Is it "racist" to resist displacement?

American commentator Craig Nelson on his country's impending white minority:

So, just around the corner, whites in America are going to be disempowered, assuming we remain a democracy, through a radical and rapid transformation of the nation's demography on a scale unprecedented in world history.

In response to this news, individual whites — the proper, polite ones — will affect (or, if particularly ignorant of the world around them, evince) an attitude, at the least, of indifference and calm assurance, at the most, of celebratory enthusiasm.

For the sake of clear, adult thinking, let's dismiss these proper, polite whites as a bunch of panglossian ninnies and adopt a position more in line with everything we know about humans.

Let's say that the Census Bureau projections are deeply troubling and cause for alarm for white Americans, and leave it to the other races in America to decide for themselves what this demographic shift means to them.

Now, if you are a white person reading this, and if you are the type of white person who is already looking around for someone to point and shriek "Racist!" in front of, you might as well stop reading now. You don't matter to the following discussion, and it will be over your head anyway.

For everyone else, let's start by assuming that white Americans share with all peoples throughout the world at all times throughout history the characteristic that being disempowered as a group is a negative — like being conquered, or being subjugated.

Let's assume that it is the same disaster for whites that whites consider it to be for everyone else.

Let's assume there is nothing magical about being white that permits whites the luxury of indifference to this disempowerment — this permanent disempowerment.

Let's assume whites are not so superior that they can ignore gritty, bloody reality — that they can ignore, as if he were a precocious child, Willie Brown, the black former speaker of the California Assembly, when he says, "I think most white politicians do not understand that the race pride we all have trumps everything else."

Let's assume the United States is a nation not so exceptional that Americans of any color can opt out of the destiny that demography is.

If we make these assumptions — assumptions future generations will curse us for not making — then the new Census Bureau projections plainly demand an immediate and radical change in public policy, and an all out effort to accomplish this change.

Full article

Refuting the "nation of immigrants" nonsense

Lawrence Auster's excellent booklet, Huddled Clichés, is now available online.

Given that many of the clichés, half-truths and outright falsehoods used to justify mass immigration into the United States are also used by immigration celebrationists here in Australia, it's well worth a read.

Auster on the particularly nauseating "nation of immigrants" chant:

The statement, “we are a nation of immigrants,” gives us no guidance on what those limits should be. Two hundred thousand immigrants per year? Two million? Why not twenty million—since we’re a nation of immigrants? The slogan also doesn’t tell us, once we have decided on overall numbers, what the criterion of selection shall be among the people who want to come here. Do we choose on the basis of family ties to recent immigrants? Language? Income? Nationality? Race? Victim status? First come first served? The “nation of immigrants” slogan cannot help us choose among these criteria because it doesn’t state any good that is to be achieved by immigration. It simply produces a blind emotional bias in favor of more immigration rather than less, making rational discussion of the issue impossible.

To see the uselessness of the “national of immigrants” formula as a source of political guidance, imagine what the British would have said if they had adopted it in 1940 when they were facing an imminent invasion by Hitler’s Germany. “Look, old man, we’re a nation of immigrant/invaders. First the Celts took the land from the Neolithic peoples, then the Anglo-Saxons conquered and drove out the Celts, then the Normans invaded and subjugated the Anglo-Saxons. In between there were Danish invaders and settlers and Viking marauders as well. Since we ourselves are descended from invaders, who are we to oppose yet another invasion of this island? Being invaded by Germanic barbarians is our national tradition!”

Since every nation could be called a nation of immigrants (or a nation of invaders) if you go back far enough, consistent application of the principle that a nation of immigrants must be open to all future immigrants would require every country on earth to open its borders to whoever wanted to come. But only the United States and, to a lesser extent, a handful of other Western nations, are said to have this obligation. The rule of openness to immigrants turns out to be a double standard, aimed solely at America and the West.

Read Huddled Clichés here.

Paul Sheehan on immigration

Columnist and author Paul Sheehan writes:

Did you know the Rudd Government is implementing the biggest immigration program since the end of World War II, and the biggest intake, in absolute numbers of permanent immigrants and temporary workers, in Australia's history?

Did you know the migration program for 2008-09 has set a target of 190,300 places, a robust 20 per cent increase over the financial year just ended?

On budget night, May 13, amid the avalanche of material released by the Government, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, issued a press release stating, among other things: "The use of 457 visas to employ temporary skilled migrant workers has grown rapidly in recent years. A total of 39,500 subclass 457 visas was granted in 2003-04 compared with an expected 100,000 places in each of 2007-08 and 2008-09." That is a 150 per cent increase in four years.

Did you know the number of overseas students coming to Australia is also at a record high, with 228,592 student visas granted in 2006-07, a 20 per cent increase over the previous year?

Under the Rudd Government, Australia's net immigration intake is now larger than Britain's, even though it has almost three times the population of Australia. To put all this in perspective, the immigration program in the Rudd Government's first year is 150 per cent bigger than it was in the Howard government's first year. The immigration intake is running almost 60 per cent higher than it was three years ago.

Full article

Sheehan forgot to mention that Australia now has the highest per capita permanent immigration intake in the world.

Don't expect the Rudd Government to be broadcasting this fact though. As Sheehan notes, the Rudd Government refuses to even mention immigration.

The fact that the Government can implement a policy such as this without any public consultation or discussion whatsoever makes we wonder what kind of "democracy" Australia really is.

Soon-to-be white minority countries

From the United States:

White Americans no longer a majority by 2042
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

WASHINGTON (AP) — White people will no longer make up a majority of Americans by 2042, according to new government projections. That's eight years sooner than previous estimates, made in 2004.

My guess is that Australia won't be far behind. Currently, Europeans still comprise around 85 to 90 percent of the total population in Australia (although it's almost impossible to find any current information on Australia's ethnic/racial make-up, so the European component could be much lower). However, Australia's immigration intake is much larger in per capita terms than America's, so the rate of ethnic change is much faster. If current immigration and birth rate trends continue, a submergence date for the white Australian majority sometime not long after mid-century seems likely.

Now, as mind-blowing as the massive immigration-driven demographic changes in both the United States and Australia are, what really amazes me is how the historic European populations of the West are supposed to celebrate their own dispossession as a milestone for "diversity". Losing control over your own country or territory is universally understood to be a bad thing, so why are white people been told by their national elites that it somehow benefits them?

Moreover, why is it that the type of "diversity" celebrated by multiculturalists is confined only to Western countries? Non-Western countries are never said to be in need of a heavy dose of immigration-induced "diversity". Nobody is demanding that Asian, African, Middle Eastern or Latin American countries be radically transformed via mass immigration.

No, it's only Western countries which are obliged to open their doors to the world and allow their founding European populations to be relegated to minority status. The inevitable result will be that in a hundred years, most Western countries, particularly the high-immigration English-speaking nations, will be largely populated by non-Western peoples, while the countries from whence these immigrant colonisers came will still be what they've always been. Asian countries will still be Asian, African countries will be African, Middle Eastern countries will still be Arab etc. etc., but many European and European-descended peoples will have completely lost control over their countries and will be headed toward complete and utter demographic oblivion.

Far from adding to "diversity", the Third World immigration takeover of Western countries actually means a net loss of civilisational, cultural and ethnic distinctiveness on a global scale.