Who is bankrolling the Australian Labor Party?

I just came across this disturbing piece originally published in the Winter 2009 edition of The Independent Australian:

Labor's Chinese Mates - Big Donors

Now that Chinese government-owned enterprises are bidding to buy into Australian resource companies at rock-bottom prices, perhaps it’s time to note the Chinese connection in donations to the ALP. Last year,  the largest political donation to the ALP was made by China-based entrepreneur Stanley Ho, who gave the party $800,000. Ho’s fourth wife, Angela Leong, attempted to donate a further $500,000 but the Federal ALP returned the donation, according to the Australian Electoral Commission records. No reason was given.

The $800,000 from Ho was made up of $200,000 from him and $600,000 from Hungtat Worldwide of which he is chairman. The company owns the Palm Meadows golf course on the Gold Coast and is involved in several developments in Queensland. A spokesman for Hungtat said ‘The money comes from China….They have to use an Australian company to make the donations …as long as it is for the Labor Party we are happy to donate’ (The Australian Financial Review 3/2/09).

The NSW ALP also accepted a cheque for $400,000 from Stanley Ho but returned a further donation of $600,000 from Hungtat Worldwide. The State branch general secretary Matt Thistlethwaite claimed the donation was returned because the State ALP had sufficient funds to finance its expenditure at the time. This sounds barely plausible. A political party knocking back a huge donation? Perhaps there was a fear that Mr Ho’s generosity and that of his associated company would lead to a perception that he was buying shares in the party. However, the NSW ALP did accept some $1.4 million in donations from Mr Ho and his associates. 

Mr Anthony Chan, who is listed at the same Hong Kong address as Mr Ho, donated $100,000 to the NSW Labor Party. Mr Ho, who appears in Forbes magazine list of the 100 richest people in the world, was the highest bidder at a NSW ALP fund raiser in 2006, paying $48,000 for the opportunity to lunch with the State Premier Morris Iemma.  However, he didn’t bother to  show up to collect his prize. 

In 1986, Mr Ho was deemed ‘unsuitable’ to hold a casino licence in NSW when he was part of a consortium involved in a bid for a share of the gambling market. Instead of granting a second casino licence the NSW Government of Morris Iemma extended its exclusivity agreement with the Tabcorp owned Star City Casino at Darling Harbour. Hong Kong Kingston Investments were also happy to donate $281,000. 

Ian Tang, head of Beijing Aust China Technology, based in China paid for 16 visits by ALP politicians to China before the last federal election. Tang’s subsidiary company, Beijing Aust China Investment and Development Pty Ltd paid for Mr Rudd to visit China in 2006 with a side trip to USA, Britain and Sudan on the way. In the same year, Mr Rudd spoke at a ceremony in Beijing to unveil a $1.3 billion retail development. Tang paid for  Wayne Swan to travel to China and Hong Kong and for Tony Burke (then Shadow Minister for Immigration) to take multiple trips. On the day Tony Burke flew out of Sydney bound for Manila, Beijing and Hong Kong at Tang’s expense (8 days) Tang’s company made a $59,000 donation to the Australian Labor Party. Tang’s company made two more donations to the NSW State ALP the following month, in total $94,000. 

The NSW ALP is so anxious to remain on good terms with Chinese residents of Sydney that it has a full time liaison officer devoted to keeping in touch with them.  There are a number of inner urban seats - both State and Federal - in which Chinese Australians are concentrated (including Bennelong). Their votes can make the difference between the ALP holding the seats or losing them to the Coalition. 

Similarly the NSW ALP has maintained close links with Muslim community - particularly Lebanese - who are concentrated in several seats. They have provided the foot soldiers for branch-stacking but the community at large lacks the financial clout that the Chinese bring to the table. 

Is democracy really served by these deals between political parties and ethnic lobby groups? There is always a price to be paid by governments for this form of support. Immigration issues are prominent - relaxing rules in favour of individuals or groups, or changing regulations to admit more of a particular ethnic group while banging on about the wonders of multiculturalism. Without admitting of course that  multiculturalism has a become a tool for vote buying. 

The Chinese of course are involved in  other issues. When Chinese state-owned enterprises want to buy into Australian minerals producers or telecommunications providers they and the Chinese Embassy can always whip up support from the resident overseas Chinese community for their agenda. As the federal Opposition have found out, any doubts about the wisdom of Chinese takeovers or investments are countered with cries of ‘racism’, ‘jingoism’ and ‘fears of the old ‘yellow peril’. 

And who is first off the block with these allegations? Labor MPs and Ministers who have been the beneficiaries of free travel in China, courtesy of the Chinese lobby.

Just how compromised is the Australian Labor Party?

Shock! African migrants struggle to fit in, be productive

Left-wing, PC rag The Age reports on the dysfunction experienced by African migrant communities in Melbourne. The article is entitled "How the West was lost." Rather fitting, isn't it? Just like the western suburbs of Melbourne are being lost to the mass influx of alien peoples and cultures, so too is the entire Western world.

Despite the warning from experience that “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,” Australian policymakers went ahead and opened our doors to African migrants. Now we are seeing the results: crime, violence, anti-social behavior, and chronic welfare dependency. Governments are throwing an ever-increasing number of taxpayer dollars at dysfunctional, unproductive, violence-prone people who, based on experience elsewhere, will probably never be able to assimilate, economically or socially, into Western society. Australia already has enough problems with its own homegrown, woefully dysfunctional Aboriginal minority. Why on earth would we want to import more ethnic groups with the same kind of deleterious social proclivities?

I couldn't help but notice this sentence:

The need for urgent action is echoed by Craig Spicer, a former policeman who worked as a multicultural liaison officer at Footscray police station.

Australia didn't need "multicultural liaison officers" to pander to problematic ethnic groups prior to multiculturalism and mass Third World immigration. We can thank the diversitycrats in Canberra for such "enrichment."

How the WASP lost his way - a review of Fraser's The WASP Question

The Independent Australian: 

The WASP Question: An essay on the biocultural evolution, present predicament and future prospects of the invisible race by Andrew Fraser.  ISBN 978-1-907166-29-7. Arktos Media (Arktos £20, Amazon $30). According to Fraser, WASPs have lost their collective soul. They accept prejudice against themselves and suffer from their own Anglophobia and ethnomasochism. Fraser traces out the history of how this has come about. Review by Robert Hughes.

The term WASPs (White Anglo Saxon Protestants), a slightly derogatory term that dates back to the 1950s, has come to be accepted by the people it describes. For that matter Anglo-Saxons have come to accept and absorb prejudice against themselves, (Anglophobia, as Fraser refers to it) even to the point of holding their ancestors responsible for monstrous crimes against humanity.

Proud Anglo-Saxon patriots are few in number and political pariahs. Much better-off are the “organization men’ and ‘liberated’ women denounce and despise any explicit expression of in-group solidarity among their kith and kin. In age of diversity WASPs have lost their collective soul and have become the invisible race.

Considering how much Anglo-Saxons have contributed to the world this is a pretty strange situation. To seek the origins of this Fraser takes a historical perspective going back to days of ancient Germanic tribes and early Anglo-Saxon England. these tribes had a habit of killing non-performing leaders, some, perhaps unfortunately not practiced today.*

While the Anglo-Saxons were not Christians when they first settled in Britain, by 697 the ‘Angelcynns’ or English race had been converted and had their own archbishop in Canterbury. Within 100 years of conversion, the founding tribes had fused into into a single nation within a single church. The church appears to have fostered a sense of spiritual unity and a vision common ethnocultural identity among all the Anglo-Saxons.

Fraser continues the history of the Anglo-Saxons, including the Norman conquest of 1066 and the struggle between church and state. William the Conquerer and his immediate successors rejected papal claims to supremacy over the church in England. Under the reign of Stephen (1154AD) however the papal party mad substantial gains in power. Nevertheless in later years Henry VIII installed himself as Supreme Head of the Church of England.

After the English Civil War and the ascendency of the Puritan Oliver Cromwell there was a rejection of the past-oriented folk religion of their germanic ancestors. The puritans refused to recognize the established Church of England as the symbol of unity. This was a blow to established tradition.

Further pulling apart the compact and cohesive Anglo Protestant civilization and the abrupt rise of homo americanus. Civic patriotism, according to Fraser, cannot be sustained in multiracial societies. Added to the corrosive influence of ethnic heterogeneity is the hedonistic consumerism of the welfare state and its dependence on the cornucopian myth of endless growth and development. Multiculturalism and the worship of the other run concurrently with the worship of Mammon and the sovereign state.

WASPs according to Fraser are trusting souls and hence can be easily exploited by false promises. Nowadays Asians and other Third world migrants daily swear allegiance to Anglo-Saxon civic cultures that are really at odds with their own traditions and folkways. The more genetically distant immigrants are from the host population, the less capable they will be of building or sustaining the economic and social conditions characteristic of Anglo-Saxon societies.

In the postmodern game of identity politics Fraser contender that Negros and Jews have out-played WASPs, who suffer from their own Anglophobia and ethnomasochism.

Fraser, obviously not a republican, puts as one of his remedies for the WASP malaise, the institution of a Patriot King. Such a person, supported by a new natural aristocracy of public men, could reawaken the spirit of freedom. he and his subjects would demand the autonomy of Anglo-Saxon institutions Fraser sees other reforms as necessary to revive Anglo-Saxons including supporting the family and returning to a form of household suffrage. He notes that the institution of universal suffrage facilitated the replacement of the Anglo-Saxon people with a population of atomized, deracinated people.

Fraser makes  a lot of valid points, but it is difficult to be optimistic about about his ideas being put into into effect. He is definitely right about one thing - the worst enemy of Anglo-Saxons is themselves.

Byron Roth on diversity and freedom

Byron M. Roth, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at Dowling College and author of The Perils of Diversity: Immigration and Human Nature, on the link between multiculturalism and political correctness:

"Not surprisingly, the multicultural program these elites promote is, by its very nature, profoundly undemocratic, in that it imposes changes on society that citizens most assuredly do not want and which they resist when given the opportunity to do so. Hence the extraordinary repression of dissent in the immigration debate and the totalitarian imposition of political correctness wherever elites have power."

According to Roth, state-sanctioned multiculturalism can only be maintained through coercion:

"From the perspective of inclusive fitness, unfamiliar others are potential free-riders and, out of a concern that they will be exploited by others, people reduce considerably their altruistic attitudes and behavior in a general way in more diverse communities. This loss of trust is a symptom of a breakdown in social cohesion and is surely a forerunner of the sort of ethnic conflict that is always likely to break out if allowed to do so. This is undoubtedly the reason why multicultural nation-states are forever promoting tolerance and ever more punitive sanctions for the expression of ethnic hostility, even going so far to as to discourage the expression of opinion about the reality of ethnic and racial differences. Currently these measures are directed at the host population when they express reserva­tions about the wisdom of mass immigration, but this will surely change as it becomes ever more obvious that it is the presence of competing ethnic groups that is creating the tension and not the expressed reservations of the majority population. The real danger for modern democracies is that in their zeal to promote multicultural societies, they will be forced to resort to the means that have characterized all empires attempting to maintain their hegemony over disparate peoples."

You can purchase Roth's The Perils of Diversity at Amazon.com.

"Anglo-Saxon Australia is dead. This isn’t the kind of society we are.”

Frank Salter on former PM Malcolm Fraser's support for multiculturalism and his antipathy toward traditional Anglo-Celtic Australia:

Consider Fraser’s book published in 2003 Common Ground: Issues that Should Bind and not Divide Us (Camberwell, Victoria: Penguin).

Fraser criticizes the Howard Government's policy of tight border controls against refugees and asylum seekers (p. 250). Fraser interprets popular support for Howard’s policies as evidence for his view that Australia's ethnic transformation had to be a top-down affair. He derogates democratic politics regarding immigration. Such sensitive policy is best left to elites, he implies.

"[A]ny of the political parties could have played politics with immigration policies [during Australia's post-WWII immigration program]. If Australians had been asked to vote on a major immigration program only seven years after the world Depression, when thousands of ex-servicemen were waiting to be demobilised, they would have voted against the program and Australia would have been the poorer. If one had asked the people of Melbourne whether they wanted Melbourne to become the largest Greek city outside of Greece, they would have said 'No' with a resounding majority. Now that it has happened, Melbourne is proud of the fact and Australia is much better off as a consequence of that migration."

Fraser argues that the same would have applied to Indo-Chinese immigration in the 1970s and 1980s. "But the political parties were united in the policy and Australians accepted the policy as right for the nation" (p. 250). That is not true. Australians have never been given the chance to vote for an established party that opposes mass Third World immigration. For the entire period of which Fraser speaks, from the 1940s until the 1980s, opinion polls consistently showed popular unease with non-British and then non-European immigration.

The scholarship of Mark Lopez confirms Fraser’s coldness towards Anglo Australians. (The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945-1975. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press, 2000.) Following are some relevant facts documented by Lopez based on interviews with Fraser and other leading figures and archival research.

The public had no idea of Fraser's conversion to multiculturalism (in 1973), and he was widely viewed as one of the more conservative Liberal Party leaders. Fraser remarked two decades later, without remorse, “Anglo-Saxon Australia is dead. This isn’t the kind of society we are” (quoted by Lopez 2000, p. 440). This is a remarkably detached statement considering that Fraser was perceived to be of Anglo identity himself, that Anglo Australians constituted an overwhelming majority of the nation as late as 1970. Certainly in 1950 most Australians had a firm identity as a British nation. The Australian nation was founded and built by Anglo-Celts from the initial landing by Captain Arthur Phillip at Botany Bay in 1788, a century of exploring and settling an often harsh continent, through Federation in 1901, the First World War and Gallipoli, and the Second World War in the Pacific and North Africa. What is remarkable is the lack of regret from someone who grew up in that original nation and was one of its privileged sons. Fraser treats traditional Australia as if it were somehow improper, something needing correction. It is a decidedly superior position, and one taken towards his own people. That requires explanation.

One interesting feature of Fraser’s disparaging remarks about Anglo Australia in the late 1990s is his openness, in contrast to his previous reticence. Lopez points out that the multicultural movement had always been secretive, had always mistrusted the Australian people, had always relied on infiltrating committees and agencies to surreptitiously advance its policies. Lopez writes:

“The source of the shift towards multiculturalism in public policy was not parliamentarians, vulnerable at elections, but the influence exerted by multiculturalists from positions in the Immigration Advisory Council (IAC), the Migrant Task Force Committees, the Immigration Department’s Integration Branch, non-government organisations like ACOSS, or through lobbying relevant Government ministers. . . . The multiculturalists could potentially maintain their degree of influence as long as they maintained their strategic presence in these committees and agencies” (Lopez, Origins of Multiculturalism, p. 337).

This is further evidence, proof really, that the ethnic diversification of Australia was imposed from above, that it was not a popular throwing off of the country’s traditional identity. It was accompanied by hostility towards Australia as it had always been and how it had previously chosen to remain in its popular restrictive immigration policies, first legislated by state parliaments and after federation in 1901 in the first act of the Federal Parliament.

Original article


See also:

Salter on Fraser, Part One

Syrian civil conflict comes to Sydney

Syrian civil conflict comes to Sydney courtesy of our open-door immigration policy:

As the author of the Ideologee blog writes: "And so, as another episode of Islam v. Dictator v. Stupid Moderates unfolds in the Middle East, we have to now hear about it here in Australia."

My question: why should we have to put up with scenes like this in Australia?
 
Let's be frank. If the Syrians in the above video are so passionate about their homeland, why don't they all go back there? Why are they in Australia? Why should we - Australians - allow these foreign squabbles to be played out on our soil? We certainly don't need such people here, especially given their fractious nature.

Australians want an end to immigration but nobody in Canberra is listening

 From The Telegraph

MORE than half of Australians want our borders closed and immigration ended.

New research, provided exclusively to The Daily Telegraph, reveals a dramatic swing against border issues, with 51 per cent in favour of saying no to all migrants - a 10 per cent jump since 2005.

Fears over falling job security and the burgeoning population putting more strain on infrastructure are two reasons for the shift in attitudes. The federal opposition said yesterday the anti-immigration sentiment was due to rising public anger about the number of asylum seekers attempting to enter the country.

Just a third of the 2000 people questioned by Quantum Market Research for AustraliaSCAN believed overseas migration made Australia "a more interesting and exciting place", down from almost half in 1995.

Almost two thirds said they believed migrants should try to "adopt the Australian way of life" when they arrived.

The number who believe the country has room to accommodate more people also plunged to less than a third, down from 42 per cent a decade ago.

Monash University migration expert Bob Birrell said the results showed public opinion about immigration had moved into new territory.

"I think they are right to be worried, we have record levels of immigration and as a consequence we are allowing 100,000 migrants to enter the workforce at a time when employment growth is at a level lower than that," Dr Birrell said.

"People are concerned that the present rate of population growth is not sustainable and is going to make Australia a poorer place to live rather than a better one."

The government's immigration and refugee program for 2012-13 is expected to reach a record 203,000 people, similar to the mass migration intakes of the 1960s.

Unsurprisingly, Australians are becoming increasingly fed up with mass immigration. Most right-thinking Australians want to see immigration reduced to far more saner levels.

No one can claim with a straight face that the current wave of immigration into Australia, most of it from non-traditional source countries in the Third World, is in Australia's national interest. While big business, non-white multicultural groups and the immigrants themselves benefit, it is the rest of us who must suffer the 'negative externalities' associated with higher immigration, such as lower wages, increased job competition and higher unemployment, housing shortages (driving prices out of the reach of many Australians), severe environmental strain, water shortages, worsening traffic congestion, overburdened public services and infrastructure, a breakdown of social cohesion and community spirit, ethnic tensions, the demographic displacement of Australia's historic Anglo-Celtic majority, the disintegration of our common Australian national identity and culture, and a more atomised society.

Australians, quite rightly, want an end to this open-borders madness.

Sadly, the 'great divide' between Australia's people and its political elites on the issue of immigration is as wide as ever.

Just witness the response from our political leaders to the news that immigration is increasingly unpopular with the Australian public:

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison blamed Labor's border protection policies for public hostility to migration.

"So long as Labor continue to crash confidence as a result of their failures on our borders, they will continue to crash community confidence in our immigration program," he said.

"That's why the Coalition will reinstate proven border protection policies to stop the boats, getting our borders back under control and restoring the integrity in our immigration program."

A spokesman for Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said migration had brought substantial economic and cultural benefits to Australia, but net overseas migration numbers had blown out under the Howard government due to an influx of low-skilled workers who abused the system.

"Our immigration reforms are delivering a sustainable level of migration, while responding to labour market needs," he said.

Both Morrison and Bowen are clueless apologists for open borders. They are spokesmen for what VDARE.com calls the "treason lobby' - those who promote mass immigration to the detriment of their respective nation-state and its historic peoplehood.

African migrant crime spree

Even the ultra-PC Victorian police are admitting it:

One of the state 's top police says young, ethnic gangs are increasingly bashing and robbing people in inner Melbourne.

Gangs of up to 10 people target vulnerable people in the city including those effected by alcohol, especially in lanes and isolated parks.

Assistant commissioner Steve Fontana has told Neil Mitchell many of the violent offenders are aged under 21 and young Africans are over-represented.

Gosh, who would have thought that importing violence-prone, unproductive, hesperophobic people utterly alien to mainstream Australia in terms of culture and social norms would create massive, intractable problems for Australian society?

We were, of course, warned:

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. 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.” Unfortunately, experience also demonstrates that any such suggestion will produce nothing short of a hysterical reaction among Australian journalists and academics.

Meanwhile, Israel is telling its African 'refugees'/migrants, nearly all of whom are there illegally, to "go home."
 

White Majoritarianism?

There is an interesting piece at the Commonwealth Contrarian blog about the lack of any explicit white majoritarian movements in the English-speaking parts of the West. 

Given the huge immigration-driven demographic changes that threaten to transform whites into a minority in all of the 'Anglo' countries, why haven't we seen the emergence of white majoritarianism as a political force?

The main discernible reason is that the historic white majority populations of the English-speaking West fail to see themselves as a people. They fail to recognise themselves as distinct population groups whose interests are threatened by the never-ending influx of non-Western immigrants into their countries. Rather, whites in the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand generally shun a collective group identity and instead tend to view themselves in more individualistic terms (an Anglo-Saxon trait?).

Thus, although they constitute the actual demographic majority populations in their respective countries, they have, to quote U.S. commentator Lawrence Auster, "no political or cultural existence as the majority."

As Auster notes:

Not only do whites fail to represent themselves as a group, but many of them think it is immoral ... for a white person even to think of himself as being white. Whites thus have no identity as whites, nor or they allowed to have any. Within the terms of our current order, whites as whites are nothing, even as non-white groups aggressively assert their own group identities and are endowed—by that same passive white majority!—with official and favored status.

Unless these white majorities begin to develop a sense of collective peoplehood and begin to assert their own group interests, it is difficult to see white majoritarianism amounting to anything more than a pipe dream.

Immigration paves Australia's way to becoming an Asian colony

In an article entitled "Immigration Paves Our Way", Australian Federal Immigration Minister Chris Bowen writes:

Something big happened in the history of immigration last year. It didn’t get any headlines. It had nothing to do with boats or asylum seekers. It wasn’t debated in Parliament. But it is probably the most important development in immigration in years. 

Last year, for the first time in the history of Australia, the United Kingdom was not our largest source of permanent migrants. For the first time ever, more people moved to Australia from China than any other country.

Bowen goes on to laud this historic shift in immigration patterns as vital to ensuring "Australia's role in the Asian Century". He also repeats the usual discredited rot about mass immigration being not only economically beneficial but essential (it is neither).

Bowen's article should have been entitled "Immigration paves our way into becoming an Asian colony," for he appears to be to essentially giving the populations of Asian countries the green-light to colonise Australia in the hope that it will lead to increased trade opportunities.

Bowen notes that China has replaced Britain - the nation that seeded modern Australia - as the number one source of new immigrants without any real public debate about this profound change in immigration source countries. Unwittingly, Bowen has conceded that our immigration policy is not subject to the democratic process. This shift in immigration will fundamentally alter the ethno-cultural makeup of Australia and indubitably effect every aspect of Australian national life. Yet the existing Australian people have been given no opportunity to debate whether or not these changes should occur.

If current immigration trends continue, we can assume that the end result will be an Asian-dominated Australia. Australia's founding Anglo-Celtic population will become a minority in this country. Surely it behooves all Australians to consider carefully the profound consequences to our society of such a radical change in the ethno-cultural makeup of our population. We need to consider the wider societal and cultural implications of immigration beyond its trivial economic aspects. After all, Australia is more than just an economy.

"Rast in peas"

Andrew Bolt:

Here’s a scene from our officially multicultural future, but played out just the other day at a funeral at the Springvale Botanical Cemetery,.

Check the note the Russian-born florist added to one of the bouquets, ordered over the phone by a grieving niece.

“Rast in peas, unty Josie.”

Bolt continues:

Speaking and writing basic English is, after all, a key to good citizenship, neighbourliness and effective integration.

But here is the next thing that is new.

What I just said may soon be declared racist or in some other way discriminatory, even illegal, if the Australian Human Rights Commission’s latest campaign against “racism” succeeds.

The commission introduces its new push by declaring “ cultural, religious and linguistic diversity are fundamental to our national identity” and “this is something to be celebrated”.

Note, we must celebrate our “linguistic diversity” as something “fundamental to our national identity”.

Once, and not very long ago, a defining characteristic of our national identity was that we shared a common language, English. Now we are told that our defining characteristic is that we don’t.

"Rast in peas", freedom of speech in Australia.

"Rast in peas", Australian English as our common national language.

"Rast in peas", Australian national identity.

Apologies to future generations

John Derbyshire:

... our great-grandchildren will shake their heads in wonder. “Couldn’t they see?” Cultural diversity within a nation causes nothing but trouble—what could be more obvious?

In that future world, nations that had the sense to remain ethnically intact and which had “Arctic” distributions of intelligence, behavior, and personality—China, Japan, Korea (presumably united by then), Finland maybe, Israel if she survives, just possibly Russia, some outlier oddities such as, perhaps, Hungary—will have steamed ahead of those who inflicted the multi-culti blight upon themselves.

The rest of us will either be dragging ourselves along wearily, towing behind us the millstones of unproductive, unassimilable, low-human-capital subpopulations left over from the Age of Multiculturalism, along with the associated frictions and rancors; or else we shall have broken up in complete ethnic disaggregation, casting off those subpopulations to fend for themselves in mini-states of their own while we join—rejoin, really—the ethno-nationalist march of mankind.

Historians of the future will amuse themselves by coming up with theories to explain why European civilization, at the height of its powers, rich with unparalleled achievements in science, music, art, literature, mathematics, and technology, gave up its lands and its treasures to people for whom those achievements were mere hated tokens of oppression or the impious and superfluous productions of infidels.

Read the rest:

Multiculturalism: When Will the Sleeper Wake?

Diversity VS. Academic Freedom

At the U.S.-based site Alternative Right, Canadian-Australian academic renegade Andrew Fraser has a depressing piece about the erosion of academic freedom in Australia. As immigration-driven ethnic and racial diversity increases and the de facto state religion of multiculturalism spreads into every facet of national life, academic freedom suffers. Any intellectual criticism of multiculturalism, mass non-Western immigration, or the deleterious proclivities of particular non-white minority groups is ruthlessly suppressed and condemned as "hate speech". Multiculturalism, being the sham it is, cannot withstand rigorous intellectual criticism. The only way it can survive is by forcibly silencing its opponents and preventing any serious intellectual discourse about the inherent risks and drawbacks of diversity.

As Fraser notes:

Academic freedom in Australia is dying before our eyes; another sacrifice performed in the now holy name of “The Other.” In the universities, as elsewhere, public criticism of privileged minorities must walk a shaky legal tightrope.

Be sure to read the entire article.

Julia Gillard's immigration lie

"Australia should not hurtle down the track towards a big population." - Julia Gillard in 2010.

But has the Gillard Government done anything in the last two years to reduce immigration levels?

Quite the opposite.

The Herald Sun reports:

MIGRANT numbers have hit a two-year high, confirming that we are hurtling towards a “Big Australia"… Net overseas migration is about 184,000 a year and is expected to reach 204,000 by mid-2015, according to the latest Immigration Department forecasts.

Despite its claims to the contrary, the Gillard Government is forcing us toward a bigger, poorer, ethnically divided, Third-Worldised Australia whether we, the existing Australian people, like it or not.

Gillard's broken promises

Peter Wilkinson of The Independent Australian writes:

Gillard is untrustworthy, true to the traditional ALP ‘whatever it takes’. However, in these days of the media concentrating on the moment, public opinion is fickle and tends to forget broken promises. Unless there are more stuff-ups like the Carr fiasco the ALP will improve before the next election. The Coalition has had it too easy, too early.

...

Broken Promises

To satisfy the Greens Gillard had to break her promise not to introduce a carbon tax. (There is no evidence that she is a liar, it is entirely credible that she was not going to introduce a carbon if the ALP had a clear majority, given her efforts to get Rudd to drop his ETS.) This site has argued for a carbon tax, but at a lesser level. As a result of Greens pressure it has been set too high.

Before the election she made it quite clear she was opposed to homosexual marriage. When the crunch came at the ALP conference she did not speak against the motion that made homosexual marriage ALP policy. Instead she slid away by getting a deal done to make a vote a conscience vote.

Conscious of a swelling public disquiet with Rudd’s Big Australia policy with record immigration, before the election she said she did not believe in a big Australia. However the Government quietly budgeted for a 20,000 increase in 2011/12 over 2010/11. So the Government is canceling out the effect of the carbon tax and more by increasing the population by not much short of 200,000 pa. There is no creditable scenario which has Australia reaching the target of 5% reduction by 2020 of the energy consumption in 2000 with Gillard immigration policies. Abrupt dumping of schemes to reduce household consumption, such as the pink batts and the solar hot water schemes, show that Gillard’s long term vision is not 2020.

She made a deal with independent Andrew Wilkie to do something about problem gamblers. As soon as she had inveigled the then Coalition member Peter Slipper into the Chair and didn’t need Wilkie’s vote, she shuffled off the simple plan of lower value feeds or slower spin in favour of a ridiculous trial of letting problem gamblers set their own limits.

Somewhere there was talk of amending the Constitution and a select (carefully selected!) group has made over the top recommendations. All too hard, quietly postponed.

Australia being transformed for nothing

The Australian reports:

THE case for higher immigration as a driver for economic growth is far from proven, as is the notion that more immigrants can counter the negative effects of population ageing, the Productivity Commission says.

In an analysis of the "big Australia" debate in its 2011 annual report published yesterday, the commission said the economic impact of immigration "is sometimes clouded by misperception".

"Two benefits that are sometimes attributed to immigration, despite mixed or poor evidence to support them, are that immigration is an important driver of per capita economic growth, (and) immigration could alleviate the problem of population ageing," it says.

The commission also notes immigration doesn't affect household wages overall, though particular sectors could be adversely affected if there were a large influx of skilled immigrants.

And it warns that trying to slow the impact of an ageing population on the economy by bringing in young workers is only a sugar hit.

"Any effect would be short-lived," the report says. "This is because immigrants themselves age, and progressively higher levels of migration would be needed to sustain the current age structure into the future."

No surprises here. Immigration restrictionists have been pointing out for decades that a) immigration does not raise GDP per capita, and b) immigration cannot solve our ageing population woes. Despite the dogmatic claims of the open-borders crowd, there is no legitimate economic rationale for ongoing mass immigration. In short, Australia is being transformed for nothing.

Labor dismantles Australia's borders and sovereignty

Andrew Bolt:

Two more in a day - which makes eight in just one week:

AUTHORITIES have intercepted two boats in Australian waters carrying almost 200 suspected asylum seekers.

That’s another 740 boat people in a week. The doors are wide open, and the Government has given up.

Given up? That would imply that the ALP did actually try to stem the tide. This is not the case.

The argument frequently used against Labor is that they have "lost" control of Australia's borders, with the imputation being that the present immigration crisis is a product of their gross incompetence. In reality, the truth is far more egregious. The immigration tsunami, both illegal and legal, rolling over Australia was not some sort of clumsy accident. It was not some unintended consequence unwittingly unleashed upon us. Rather, it was deliberate and calculated move on behalf of the ALP. Since coming to power, the ALP has purposely set out to dismantle our borders and erode our national sovereignty. For instance, the ALP deliberately dismantled the relatively effective border protection regime put in place by the Howard Government, thereby opening the country up to the current influx of illegals masquerading as refugees. They also deliberately increased legal immigration levels to record highs, despite the lack of any sound reason - economic or otherwise - for such a huge increase in immigration

It seems the only miscalculation made by the ALP was in underestimating the public's aversion to more immigration, both illegal and legal.

Paradise lost

Sydney in the 1960s:



Contrast the above footage of 1960s Sydney to the Sydney of today. One can clearly see how mass Third World immigration has forever changed - for the worst - what was once a beautiful, idyllic, Australian city.

Hat tip: Mark Richardson at Oz Conservative.

"We did it to ourselves"

In a 2010 piece for Alternative Right, Australian writer R.J. Stove
laments the suicide - demographic and cultural - of WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) Australia.

Stove:

... if we Australian WASPs (and I, though Catholic by choice, am largely WASP by ancestry) have become strangers in our own home, it is fruitless to go around blaming Jewish behavior. We did it to ourselves. (With substantial help, admittedly, from bellyaching Irish ex-Catholics, not to mention from Calabrian Mafia thugs.) Our position, and ultimate complicity in our own doom, may call to mind the 17th-century Spanish proverb: “Castile has made Spain, and Castile has destroyed it.” For “Spain” read “Australia,” and for “Castile” read “the WASP”.

Jack Lang on White Australia

Former ALP heavyweight and NSW Premier Jack Lang in his 1956 autobiography:

White Australia ... was Australia's Magna Carta. Without that policy, this country would have been lost long ere this. It would have been engulfed in an Asian tidal wave. There would have been no need for the Japanese to invade this country. ...

Even the United States has had to wrestle with the problems of Jim Crowism, racial segregation and color discrimination. Labor didn't want this country to have similar problems. Had we listened to the do-gooders and the crusaders for international brotherhood and racial equality, the barriers would have come down long ago. Our living standard would have been destroyed. We would have had intermarriages of races, half-castes and quarter-castes with all the social dilemmas that invariably follow such racial mixtures. We would have had a Black, Brown and Brindle streak right through every strata[sic] of our society. Instead we ... decided to keep this country as a citadel of the white peoples. Australia is still White Australia thanks to those who battled against those who wanted to exploit colored labor for their own ends. We must keep it that way.

For most of the 20 Century, the Australian Labor Party championed White Australia. These days, the Australian Labor Party champions Non-White Australia.

Andrew Fraser interview

Professor Andrew Fraser interviewed about his book, The WASP Question, by David Oldfield on Radio 2UE.

Barbarism on Australia Day

From the Herald Sun:

A large police contingent was called to a Canberra restaurant after Aboriginal-rights protesters trapped the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader inside today.

Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott were attending an Australia Day presentation of the inaugural National Emergency Medals at the Lobby Restaurant when protesters who had just marched to commemorate the Aboriginal Tent Embassy’s 40th anniversary surrounded the building.

Both party leaders were trapped inside for around 20 minutes before police forced a way for their exit and they left in the same car…

The protesters banged on the three glass sides of restaurant chanting “shame’’ and “racist’’ and chased the pair’s car down the road as they left, banging on the roof and bonnet.

This vulgar display certainly does nothing to promote the Aboriginal cause. Then again, I'm not even sure what their cause is any more. They have already received land rights, recognition as the "first peoples" of Australia, and generous handouts making them the most heavily subsidised ethnic group on the planet. What else do Aboriginal racial activists actually want? Every non-indigenous person to immediately leave Australia? Do they want to return to their old pre-European settlement, Stone Age-like way of life?

Europeans have been here for over 200 years, with many generations being born and buried on this land. Aborigines need to accept this fact and move on. They need to come to terms with the fact that the colonisation of Australia was inevitable. They also need to come to terms with the fact that the early British settlers were remarkably successful in developing this arid wasteland into one of the world's most prosperous, advanced societies and that the white Australian majority has every right to be proud of these nation-building achievements, particularly on Australia Day.

Towards a new racial hierarchy?

Nicolas Rothwell writes in The Australian about the proposals made by legal and Aboriginal activists to change the Australian constitution:

The expert panel is asking them to accept several measures that tug in different directions: both to deracialise the Constitution and to insert in it a clause recognising the special need for indigenous advancement; both to prohibit racial discrimination and to recognise the special place of Aboriginal languages, cultures and ties to the land. Equal rights - and a special role as well..

At core, the dilemmas lurking in the referendum lurk there because of the bedevilling concept of race and a keenly maintained conviction of indigenous difference. The expert panel’s aim is virtually to ban racial thinking, while exalting a particular racial category.

Despite speaking in the language of "anti-discrimination", it is clear from the proposed amendments that the "expert" panel's real aim is to promote one racial group over another - in this case, Australia's tiny indigenous minority over the European Australian majority. They want to legally enshrine a privileged place for Aboriginals in the Australian constitution. This is not about ending racial discrimination. Quite the opposite in fact.

Where is the outrage?

Perth Now reports:

A PERTH teenager has spoken of his terror after he was violently bashed by a gang of thugs who repeatedly kicked him and stomped on his head …

Perth detectives are hunting up to 20 youths, believed to be of African descent, who were involved in the attack in the city at 11.30pm last night…

"The only thing I heard before they caught me was: `Who are these white c**ts?’ It was totally unprovoked."

Imagine the screams of outrage if a gang of white youths brutally assaulted some Africans on the streets of Perth. We would never hear the end of it.

White Australians being violently attacked by recently-arrived minorities doesn't quite fit the whites=bad, non-whites=good multicultural narrative, so don't expect much in the way of a media reaction.

We can thank the Australian Government, with its zealous commitment to non-discriminatory immigration and multiculturalism, for the importation of such violent, racist, white-hating thugs.

More multicultural propaganda from SBS

I managed to miss this when it was originally aired on SBS:



*Yawn*

Another biased, minority-centric SBS "documentary" designed to make this country's white, Anglo-Celtic majority feel ashamed for merely existing. This is not an accurate account of Australia's modern immigration history. Rather, it is crude multicultural propaganda piece aimed at denigrating and delegitimising the people who founded and built this country.

I find it interesting how white Australians are constantly being told how "racist" they are by non-whites, yet it is only Australia and a few other white-majority countries that permit large-scale, diverse immigration. Non-white nations are careful to maintain racial and cultural homogeneity and most permit essentially no immigration at all. A blatant racial double standard that SBS fails to acknowledge.

African countries for Africans. Asian countries for Asians. Arab countries for Arabs. Western countries for everybody?