketing strategy. "Of course, we want to have a greater effect than just the pure media dollars."

Skins is no stranger to controversy. The company is in the Federal Court defending its advertising, which proclaimed: "We don't pay sports stars to wear our product. They pay us." However, last September the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission alleged the company did pay and supplied the court with a long list of elite sports stars - including cricketers Brett Lee and Jason Gillespie, basketball player Andrew Bogut and sporting organisations Cricket Australia, the Wests Tigers Rugby League Club and National Basketball League club the Sydney Kings - who were paid to wear the speed suits supplied by Skins. It also alleged Skins was engaged in price fixing. The case goes before the Federal Court in Adelaide early next month.

The Skins general manager, Warren Hodge, defended the latest ad. "I can't see why this would be seen as racist. Yes it is provocative and we like to put questions out there … but I can't see who would see this as racist. This is about a celebration of athleticism."

Mr Hodge declined to comment about the ongoing commission case.
Old March 29th, 2008 #7
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

MELBOURNE Jews say they will no longer turn the other cheek as figures reveal more anti-Semitic attacks across the city.

The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council logged 178 complaints of anti-Semitic incidents, including verbal attacks and hate mail, last year.

The figure has almost tripled since 1998.

Police acknowledge there is a serious problem, but say they have received only seven reports of anti-Semitic incidents in 14 months.,00.html
Old June 1st, 2009 #8
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Australia's father of multiculturalism Jerzy Zubrzycki dies

The World Today - Thursday, 21 May , 2009 12:42:00
Reporter: Jennifer Macey

PETER CAVE: The father of multiculturalism in Australia, Jerzy Zubrzycki has died. He was 89.

The polish intellectual moved to Australia in 1956 to take up a position with the ANU. He later became an advisor to the Whitlam, Fraser and then Howard governments and helped develop Australia's multicultural policies.

Rather than a melting pot, he believed that immigration policies should reflect people from different cultures, sharing one political structure.

Jennifer Macey reports.

JENNIFER MACEY: Jerzy Zubrzycki was born in Krakow Poland in 1920. He went to school with Karol Wojtyla who later became Pope John Paul the second.

He told ABC radio in 2003 how the two men were deeply affected by the Nazi occupation of Poland.

JERZY ZUBRZYCKI: I joined the underground. It was a great tradition in generations of Poles that whenever we are under some domination, be it Russian or German, we join the underground and try and do something about it.

JENNIFER MACEY: At the end of the war he studied at the London School of Economics and in 1956 migrated to Australia to take up a post with the Australian National University. He said 1950s Canberra was a shock in more ways than one.

JERZY ZUBRZYCKI: A very dry place, dusty place, unsealed roads. It took some time to get used to it!

JENNIFER MACEY: Post-war Australia saw a massive influx of migrants from Eastern and southern European countries for the first time. But it was the prejudice they faced that informed his later work.

JERZY ZUBRZYCKI: But there was no equality of opportunity in Australia and therefore my first unwritten, unstated plan was to work on that.

JENNIFER MACEY: Jerzy Zubrzycki became an advisor to the Whitlam, Fraser and Howard governments. Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser has led the tributes for Professor Zubrzycki.

MALCOLM FRASER: He was forward looking and far sighted and he contributed enormously to the social development of Australia. Now we are a much broader-based community. You've only got to walk down any street in Melbourne or Sydney to know that we are indeed a multicultural country.

JENNIFER MACEY: Jerzy Zubrzycki proposed a new type of thinking about immigration that recognised cultural diversity rather than forcing migrants to assimilate. The president of the New South Wales anti-discrimination council Stepan Kerkyasharian says Professor Zubrzycki deserves to be known as the father of multiculturalism.

STEPAN KERKYASHARIAN: He gave an intellectual rigour and put into an intellectual, academic format what Australia was looking for and what Australia was becoming. So in that context he was the founder of multiculturalism.

JENNIFER MACEY: But fellow ANU immigration academic Dr James Jupp says he didn't even like the word multiculturalism.

JAMES JUPP: His particular concern was what he called cultural pluralism, that is the retaining the languages particularly of Europeans. So he didn't actually like the word multiculturalism himself. He blamed that on Al Grassby.

JENNIFER MACEY: Yet Jerzy Zubrzycki vigorously defended the policy when it came under attack by the Howard government. Malcolm Fraser says this greatly worried him at the time.

MALCOLM FRASER: Thought he regretted as much as I did the fact that we had a government that seemed to want to turn the clock back to the 1950s. We very nearly for the first time in the post-war years, used race or religion for political purposes.

JENNIFER MACEY: Another setback to pluralism and tolerance were the Cronulla riots in 2006. He told ABC's Phillip Adams that this shook the whole community:

JERZY ZUBRZYCKI: The fact that there is no single racial or religious group that can call itself Australian to the exclusion of all others - in other words, inclusiveness is the word - inclusiveness of all Australians within one community.

JENNIFER MACEY: Federal Liberal MP Petro Georgiou who worked together with Professor Zubrzycki at the Institute of Multicultural Affairs says he's left behind a great legacy.

PETRO GEORGIOU: He was very sensitive about diversity being turned into division and he was very committed to the notion of core values that allowed multiculturalism to operate effectively. He was concerned about disadvantage and he was concerned about equality of opportunity.

JENNIFER MACEY: But Jerzy Zubrzycki told ABC radio his greatest passion was his family.

JERZY ZUBRZYCKI: I think the most wonderful experience in my life was when I first met Alexandra, my future wife. This was the greatest thing that's happened to me.

JENNIFER MACEY: Professor Zubrzycki died in a Canberra hospital yesterday and is survived by his wife Alexandra, his four children and eight grandchildren.

PETER CAVE: Jennifer Macey with that report.
Old June 1st, 2009 #9
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Popular Catholic intellectual Jerzy Zubrzycki dies

Polish-born Australian sociologist and widely recognised Catholic intellectual, Jerzy Zubrzycki, has died. He was popularly regarded as the "Father of Australian Multiculturalism"

The 89-year-old Professor Zubrycki, a close friend of Pope John Paul II died in a Canberaa hospital yesterday.

Zubrzycki was the founding professor of sociology at the Australian National University and is also widely recognised as a founding member of the Pontificial Academy of Social Sciences, a Vatican research institute. Incidentally, Pope John Paul II and Zubrzycki attended the same high school in Crascow.

Prof Zubrzycki played a leading role in the development of multiculturalism policy during the 1970s and was an adviser to the Whitlam, Fraser and Howard governments.

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser described Professor Zubrzycki as a man of "remarkable foresight".

"He recognised the problems associated with a narrow, Anglo-Saxon society which Australia had been - up to, if you like, the Second World War," Mr Fraser was quoted by The Australian.

"He believed passionately that people should be treated as equal, and that being a good Australian didn't require people to give up their country of origin."

Professor Zubrzycki is survived by his wife, Alexandra, four children and eight grandchildren.
Old June 1st, 2009 #10
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

Old June 1st, 2009 #11
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,865

Funny how someone with an otherwise useless metaphysical degree(s) which all Catholic priests possess, combined with destroying White culture earns him the title of "intellectual".
Old January 1st, 2010 #12
Alexander M.
Senior Member
Alexander M.'s Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,236
Alexander M.
Default The Asianization of Australia

When the first few loads of boat-people arrived in Darwin harbour in their creaking, leaking, alien looking vessels there was consternation and foreboding. The Vietnam War had just concluded with the wrong side winning. These people were escaping the aftermath. Although we couldn't tell the difference, many of these people were ethnic Chinese who were roundly hated in Vietnam. That would have surprised many here who had been taught that racism was the preserve of white people.

In a classic exercise in overkill, the murmuring of discontent that bubbled up deep from the collective Australian psyche that had always been haunted by the 'yellow peril', was met with a torrent of abuse from that special Australian elite class with their mercenaries in the media leading the chorus. 'Bigots, racists, rednecks, fools,' they screamed, neatly encapsulating in these few epithets the entire populace of ordinary Australians the elite so loath. The perceived racism of the Australian people is a god-send to the class, so self-worshipped for its supposed tolerance and enlightened liberalism, which so fervently desires to distance itself from the great unwashed.

'What were these ignoramuses so afraid of?' the enlightened ones asked each other in feigned bemusement. 'A piddling few pathetic, emaciated refugees arrive from Asia and you'd think the end of Australia as we know it had arrived on our door-step. And do these whiners really need to be reminded that the new arrivals were here because of the death and destruction we helped bring to their country.' They had us there. That shut us up. A war that we had no choice in whether we waged it or not, was bringing us consequences we could do nothing about. Thank God for democracy!

They did have a point though, on the broad face of Australia, those first boat people weren't so much as a tear-drop. The new Asian presence was infinitesimal. But then again, so is the Anthrax bacillus when first introduced into the unsuspecting human host. How rapidly however it proliferates. Like the bacillus, the first boat borne refugees were the very thin edge of the wedge.

It was cleverly presented as a tiny historical accident, a temporary aberration. But of course, in retrospect it can be seen as being far from an accident. Rather, as can be easily deduced, it was part of a grand design. The shock of racial transformation would no doubt prove to be a little too electric unless delivered volt by deadly volt. The execution would have to be performed in humane stages just as in death by lethal injection. Tried and trusted Fabian gradualism would again be the modus operandi.

The killing of the white Australia policy had been performed in a similar prolonged fashion. The coupe de grace had only been delivered a mere few years before the Vietnamese junks had appeared on the Arafuran horizon. It was also only a few years earlier, in 1965, that the Shabbat goy, Edward Kennedy, was instrumental in wrecking an immigration policy that had kept America as its founders had intended it to be - white. Like parallel rails, these two developments were a shining indication that it had been decreed that the white race was no longer entitled to its own homelands.

The general Australian population, conditioned to believe that what they were reading in newspapers to be objectively observed facts, and of course blithely unaware of the work of the evil genius, Edward Bernays (
Edward_Bernays Edward_Bernays
) could be fairly likened to the proverbial fish in a barrel as the guns of propaganda and mind control were quietly trained on them. Little did they suspect they were being conditioned to their own demise. It is not unduly difficult to imagine the title of a training manual for dummies: How to be dispossessed without stress.

Australians were learning that all the ideas they had grown up with were wrong, silly and downright dangerous. Worse still, they had become as unfashionable as men's braces. These were fast moving times and naturally enough people didn't like to feel left behind. Who wanted to be seen as uncool?

Academia seemed to have been swept clean of the grey-headed, musty old thinkers with their musty old ideas, one of the most prominent being that Australia had been foundered by brave pioneers, settlers and explorers. That was really a fantasised image that should have faded with the British Empire. The new reality was that Australia had been invaded Questioning how something called Australia, which hadn't really existed then, could have been invaded wasn't encouraged. It had been an exceedingly blood-thirsty invasion to boot. The scale of the blood-letting meant that it could not but be elevated to the very top of the totem pole of atrocities: to genocide.

As people came to be acclimatised to this new way of looking at their history, they probably little suspected that this was a deliberate dynamiting of the central foundation pillar of their very existence as a nation. As they slept, ate, made love and went about their daily business how could they have known they were being stealthily robbed of their legitimacy. If in fact their ancestors had stolen the country from those to whom it rightfully belonged, their current possession was fraudulent. It didn't belong to them. If so, how could they have any possible right to claim exclusive ownership or even complain when that ownership passed to new waves of immigration - as alien as whites had been to Aborigines?

Other academic schools were also busy white-anting the beliefs and values that had cemented the nation together, chief amongst them being Sociology and Anthropology, the latter turning its earlier incarnation on its head. Whereas old Anthropology had seen the separate races of man to be a self-evident fact, the new Anthropology saw races to be a fiction a social construct There was only one race - the human race. Australians in general weren't to know that the original proponents of this theory were powerfully motivated by their own hidden agenda or that it had originally been gotten single-handedly off the ground by a man who found it exceedingly unenjoyable being a member of a minority: Franz Boas (
Franz_Boas Franz_Boas

To say this was a controversial idea, given that it flew in the face of all Anthropological thought that had gone before it, was putting it mildly. To say that it was wide open to dispute would have been fair comment. To say that it had only a tenuous link with reality would not have been an exaggeration. Notwithstanding these stumbling blocks, all reservations were swept aside in the stampede of new age, new left, liberal power-wielders who didn't want to be left behind in embracing ideas that would have been sheer lunacy to earlier generations. To those who would destroy Australia, this upside-down Anthropology was manna from Heaven. With race so superficial as to be non-existent, one only needed to take a Chinaman, for example, dip him in the Australian culture and tens of thousands of years of separate evolution would instantly drop away and the result would be a brand new, 100% dinki-di spirit, merely slightly repackaged.

The new ideology was processed into a product that could be easily ingested by those perceived to be lacking in critical thinking skills and drip-fed to them. This is where the media, another great accomplice in unparalleled betrayal were handed the baton. Our hearts were broken and rebroken by stories of courageous little people battling great odds and risking all just to breath the freedom hanging in Australian air like humidity. Then there were the success stories: tales of how people arriving with little more than the tattered shirts on their backs had within supernaturally short times had established flourishing businesses by simply working their fingers to the bone. These stories were often set in counter-point to scandalous tales of bone-lazy, home-grown deadbeats. But most surprising of all, we began hearing how Australia was now part of Asia geographically. Who had been asleep at the wheel while the country had drifted so far off course?

The boobs were apparently lapping all this up. They weren't, but their murmured dissent wasn't being heard by the movers and shakers. How could it be when they steadfastly refused to listen? And if any protest did manage to break through the artificial sound-barrier, the standard insults would simply be reloaded into the propaganda artillery and scatter-gunned at whoever dared to raise his head above the trench.

1984 was a significant mile-stone in the Asianisation of Australia. In that year, Professor Geoffrey Blainey, a mild mannered but leading Australian historian and respected academic lecturing at a Melbourne university was invited to give a talk at a Victorian country town meeting. It was here that he made the grave error of observing that 'Asian immigration may be getting ahead of public acceptance'. To the ordinary people, this would no doubt have been seen as an innocuous, objective statement of fact. But to the grand rulers and their army of sycophants, this was an outrage of colliding comet proportions. This was no boob voicing his uneducated opinion to other no-nothings propping up the bar. This was a highly intelligent, highly educated nationally known figure. Special treatment was called for.

Special treatment was indeed handed out. The talking heads and prostitute-scribes shrieked and hissed and frothed and spat. Notwithstanding all his academic achievement, the fellow was a complete fool. Couldn't he see that this overabundance of Asian immigration, as he saw it, was merely a touch of Oriental spice added to our rich multicultural stew? Why the alarmist paranoia when a gilt-edged guarantee could virtually be given that such a tiny proportion - projected to be never higher than two per cent - would never effect the racial make-up of Australia?

Fellow academics, tame academics, backed away from Blainey as though he were ringing a leper's bell. They went back to his work with renewed interest, fine-combing for other evidence of racism that they missed first time around. Eventually he was driven from his teaching post. This was a type of event rarely, if ever, seen before in Australia, indeed seen outside the Soviet Union of the 1930s. The only things missing were the tortured-out self-accusation and show trial. To the shrewd observer, this should have been seen as a symptom of a creeping cancer in the Australian social/political life, a sign that things were not as they seemed and that there was much more than met the eye. Why had this man been so cruelly treated, torn apart as it were by maddened inquisitors?

The dust settled. Things got back to 'normal' just where our social engineers wanted them to be. All the while the Asian bacillus continued to spread through the body politic like squid's ink in a Sea World tank. But we continued seeming to sleep with the wool over our eyes, that is, until the next eruption when through an odd twist of fate a female political neophyte stumbled out of the bush and was caught like a bunny in a truck's headlights. This woman, Pauline Hanson, signed her own political death warrant by including in her maiden speech to Parliament the sentiment that 'we were in danger of being swamped by Asians'. The treatment Blainey had received was ramped up several orders of magnitude and eventually Pauline was gaoled on trumped up charges.

That was obviously an object lesson. It was far safer to believe that Australian wasn't being over-run by Asians. But while we were pretending to believe this, what were our deep thinkers saying about the matter? Let's take a quick peek:

'A revolution is sweeping across Australia. The old order is gone, a new order is taking shape with astonishing speed and force...Unlike most revolutions, this one is bloodless but it is no less profound and consequential, shattering to some, liberating to most; the one thing that can be said for certain is that nothing is unaffected, old order can never be restored.

' is a transformation of the spirit and the body. I speak of the Asianisation of Australian life' (Greg Sheridan, Sydney journalist)

'It is to cast our minds forward - say 50 years - to a time when we are totally cheek by jowl with our Asian neighbours, when every facet of Australian life, from entertainment to industrial relations to political party platforms will be affected by Asian societies and cultures, because we will be part of an Asian political confederation...'
'I am a constant champion when I am in Asia for Australia and for the great success of Asian immigration and the many other things which make this a lovely, honey-coloured society.' (Professor Fitzgerald)

' ...Australian society as close partners in a political confederation where the weight of numbers will be Asian. I am not one who believes in a fixed single Australian identity.' (Professor Fitzgerald).

'By 2025 Australia was likely to have ceded some sovereignty over population and some financial and legal matters to a grouping based on our closer neighbours in the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) countries'(Phillip Ruthven, Chairman IBIS Business Information).

'The penny is beginning to drop that there's more to APEC than a bunch of mostly middle-aged pollies (politicians) gathering once a year in funny shirts in exotic locales (countries)'(Terry McCrann, Sun Herald columnist).

'Asianise or atrophy' (Professor Stephen Fitzgerald)

'The Asianisation of Australia is inevitable'. (Professor Fitzgerald)

'Australia must cease being a branch office of empire (British Empire), become a republic and aim for enmeshment in Asia. The case for re-defining Australia as an Asian country was grounded on the assumption that economies over-rule culture in shaping the destiny of nations'. (Former PM, Paul Keating)

'Australia is destined to become...a prototype Eurasian nation'. (Phil Scanlan, businessman)*

So there we have it, straight from the horse's mouth, or rather, from the mouths of a whole race meeting of nags. The burning question of course is WHY, why are they doing this to us? The standard answer, if we persist enough with this question, is that it's needed for trading purposes. In other words, we have to be like them in order to trade with them. Any lingering perceptions of Australia as the evil, racist nation that it once was could be highly detrimental to trading with our Asian neighbours. This is patent nonsense. As Professor Blainey pointed out in his book All for Australia, our trade with Japan took off during the height of the White Australia policy.

Obviously the answer lies elsewhere. Could it perhaps have anything to do with the regional blocs the world is being divided into? Four are crystallising into shape: the European Union, the most advanced, and may continue to expand until the Middle East and Russia are included, the North American Union, also rapidly progressing, an African bloc, and in our little corner of the world, APEC, which is being touted more often and more loudly as being modeled on the European prototype. Our own Mandarin speaking, embarrassingly obsequious Mister Rudd is one of the most vociferous touts.

Just as the US will, at least in the period of transition to full blown world government, be the engine room and wheel house of the North American Union, so will China be in APEC. It is already warming to the task. Take for example its increasing interference in Australia's domestic politics. This bullying can only increase as its military and economic power expands exponentially.

Seated in a position of world power will not be wholly unfamiliar to the Chinese. This is after all where China sat in its classical period when it was located at the centre of the world - as the so called Middle Kingdom. The order that prevailed at that time was known as suzerainty. Translated into modern gangster terms, this was basically a system kept running by the extortion of 'protection money'. Weaker nations dominated by China were allowed to remain unmolested, and even to retain a degree of autonomy as long as they paid tribute. Found to be such an efficient system in the ancient past, it is being resurrected. Australia is already paying tribute in the form of the prices we charge China for raw materials being effectively dictated by the customer. How long would a private business survive using this system?

How will being part of Asia in every way as is being envisioned by the Asianisers play out in reality? To big business - both local and international - and their political stooges, it will no doubt appear to be heaven on Earth. But it should be borne in mind that there is something drastically wrong with these people who after all are human number-crunchers only capable of thinking in terms of wealth and how to gain more of it. People - normal people - to them are simply economic units - nothing more, nothing less. Quality of life, the deaths of nations, the destruction of cultures, incompatible tribes forced together and tearing each other apart? Where do they show up on a balance sheet?

None of it counts, so yes, Heaven for the elite in their gated communities and air-conditioned condos and a jet waiting on the tarmac for whenever things get too rough. But for the Australian people: Hell. This is what living in Asia will mean: for most, subsistence level living; corruption so endemic it's like gas finding its way into every available nook and cranny; human rights, or the lack thereof, not seen in the West since the Dark Ages (for public works development in Burma - an APEC member - truck-loads of peasants are simply rounded up and enslaved) and a lot more Penny Wongs - a lot more. And when enough Asian hands have a firm grip on the levers of political power, what type of immigration policy will we have then? It will be an immigration policy that will drive whites into being a despised minority in their own country - 'the poor white trash of Asia', as Lee Kwan Yuan so poetically put it.

A plain black and white poster was once seen pasted to a power pole in a dingier part of Sydney's inner city. Lonely and forlorn, its simple message was nevertheless powerful enough to rivet at least one observer to the spot: AN ASIAN AUSTRALIA? NEVER!

One day, before it's too late, if Australians still have the guts they've exhibited in the past, a forest of picket signs bearing this same message may surround the fools and traitors who are trying to do this to us. And they will know better than to argue.

*(Many thanks for these quotes to John Burge, author of The Silent Destruction of Australia. For the entire blood-boiling collation of quotes, go to:
Posted by John Moffat at 5:43 PM
Experience molds perception.
Old January 1st, 2010 #13
Mark van Schaik
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Niggerlands
Posts: 340

I'm sure ôKievskyö will be delighted with this news.
Old January 1st, 2010 #14
Senior Member
Tulpar's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,091

Rove you rong time, sooo horonyyy!
"The Jews, racially are monsters, flunked hybrids, distraughted, who have to disappear. Everything they fiddle, everything they scheme is cursed." - CÚline, 1938
Old April 4th, 2010 #15
Darius Appleby
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: high rainfall coastal strip of the White Continent nation
Posts: 3,597
Arrow Calling White Australians....

Most Australians have no idea of the jew influence on immigration policy. After all, how much influence could less than 1% of the population influence and control public policy to such an extent? Whites must push this message much harder to cut through the media black-ban on the truth.
Old June 15th, 2010 #16
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 46

Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Popular Catholic intellectual Jerzy Zubrzycki dies

Polish-born Australian sociologist and widely recognised Catholic intellectual, Jerzy Zubrzycki, has died. He was popularly regarded as the "Father of Australian Multiculturalism"

The 89-year-old Professor Zubrycki, a close friend of Pope John Paul II died in a Canberaa hospital yesterday.

Zubrzycki was the founding professor of sociology at the Australian National University and is also widely recognised as a founding member of the Pontificial Academy of Social Sciences, a Vatican research institute. Incidentally, Pope John Paul II and Zubrzycki attended the same high school in Crascow.

Prof Zubrzycki played a leading role in the development of multiculturalism policy during the 1970s and was an adviser to the Whitlam, Fraser and Howard governments.

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser described Professor Zubrzycki as a man of "remarkable foresight".

"He recognised the problems associated with a narrow, Anglo-Saxon society which Australia had been - up to, if you like, the Second World War," Mr Fraser was quoted by The Australian.

"He believed passionately that people should be treated as equal, and that being a good Australian didn't require people to give up their country of origin."

Professor Zubrzycki is survived by his wife, Alexandra, four children and eight grandchildren.
So he wanted the Aussie's to open the door to his poor fellow Polish refugees? Why did that have to mean letting in Chinese and Arabs too?
Old August 14th, 2012 #17
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

The War on White Australia: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 1 of 5
August 13, 2012

Brenton Sanderson

Results from the 2011 Australian Census reveal that, for the first time in that nation’s history, the majority of migrants are now arriving from Asia instead of Europe. Indians and Chinese have become the fastest growing sections of the Australian population. Between 2006 and 2011 the number of Australian permanent residents born in India increased by 100 per cent, those born in China increased by 54 per cent, while those born in the Philippines by 42 per cent. These startling figures do not even include those born in Australia to Indian or Chinese parents. The Census also revealed that other non-White immigrant groups are also expanding rapidly, including various African groups. All of this is dismal news for White Australians and, indeed, for White people everywhere. Unfortunately, these figures only mirror what is happening throughout the West, where White people are under demographic and cultural siege from race-replacing levels of Third World immigration and the official embrace of “multiculturalism.”

In just a few decades these malignant policies have transformed Western societies to the detriment of their European-derived populations and culture. It is a remarkable fact that this revolution in immigration and social policy throughout the West occurred at around the same time (1962-1973), and that in all countries these changes reflected the attitude of elites rather than the great mass of citizens. Changes in immigration policy and the imposition of multiculturalism were imposed on resentful European populations despite overwhelming popular opposition to non-European immigration. The driving force behind this totally undemocratic shift in policy was the Jewish intellectual movements and ethno-political activism that Kevin MacDonald documented in The Culture of Critique. For those aware of the pivotal role of Jews in driving the demographic and cultural transformation of the United States, the story of the Jewish role in radically reengineering Australian society will have a depressingly familiar ring to it.

Australia was the last habitable continent settled by Europeans. In 1901 the British colonies of Australia federated to form an independent nation. The first Act passed by the new federal parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act which, through imposing a dictation test in any European language (usually English), effectively barred non-White immigration to Australia. Until the cultural revolution of the 1960s, Australia remained an unashamedly White Christian nation with a strong Anglo-Celtic ethnic base. Indeed the long-running (now defunct) news magazine The Bulletin maintained the slogan “Australia for the White Man” on its masthead until 1961. By 1947 the non-European population, other than Aborigines, was measured at 0.25 per cent of the total. As a result of the Immigration Restriction Act, Australia had become, by this time, one of the Whitest countries in the world. Ian Cook makes the point that “The ‘White Australia’ policy was a fairly self-conscious and explicit attempt to protect a particular genetic inheritance from being diluted by other genetic lines.”[i] The policy was extraordinarily successful in this endeavor, and the historian Eric Richards observes that, in retrospect, it is extraordinary that so remote a settlement could maintain such a homogeneous population composition.[ii]

Australia and New Zealand were also the two most “British” societies outside the United Kingdom, and Australia was, proportionately, the most Irish society outside Ireland. The imperial loyalties of the Australian colonists were often explained by reference to the “crimson thread of kinship” that existed between Britain and Australia. Australian identity was founded upon three distinct yet interrelated components: racial Whiteness, “Britishness,” and “Australianness.”[iii] The attempted Japanese invasion of northern Australia in WWII proved that the longstanding fear of an Asian invasion (the “Yellow Peril”) was far from the neurotic, xenophobic anxiety disparaged by today’s politically correct historians. In the 1960s there was no popular movement for ending the White Australia policy, a policy that had retained the bipartisan support of Australia’s political class since its inception in 1901. Indeed, Richards notes that “Australia’s adherence to ‘Whiteness’ was its defining characteristic,” and that “None of the other great immigrant countries was able to sustain such a degree of homogeneity.”[iv] Hawkins makes the point that

the primary and identical motivation of Canadian and Australian politicians in trying to exclude first the Chinese, then other Asian migrants and finally all potential non-white immigrants, was the desire to build and preserve societies and political systems in their hard-won, distant lands very like those of the United Kingdom. They also wished to establish without challenge the primary role there of her founding peoples of European origin. … Undisputed ownership of these territories of continental size was felt to be confirmed forever, not only by the fact of possession, but by the hardships and dangers endured by the early explorers and settlers; the years of back-breaking work to build the foundations of urban and rural life. … The idea that other peoples, who had taken no part in these pioneering efforts, might simply arrive in large numbers to exploit important local resources, or to take advantage of these earlier settlement efforts, was anathema.[v]
Tied in with these natural and legitimate expressions of racial and ethnic solidarity, were concerns hordes of non-White immigrants would drive down the wages and living standards of White Australians. This was a key part of the original rationale for the White Australia policy as articulated by Alfred Deakin, Australia’s first Attorney-General, who argued that

a white Australia does not by any means just mean the preservation of the complexion of the people of this country. It means the multiplying of homes, so that we may be able to defend every part of our continent; it means the maintenance of conditions of life fit for white men and white women; it means equal laws and opportunities for all; it means protection against underpaid labour of other lands, it means the payment of fair wages. A white Australia means a civilisation whose foundations are built on healthy lives, lived in honest toil, under circumstances which imply no degradation; a white Australia means protection.”[vi]
An analogous view had been expressed as early as 1841 by James Stephen, the powerful head of the British colonial office in London, who declared that Australia should be a land “where the English race shall be spread from sea to sea unmixed with any lower caste.” He maintained that the introduction of Indian “coolies” into New South Wales would “debase by their intermixture the noble European race… bring with them the idolatry and debasing habits of their country… beat down the wages of poor laboring Europeans… [and] cut off the resource for many of our own distressed people.”[vii] Charles Pearson, a British scholar who migrated to the colonies in the late nineteenth century, published a book entitled National Life and Character in 1893. In it, he described Australia as “an unexampled instance of a great continent that has been left for the first civilized people that found it to take and occupy. He warned, nevertheless, that it was still questionable whether the white races would be able to hold on to it in the face of the Asiatic threat:

We know that coloured and white labour cannot exist side by side; we are well aware that China can swamp us with a single year’s surplus of population; and we know that if national existence is sacrificed to the working of a few mines and sugar plantations, it is not the Englishman and Australian alone, but the whole civilized world, that will be the losers.[viii]
Such concerns echoed through the decades of the White Australia policy, where the country explicitly defined its nationhood in terms of Whiteness and a policy of economic protectionism designed to benefit the entire group by preventing, say, Australian capitalists from importing cheap labor that would undercut the standard of living of other White Australians. The policy reflected the desire of Australians to build a strong and prosperous society founded upon the principles of racial and cultural homogeneity and fairness within the racial group. Gwenda Tavan notes that the White Australia policy was a “morally imbued affirmation of the type of society Australians wanted to build: white and British-Australian as well as cohesive, conformist, liberal-democratic and egalitarian.”[ix] One commentator reflected this view when noting in 1939 that “The Australian prides himself on his high standard of living; he wishes to do nothing that will endanger it. Neither does he wish to bring into being a colour problem such as he sees in South Africa.”[x]

Early twentieth century Australian poster

Rather than being driven by any shift in public opinion, the impetus for the progressive dismantling of the White Australia policy, and the move from assimilation to multiculturalism between 1966 and 1975 came “from a small group of reformers that began appearing in some Australian universities in the 1960s” who, like their counterparts in the United States and Britain, soon comprised a hostile intellectual, academic and media elite who “developed a sense of being a member of a morally and intellectually superior ingroup battling against Australian parochial non-intellectuals as an outgroup.”[xi] In the changing ideological climate of the 1950s and 1960s, the moral foundations of Australia’s British history were subjected to radical criticism, and once foundational patriotic works like Keith Hancock’s Australia (with its maxim that “among the Australians pride of race counted for more than love of country”) were no longer compulsory reading for students. [xii]

Boasian anthropology and the fall of White Australia

The Boasian ideology of racial egalitarianism (discussed in Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique as a Jewish intellectual movement) was a critical weapon in opening Australian immigration up to non-White groups. Jewish academic Jon Stratton notes that the dismantling of the White Australia policy and the ultimate adoption of multiculturalism was a direct result of “internal and external pressures related to a general turning away from biological racialism.”[xiii] The Australian Jewish academic Andrew Markus articulates the standard critique of “white racism” that became prominent in the 1960s when he asserts that it was based on the notion that

(i) as a result of some (undefined) “natural” process, national groups (or ‘races’ or ‘cultures’) have inborn (‘essential’) qualities which will never alter; and (ii) there are inherent characteristics in such groups which interpose barriers against harmonious co-existence, not least against interbreeding of populations. Such ideas give rise to closed forms of nationalism which restrict membership to those qualified by birth or descent, in contrast to open forms which grant citizenship to individuals on the basis of residence and adherence to the governing principles of the nation. They justified European colonial rule; the denial of basic human rights and citizenship; segregation in the workplace, housing and education; and policies of genocide culminating in the “factories of death” established in the period of Nazi domination of continental Europe. Rarely challenged in western societies prior to 1940, the idea of biological racial difference lost much of its legitimacy in the aftermath of the Holocaust.[xiv]
It is obvious from this statement just how closely acceptance of the myth of racial equality from the 1960s onwards was bound up with Jewish post-Holocaust ethno-political activism. Note also the outright lies and hypocrisy in the above paragraph. The “(undefined) ‘natural’ process” that Markus claims is the wholly irrational basis for “racism” is the very well-defined process of human evolution itself. The differential evolution of human groups in response to selection pressures imposed by diverse environments, resulted, after thousands of years, in differences in external morphology and psychological traits—including intelligence as measured by IQ tests. The average intelligence of a group will profoundly influence the society that will be created by that group. There is nothing undefined, irrational, or pseudo-scientific about this whatsoever.

Professor Andrew Markus: Propagating “noble lies”

In his description of “closed” forms of nationalism which restrict “membership to those qualified by birth or descent” Markus could be describing traditional Judaism, with its strict endogamy and built-in assumptions of Jewish racial, intellectual and moral superiority. As always, however, Judaism is outside the critical frame of reference of such reflexively anti-White Jewish intellectuals. Jewish ethno-nationalism (exemplified in Israel’s racially restrictive immigration laws) is tacitly held to be legitimate and uncontroversial (indeed a moral imperative), while White nationalism is inherently illegitimate and morally corrupt.

The rampant hypocrisy of this is particularly striking given that Australian Jews have “been at the forefront of support for the right of the state of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, to determine its own security agenda, and to do what is needed to ensure its own survival.”[xv] Indeed, the academic and Australian Jewish activist Danny Ben Moshe points out that Australian Jewry is fiercely Zionist and “outdoes all other Diasporas in their commitment to Israel.” A 1993 survey of Melbourne Jewry found that 63 per cent had visited Israel with over 40 per cent having done so two or more times. This is compared with 36 per cent of American Jews. Australia also has the highest rate of aliyah in the world.[xvi] While strongly in favor of non-White immigration and racial-mixing among the non-Jews in Australia, a publication like the Australian Jewish News can openly express the view that for Jews, “Intermarriage has always been and will always be an individual, spiritual and communal tragedy. No amount of petty rationalising will ever change that.”[xvii]

Noting the incredible hypocrisy involved in simultaneously condemning white racialism while defending the Jewish ethno-nationalist state of Israel (and traditional Jewish prohibitions against intermarriage), Kevin MacDonald observes in The Culture of Critique that:

Ironically, many intellectuals who absolutely reject evolutionary thinking and any imputation that genetic self-interest might be important in human affairs also favor policies that are rather self-interestedly ethnocentric, and they often condemn the self-interested ethnocentric behavior of other groups, particularly any indication that the European-derived majority… is developing a cohesive group strategy and high levels of ethnocentrism in reaction to the groups strategies of others. … A Jew maintaining this argument should, to retain intellectual consistency, agree that the traditional Jewish concern with endogamy and consanguinity has been irrational. Moreover, such a person would also believe that Jews ought not attempt to retain political power in Israel because there is no rational reason to suppose that any particular group should have power anywhere. Nor should Jews attempt to influence the political process … in such a manner as to disadvantage another group or benefit their own. And to be logically consistent, one should also apply this argument to all those who promote immigration of their own ethnic groups, the mirror image of group-based opposition to such immigration.[xviii]
Since the academic world is international and hierarchical, it was inevitable that intellectual movements originating in elite American universities spread throughout the West (see “Liberal Bias in Academia: The role of Jewish academics in the creation and maintenance of academic liberalism“) As a consequence of the growing influence of the Jewish intellectual movements described in The Culture of Critique, and direct Jewish activism in Australia, “Such views [i.e. the assumption racial equality] became standard within schools and universities and provided the intellectual basis for campaigns against racial discrimination in the late 1950s and 1960s.”[xix] Tavan notes that: “As a result of these shifts, universities in particular became ‘hotbeds of resistance’ to White Australia during the late 1950s and early 1960s. … The emergence of a body of Marxist-inspired social theory in Europe and the United States at that time also reinvigorated radical left-wing political theory in Australia.” For Tavan, the new critical theory of the Frankfurt School “played a crucial role in exposing the racist underpinnings of many of Australia’s key institutions and values.”[xx] The Frankfurt School abandoned the White working class because they were insufficiently radical and had succumbed to fascism in Germany and Italy. This caused them to reject the orthodox Marxist emphasis on class struggle, replacing it by advocating non-White immigration and multiculturalism, as well as recruiting Whites who had complaints against the traditional culture, particularly feminists and sexual minorities, into a new coalition of the left.

With the adoption in 1963 of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, member governments were urged to eliminate racial discrimination from their society altogether. Internal intellectual currents were thus augmented by mounting external political opposition to the White Australia policy, especially during the years of European decolonization in Africa and Asia. Eric Richards notes how

Prime Minister Menzies [1949-1966] was increasingly vexed by the intrusion of racial and immigration issues at meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government. Menzies (and even more vehemently, one of his successors, John Gorton) loathed the way in which he was lectured on the “principle of racial equality” by newcomer members of the Commonwealth. Menzies and Gorton [1968-1971] believed that Australia’s immigration policy was perfectly defensible and, in any case, none of their business. But the die was already cast. Australia in the 1960s felt pressure from within and from beyond, and its immigration policy was a growing embarrassment.[xxi]
Senior Australian public servants serving on a committee formed to respond to the changed situation agreed in 1964 that “there was an urgent need to remove, as far as practicable, instances of racial discrimination in Australia in order to ensure Australia’s international reputation and influence are not to be seriously endangered.”[xxii] In response to these internal and external pressures, the administrative apparatus of the White Australia policy was gradually dismantled from the mid-1960s, until, in 1974, the then Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam (1972-1975), declared in a speech that: “On Immigration, we have removed the last remaining pieces of legislation which could be described as discriminatory on racial grounds.”[xxiii]

According to the Australian academic and multicultural activist Bronwyn Hinz, this policy change merely formalized shifts in policy approach that had begun in the 1960s in response to reforms to the United States migration policy.[xxiv] Richards observes that this “hesitating shift towards a non-discriminatory Australia” triggered “a social and demographic revolution” in Australia[xxv] In both America and Australia, Jewish intellectual movements and political activism were pivotal in driving this revolution. The national editor of the Australian Jewish News, Dan Goldberg proudly acknowledges this, noting that: “In addition to their activism on Aboriginal issues, Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-White immigration to Australia.” The exact nature of this crusade will be explored in subsequent parts of this essay.


Ben-Moshe, D. (2006) ‘The End of Unconditional Love: The Future of Zionism in Australian Jewish LIfe,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 108-125.

Cook, I. (1999) Liberalism in Australia, Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Curthoys, A. (2008) ‘Indigenous Subjects,’ In: Australia’s Empire, Ed. Deryck Schreuder & Stuart Ward, Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 78-102.

Fagenblat, M., Landau, M. & Wolski, N. (2006) ‘Will the Centre Hold?,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 3-16.

Hancock, W.K. (1930) Australia, London.

Hinz, B. (2010) ‘Ethnic associations, networks and the construction of Australian multiculturalism,’ Paper presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference, Corcordia University, Montreal, 1‐3 June.

Jupp, J. (2002) From White Australia to Woomera – The Story of Australian Immigration, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne.

MacDonald, K. B. (1998/2001) The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth‑Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Westport, CT: Praeger. Revised Paperback edition, 2001, Bloomington, IN: 1stbooks Library.

Markus, A. (2001) Race: John Howard and the remaking of Australia, Allen & Unwin, NSW.

Pearson, C. (1893) National Life and Character: A Forecast, MacMillan & Co., London.

Richards, E. (2008) ‘Migrations: The Career of British White Australia,’ In: Australia’s Empire, Ed. Deryck Schreuder & Stuart Ward, Oxford University Press, New York. pp. 163-185.

Stratton, J. (2000) Coming Out Jewish – Constructing Ambivalent Identities, Routledge, London.

Szego, J. (2006) ‘Marry Identities,’ In: New Under the Sun – Jewish Australians on Religion, Politics & Culture, Ed. Michael Fagenblat, Melanie Landau & Nathan Wolski, Black Inc., Melbourne. pp. 39-45.

Tavan, G. (2

[i] Cook p. 4

[ii] Jupp p. 9

[iii] Tavan p. 13

[iv] Richards p. 163

[v] Hawkins in MacDonald pp. 301-302

[vi] Cook p. 179

[vii] Richards pp. 167-168

[viii] Pearson p. 16

[ix] Tavan, p. 19

[x] Richards p. 173

[xi] MacDonald p. 302-303

[xii] Hancock p. 56

[xiii] Stratton p. 223

[xiv] Markus pp. 5-6

[xv] Fagenblat et al. p. 10-11

[xvi] Ben Moshe p. 108

[xvii] Szego p. 41

[xviii] MacDonald p. 311 & pp. 324-325

[xix] Markus p. 7

[xx] Tavan p. 116 & 168

[xxi] Richards p. 179

[xxii] Curthoys p. 99

[xxiii] Stratton p. 223

[xxiv] Hinz p. 3

[xxv] Richards p. 182
Old August 17th, 2012 #18
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

War on White Australia

Old August 20th, 2012 #19
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,453
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

War on White Australia

Old November 13th, 2012 #20
Bruce Howard
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 196
Blog Entries: 1
Default ABOUT 2000 asylum-seekers allowed to Immigrate to mainland Australia

2000 asylum-seekers to be released

by: Lanai Vasek
From: The Australian
November 13, 2012 12:00AM

ABOUT 2000 asylum-seekers who arrived before Labor's tough new offshore processing regime took effect in mid-August will be released into the community on bridging visas before the end of the year.

The Australian has learned that Immigration Department staff have begun briefing contractors and sector workers around the country over its plans to get as many asylum-seekers who are ineligible for transfer to Nauru or Papua New Guinea's Manus Island out of the overcrowded detention system and into the community on bridging visas by December 31.

Customs and Border Protection yesterday confirmed it had transferred four boatloads of asylum-seekers totalling 185 people directly to Darwin "due to safety and operational reasons" as capacity on Christmas Island overflowed.

As of Friday, a total of 2423 asylum-seekers, including 25 crew, were being housed on the island facility, close to 1000 people over its 1500 capacity.
Digital Pass $1 for first 28 Days

On the mainland, several facilities were nearing or over capacity, with a total of 5464 people being housed.

Immigration officials said there was nothing out of the ordinary with the transfer to Darwin and it had simply occurred due to "operational reasons".

But refugee advocates say overcrowding at Christmas Island is so severe there is a risk of another outbreak of violence and the transfer directly to the mainland was an attempt to placate the situation. "Things will get to a breaking point," the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre's Pamela Curr told The Australian.

"It just has to. We are creating a warehouse situation and people are in tents. It's not good."

An Immigration spokesman last night confirmed a large number of pre-August 13 arrivals would be moved out of the system before the end of the year. However, the spokesman said that not all of those asylum-seekers would be released into the community on bridging visas before New Year's Eve.

Labor continues to struggle with the arrival of asylum-seeker boats despite announcing on August 13 a tough new offshore processing regime, including transfers to Nauru and Manus Island. Last night, there were 401 asylum-seekers being housed on Nauru with transfers yet to commence to Manus Island. This year, 238 asylum boats have arrived carrying 14,797 passengers and 309 crew.


Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:52 AM.
Page generated in 0.33320 seconds.