Labor of yesteryear

"Do the multi-racialists want Australia to consist of a small number of people from all the African and Asian nations, or do they want to admit millions of coloured migrants from those nations for permanent settlement in a continent that was first settled 184 years ago by Europeans while other, nearer nations passed it by as a useless, barren land? If Australians are ever foolish enough to open their gates in a significant way to people other than Europeans, they will soon find themselves fighting desperately to stop the nation from being flooded by hordes of non-integratables. Then we will also need a Race Relations Board. None is needed now. A Race Relations Board is necessary only where there are racial problems and racial tensions. We are currently spared this rather expensive luxury."

— Former Labor leader Arthur Calwell, in his 1972 memoirs.

Let them all in!

The Herald Sun reports:

LABOR has agreed to increase the refugee intake by almost 50 per cent - so long as they are processed overseas.

The proposal, put forward by Immigration Minister Chris Bowen, would increase the annual intake of 13,750 to 20,000, provided they are processed offshore.

Another brilliant Labor strategy.

Australia is being swamped by illegal immigrants masquerading as refugees? No problem, we'll just double our annual refugee intake!

And if doubling our annual refugee intake doesn't stem the asylum seeker flow? I guess we could always just double it again to 40,000 per annum.

Even then, why impose an arbitrary ceiling of 40,000 per annum?

After all, Australia has an obligation to help every poor, downtrodden (non-white) soul in need, not just a select few. There are myriad dissatisfied, hard done-by people all over the world who would simply love to move to wealthy, comfortable Australia and live off the generous welfare state that they and their abundant progeny will never contribute to. Why not just them all come in? The wishes and interests of the Australian people are obviously not relevant considerations when formulating refugee policy. Nor is the huge cost to Australia, both financial and social, of importing more people from dysfunctional, backwards countries a valid objection either. So why impose limits on the number of refugees Australia can take? Let all the huddled masses come and live the Australian dream!

Australia may already have the highest per capita refugee intake in the world, but we can take even more - courtesy of the Australian taxpayer - because everybody knows that Australia is not a real country with its own legitimate national interests but, merely, a "piece of good luck to be shared with the rest of the world." *

* A quote from Geoffrey Blainey's 1984 book on immigration, All For Australia.

Parasitic politicians get a payrise

The SMH reports:

Federal politicians are in for a big pay rise with Prime Minister Julia Gillard set to take home an extra $90,000 and Liberal turncoat and new Speaker Peter Slipper pocketing an extra $70,000, News Ltd papers say.

The report says the extra money will put Ms Gillard in a higher pay bracket than either US President Barack Obama or her British counterpart David Cameron.

*snip*

Humble backbenchers will get another $40,000 for an annual wage of $180,000.

The News Ltd papers say the government is bracing for a public backlash to the pay deal, particularly after its spending cuts announced just two days ago included slashing the baby bonus and reducing public service spending.

I just can't wait to hear the justifications for these massive, undeserved pay increases.

I suspect I will be waiting some time, though.

The West's demographic winter

U.S. commentator and legend Patrick Buchanan:

On Oct. 31, the U.N. Population Fund marks the arrival of the 7 billionth person on Earth and raises the population estimate for the planet at mid-century to 9.3 billion people.

There is a possibility, says the United Nations, that, by century's end, world population may reach 15 billion. What does this mean for Western civilization?

It may not matter, except to identify who inherits the estate. For while world population is exploding, Western peoples are dying. Not a single European nation, except Muslim Albania, has a birth rate that will enable it to replace its present population.

By mid-century, Western man will be down to 12 percent of world population. By century's end, he will be a tiny fraction, roughly equal to the white population of Rhodesia when Robert Mugabe came to power.

The demographic winter of the West has set in.

Full article

Gaddafi lynched, Clinton laughs

Hillary Clinton on the death of deposed Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi:



Western leaders have been quick to applaud Gaddafi's brutal summary execution at the hands of a frenzied horde of savages.

So much for human rights and the rule of law in the "new" Libya.

*UPDATE*

British columnist Peter Hitchens writes on the barbaric lynching of Muammar Gaddafi:

Colonel Gaddafi was cruelly murdered by a mob. This disgusting episode, which no decent person can approve of, is typical of the sordid revolution which our Government has decided to endorse and aid.

Nearly as bad, most of our media reported the barbaric spectacle in gleeful tones. God preserve them from ever being at the mercy of a lynch mob themselves is all I can say.

Shame, also, on those who referred to this squalid crime as an ‘execution’. Why is this word these days applied to its opposite? An execution follows lawful due process. It is not another word for a gang slaying or a lynching, such as happened to Muammar Gaddafi.

Any new state that begins with such an event will be poisoned and polluted by it ever afterwards, just as the communist world was blighted by the Bolshevik massacre of the Russian imperial family in 1917.

The nebulous new Libyan regime is already torturing its prisoners, who in many cases have been seized without formal legal procedure. From now on, all those who supported this ill-advised intervention will share responsibility for every lynching, whipping, unjust detention and miserable dungeon in the New Libya they helped to make.

Frank Salter on Malcolm Fraser

Political ethologist Frank Salter on former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser's support for multiculturalism and his intense hostility towards Australia's Anglo-Celtic majority:

Malcolm Fraser, one of Australia’s longest serving prime ministers (1975-1983) was recently quoted talking about the origins of the multicultural policies his government initiated, in The Australian newspaper on 21 May 2009, “Death of a leader of cultural revolution Jerzy Jubrzycki”.

Mr. Fraser agreed with Prof. Zubrzycki, the intellectual father of multiculturalism in Australia, that the country was a “narrow, Anglo-Saxon society . . . up to, if you like, the Second World War." "[Prof. Zubrzycki] 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." "John Howard didn't like the word multiculturalism . . . But you've only got to walk down any street in Melbourne and Sydney to know that it's already too late - we are, in fact, a multicultural society.”

These remarks summarize Mr. Fraser’s support for multiculturalism over the years. They indicate an unsympathetic attitude towards Anglo Australia and a revealing use of the multiculturalism concept.

In principle it can be fair to criticize a society for being narrow. It is true that in 1945 Australian cities lacked cultural amenities and that our diet was due for a change. But we were still developing the continent, having begun from scratch in 1788. In that time we had built towns and cities and had one of the most productive economies in the world. Our British heritage made us one of the world’s few liberal democracies. We had a flourishing culture, from opera to popular. That’s quite an achievement in only 157 years.

However, Mr. Fraser goes beyond alleging narrowness. His words imply criticism of Australia’s core ethnicity. Our narrowness consisted of our Anglo-Celtic ethnicity. In other words, being of British ethnicity was a disability. The country was too Anglo-Celtic.

In addition Mr. Fraser’s comments reveal some of his notions about just what multiculturalism is. He links anti-Anglo prejudice to the formation of multicultural doctrine: it was Jerzy Zubrzycki’s reaction to “narrow, Anglo-Saxon society”. How to interpret this other than that Australia was too Anglo for Professor Zubrzycki’s taste? Mr. Fraser clearly shares this taste. Note that in the 1950s when Prof. Zubrzycki arrived from Poland Australia was overwhelmingly Anglo-Celtic because non-British immigration had only begun in earnest in 1949. Australia’s ethnicity was a local variant of British ethnicity. Most felt that way. We had just participated in a second world war entered into to defend mother England.

Mr. Fraser also expresses the aspect of multiculturalism that emphasises civil rights—that people from different cultures should be treated equally. But he again goes further with his remark that one can observe that Australia is multicultural by strolling around Melbourne and Sydney. What he is saying is that multiculturalism is the same as ethnic diversity. But cannot a society achieve perfect multiculturalism by tolerating or celebrating the ethnic cultures of all its citizens whatever their proportion of the population? Mr. Fraser implies otherwise: Australia is more successfully multi-cultural the more diverse it becomes. Hence the slap at John Howard: “it’s already too late”. This confirms the suspicion that for multiculturalists traditional Australians were always the “other”, always the antagonistic group to be combated. Especially this second kind of multiculturalism is compatible with minority chauvinism and an aggressive attitude towards Anglo-Celtic Australians.

The two faces of multiculturalism—the original rights-based type and the pro-diversity type—have very different implications for immigration policy. Rights-based multiculturalism is compatible with selective immigration. Logically, a government might simultaneously promote respect for the right of all citizens to express their ethnic identities and yet defend the group interests of the majority ethny by emphasizing immigration from Britain and other European-derived societies. That would be democratic. A pro-multicultural government might adopt a similar immigration policy for different reasons—to protect national cohesion and guarantee the long-term viability of multiculturalism.

Obviously this is not how multiculturalism has operated. It has always been linked to mass Third World immigration, confirming the interpretation of Mr. Fraser as treating Anglo-Celtic Australians as adversaries.

What remains unexplained is why someone like Mr. Fraser, ostensibly a conservative Anglo, should treat his own people so distantly. Why the hostility?

Original article

"Why the hostility?" Good question. Why is it that elites in not only Australia, but throughout the Western world, so loathe their own people to the point where they actively seek to replace them through mass Third World immigration?


See also:

"The Misguided Advocates of Open Borders" - Salter's 2010 Quadrant article on the poor quality of analysis behind Australia's abandonment of traditional assimilationist immigration policies.

God Save the Queen...

... because nothing will save Julia Gillard.


(Inspired by the Royal visit to Australia.)

The WASP Question

Canadian-Australian academic Andrew Fraser, an ex-Macquarie University law professor who was hounded from his job for daring to question the wisdom of mass non-Western immigration and multiculturalism (read Fraser's own account of the whole disgraceful saga here), has a new book out entitled The WASP Question.

From the publisher:

Andrew Fraser’s The WASP Question deals with the question of Anglo-Saxon life in the United States, Australia and everywhere across the world where they have settled. Having for the most part lost a sense of their own ethnic identity in a time of increasing globalism and international multiculturalism which values nearly every culture except their own, the ‘WASPs’ – White Anglo-Saxon Protestants – are alternatively mocked, attacked and ignored in their own lands. Professor Fraser addresses the many questions involved in the matter with impeccable erudition and proposes possible solutions for the future. Constitutional and legal history, evolutionary biology and Christian theology all come into play as Fraser tackles one of the most burning questions of our time. As an analysis of the problems, and possible way forward, faced by a European ethnic group, the book will be of interest to anyone concerned about the fate of not just the Anglo-Saxons, but any specific cultural and racial identity in the postmodern, multicultural age.

Interesting, if controversial, reading.

The corpse of multiculturalism?

Taki Mag's Jim Goad on multiculturalism:

... You don’t see such sensitivity training being forced upon anyone in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, or South America. You don’t hear China, Japan, or Israel being lectured to swing open their doors to foreigners. Almost exclusively, multiculturalism is a psychological marketing program designed for majority-white countries. Often, it is sold with the idea that whites are paying a historic debt, are reaping what they’ve sown, that what goes around comes around, that the wheel has turned full-circle, the chickens are coming home to roost, and that it’s time to pay the swarthy piper his due.

Country by country, continent by continent, there’s a sense that the newer, darker arrivals are receiving preferential treatment over those who’ve been there for generations. In the UK, it’s called “Positive Discrimination.” In America, it’s called “affirmative action” and “amnesty.” And across every border where whites are a majority, there’s a creeping sense that politicians don’t give a f*ck about how they feel. They never asked for these new waves of immigrants, and they had no choice in this odd social-engineering experiment that’s demolishing whatever they used to share as a common culture.

Suddenly, this doesn’t seem so much like a celebration of all cultures as it does punishment of a specific culture. And that doesn’t sound like such a swell recipe for having everyone get along.

We’ll be continually reminded that European satellite nations such as Canada, the USA, and Australia were settled atop indigenous skulls, so the land-grabbing descendants of those race-murderers have no right to whine about being gradually wiped out themselves by newcomers.

Once again, for Christ’s sake, whether he’s dead or alive: Two wrongs don’t make a right. If colonialism was wrong then, it’s wrong now. Multiculturalism is merely colonialism with a prettier name. I realize and concede the fact that it awards us with a dazzling array of ethnic restaurants unparalleled in their tastiness.

Under multiculturalism, we have a wider selection of food…and no one talks to anyone anymore. Many of us now speak different languages and wouldn’t even know how to talk to one another. Rather than erasing borders, multiculturalism has merely created new borders within borders. Rather than destroying nationalism, it creates mini-nations within nations.

If we’re going to push multiculturalism’s glories, shouldn’t we point out where has it worked in the past? If diversity is a strength, why did stretched-too-thin empires such as ancient Rome and the Soviet Union eventually fall from the weight of their own diversity?

Stop calling me a racist and shoot some believable answers at me. I really want to hear them.

Read more:

Multiculturalism is Dead, So Where Do We Bury the Body?

Great Southern Land

Politics aside, this classic by the 1980s band Icehouse manages to capture the isolation, harshness and sense of eternity of the Australian continent.

Danube so blue, so bright and blue

An der schönen blauen Donau

"Big Australia" policy lives on. Just don't tell Australians.

Once of the first things Julia Gillard did after she slit Kevin Rudd's throat to become Prime Minister was to publicly repudiate Rudd's "Big Australia" policy.

In short, Rudd wanted to flood Australia with hundreds of thousands of migrants every year all in the name of "growth". Actually, Rudd never really explained why Australia needed to so dramatically expand its population through mass immigration. I assume it had something to do with big business' insatiable demand for cheap labour and more consumers. No doubt Sinophile Rudd's own desire to see Australia become more Asian in terms of its ethnic makeup (most immigrants to Australia now come from Asia) played a major part in his support for open borders and a larger Australian population.

In any case, the Australian people weren't so keen on the idea of being inundated by millions of Third World immigrants. Labor was able to get away with its immigration free-for-all for a while but eventually public discontent became impossible to ignore. Hoping to nip this growing public backlash over immigration numbers in the bud, Labor dumped the "Big Australia" policy when it dumped Rudd.

Or so we were led to believe.

Despite Gillard's public assertion that "Australia should not hurtle down the track towards a big population," the "Big Australia" policy lives on, albeit quietly.

In fact, Julia Gillard's undeclared mass immigration programme is pushing us toward an even Bigger Australia than the 36 million advocated by Rudd.

As Peter Wilkinson from The Independent Australian has noted, Treasury has factored in a population growth rate of 1.5 percent per annum for at least the next three years.

"... according to the Treasury assumptions behind the plan to get the budget back in surplus in 2012/13, she is planning over the next three years to increase population by 1.5% pa, greater than the 1.2% pa which leads to a forecast 36 million by 2030 in the Intergenerational Report."

One wonders how Gillard and Labor hope to get away with such mendacity. Who knows? Maybe they hope Australians just won't notice the millions of Third World immigrants flooding into the country and overwhelming our cities.

Back from the dead

After a long hiatus, I've decided to resurrect this blog in response to the depressing state of affairs here in Australia. Our country is being ruined by an imbecilic political establishment that is completely divorced from reality and utterly disconnected from ordinary Australians. To watch as this once great nation is mismanaged and misgoverned by the cretins in power is enough to make even the calmest of people explode into fits of apoplectic rage. This blog once served as a conduit to vent my political frustrations, mainly over the issue of immigration and the existential threat it poses to the historic Australian nation. I intend for it to once again serve the same purpose.