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.)