Wednesday, October 28, 2009

The forgotten Australians

In an article for The Australian, John Pasquarelli, former advisor to Pauline Hanson, writes about immigration, multiculturalism, Barnaby Joyce, and those "forgotten Australians" looking for a champion:

Civil rights apologists try to bottle up public concern about illegal arrivals, militant Islamism, ethnic gangs, drugs and the murderous danger zones that our CBDs have become, but from time to time the outrage erupts on talkback radio and in the letters to the editor columns. A caller from Bathurst, NSW, recently said the threat of Pacific Islander gangs in western Sydney made him pack up and leave, and he is not alone. A woman who was flying her Australian flag during the Cronulla riots had her house pelted with eggs. Police told her to take down the flag as it was inciting the Muslims.

These are today's forgotten people, Australians of all generations who know their history and are embittered as they see their heritage, values, institutions and way of life devalued. Under Labor, the rapid-fire arrival of boatloads of illegals has, until recently, failed to generate the banner headlines of the past, no doubt heart-warming for those Greens, Laborites and Liberal marshmallows who favour the madness of some sort of open borders policy. Ex-Liberal MP Bruce Baird, now holding a Labor job, told the Ten Network's Meet the Press Labor's policy changes on dealing with people-smugglers had nothing whatsoever to do with the recent surge in arrivals.

As Christmas Island readies to put up the no-vacancy sign, the hitherto silent Libs have broken out, led by Philip Ruddock and Kevin Andrews, and already the polls have spiked substantially in their favour, no doubt creating more grief for Malcolm Turnbull, who is handcuffed to the usual suspects in Wentworth and whose only comment to date has been a limp-wristed call for an independent inquiry.

The chief objective of the illegals and their criminal co-conspirators, the people-smugglers, is to be allowed to come ashore on the mainland and that will surely happen soon.

Still disconnected from the mainstream, there is hardly a mumble from the Liberals as our immigration rates accelerate.

A new Australia is in the making, where our ethnic minorities will become majorities, aided by people running Malcolm Fraser's line that we need a population of 50million plus, no doubt to be fed by the spring of taxpayer-funded multiculturalism.


Full article

How long before the Third World immigration tsunami washes away these "forgotten Australians" forever?

Turkic-Muslim whining

Nursel Guzeldeniz is a Muslim social anthropologist, writer and filmmaker who likes to write jejune, nonsensical articles railing against the so-called "Islamophobia" which now allegedly pervades the Western world, including Australia.

In an article about public opposition to the construction of mosques in Sydney, invidiously entitled "Anglo-Christian tribalism," Guzeldeniz wrote:

What lies at the heart of this fierce opposition to the construction of mosques and Islamic schools is some Australians’ inability and unwillingness to accept and acknowledge that Australia is a multicultural society, and to come to terms with this fact.

...

... although the White Australia policy was abolished in the early 1970s, the attitudes that created that policy still linger in Australia. And this leads to a tribal mindset based on Anglo-European-Christian identity in some suburbs where residents refuse to accommodate any difference fearing the change and discomfort this may cause.


Now, I'm not entirely sure what imbues Nursel Guzeldeniz with such arrogance, but her message to "Anglo-Christian tribalists", otherwise known as the Australian majority, is essentially this: "If you don't like the changes that we are imposing on the country, too bad! Australia is multicultural now!"

Guzeldeniz even has the temerity to assert that Australians must relinquish their "Anglo-European-Christian" identity so that newly-arrived immigrant minorities can retain their particular, exclusive identities!

After reading this particular article, one can only conclude that "multiculturalism", far from being about benign colourful festivals and exotic foods, actually means handing your country over to alien peoples and cultures and allowing them to do with it as they wish. Is it any wonder why some Australians continue to resist multiculturalism?

I can only imagine what would happen if a large population of Anglo-Christian Australians moved en masse into a Muslim country, say Nursel Guzeldeniz's ancestral homeland, and then demanded that the host society change to suit the newcomers and redefine itself as a multicultural country (an oxymoron if ever there was one). If the Muslim host population reacted in outrage to the changes this alien cultural group was imposing on their country, the Anglo-Christians could respond: "What's your problem? You need to accept and acknowledge that your country is now a multicultural society, and to come to terms with this fact. Your old, pre-multicultural identity is no longer valid."

Of course, if Western immigrants flooded into Muslim countries and began changing those societies to better suit themselves, they would be accused of colonialism and more than likely forcibly evicted by the host populations.

The economystic faith

Lawrence Auster on the "economystic" argument in favour of mass immigration:

The prevailing view of immigration among mainstream elites is that it represents a great boon to the economy. That immigration is only to be considered from the standpoint of its economic effects has become such an accepted notion over the past 25 years that it has not occurred to many people what a bizarre idea it really is. The implication is that our well-being as a society is solely a function of economic output. Matters of quality of life, social cohesion and continuity, aesthetic enjoyment, political liberty, national identity, and all the other intangibles that make up the life of a society—since these cannot be stated statistically, they don’t count. Or so the economists seem to believe. The late Julian Simon, with his crack-pated idea that every immigrant, regardless of his cultural origin, level of education, or legal status, represents a net economic gain for this country, was perhaps the most extreme of these “economystics.”

Notwithstanding the veneer of scientific expertise with which its claims are advanced, the economystic faith boils down to an almost vacuous proposition: immigration is good because it increases population, and thus (assuming more economic output from more people) proportionately increases gross product. A doubling or tripling of the U.S. population will lead to a doubling or tripling of economic output. Voil√†—immigration makes us a “wealthier” nation! One of the problems with this logic is that individual wealth does not necessarily increase, only the aggregate wealth. Meanwhile, our congested coastal and metropolitan areas have become two or three times more crowded. Pressure on open spaces and parks, stress on resources (increasing the need for burdensome regulations), crippling traffic congestion, displacement of older residents, as well as ethnic conflict, all become worse. Even as economic output goes up, overall quality of life can decline. But the economystic cannot see these things because for him the only reality is that which can be stated in economic terms.

For the economystic, the swelling of Los Angeles due to immigration has been a wonderful thing. According to the Los Angeles Times, “Development policies over the last decade have sought to make the Los Angeles area the magnet of the burgeoning Pacific Rim economy. The region’s growth has been phenomenal, as measured by trade revenues, number of building permits issued and aggregate income.” Sounds great, right? But the article continued: “The success of Los Angeles’ integration into the international economy, however, is not matched by success in integrating its immigrant and ethnic minority populations.” The article then discussed the uncontrolled ethnic rivalry and violence in this new “world-class” city of Los Angeles.

In other words, the great economic growth of Los Angeles has not necessarily been a boon for the people living there. By most standards, Los Angeles over the last 30 years has become an immeasurably worse place to live in as a direct result of the very things that have led to the growth of its aggregate wealth. The economystic cannot see this. He looks at a table of statistics, notices the upward trend in population and aggregate income, and rushes into print telling us how immigration is turning America into an earthly paradise.

The deeper problem with economism is that no true values, including the values of a distinct political system, culture and way of life, can be comprehended in economic or utilitarian terms. Solely on the basis of measurable, quantifiable, pragmatic facts it is impossible to preserve any society or institution, even so basic an institution as the nuclear family.

Suppose there were two families, the Smiths and the Joneses, living next door to each other. The two families get along, the children play together, the parents occasionally socialize with each other. Then one day the Joneses announce that they want to move in permanently with the Smiths. When the Smiths seem less than enthusiastic about this proposal, the Joneses say: “What’s your problem? You have enough room, your house is bigger than ours, and we get along together. Besides, the nuclear family is only a modern invention. A dual family will enrich all of us.” To back up these claims, the Joneses bring in an economist who says that two-family households have larger aggregate wealth than one-family households. They bring in a sociologist who cites studies showing that the children raised in two-family households have superior abilities in adjusting to different types of people in a diverse society. Faced with this aggressive challenge to their existence as a family, what can the Smiths say? Their family, as a unique, autonomous association, is an intrinsic, irreplaceable value to its members. It cannot be defended on the basis of quantifiable facts. In the same way, the nation is a family whose distinct character and values cannot be defended on a purely rationalistic basis. To say that it must do so in order to have the right to exist, is to deny its right to exist.


Read the rest here.

Another nail in the coffin of our heritage

From The Independent Australian, Issue 14, Summer 2007/08:

Sic Transit Gloria

The demise of Old Norse at Australian universities is another milestone in the cultural dispossession of our founding population in favour of our "Asian destiny".

The University of Melbourne has decided to change its traditional course structures to what it originally called the 'American model' - now renamed the 'Melbourne model'. As a result, some forty or so subjects will no longer be taught. One of these is Old Norse.

The language of the Vikings was first taught at Melbourne in 1944, by the Belgium-born Augustin Lodewyckx. In 1946 a second course was set up in the English Department by Professor Keith Macartney. Graduates of these classes include many people who are household names to educated Australians. They include: Dr John Martin, the author of the best book on Ragnarok; Dame Leonie Kramer; the poet AD Hope; the great Anglo-Saxonist Bruce Mitchell; and the only Australian recipient of the Order of the Icelandic Falcon, Professor Ian Maxwell.

In 2007, allegedly in the interest of economic rationalism, this grand tradition draws to an end. Old Norse will be taught no longer, despite the school having international recognition of high standing. The University of Melbourne, in its weaselly defence, claims that only thirty-odd students undertook Old Norse in any given year. What the university apparently doesn't understand is that it's not the number of students that's important. It's the quality, a factor that will soon become much scarcer at what was once a great university, but is now being dumbed down to accommodate fee-paying Asian students.

In 1972, the American author Wilmot Robertson published the first version of his seminal book, The Dispossessed Majority. In his preface, Robertson perceptively remarked that, "The most truly disadvantaged are those who are hated for their virtues, not their vices, who insist on playing the game of life with opponents who have long ago abandoned the rules, who stubbornly go on believing that a set of highly sophisticated institutions developed by and for a particular people at a particular point in time and space are operational for all peoples under all circumstances."

That is the situation in Australia today. Our universities, like many of our other institutions, no longer play by the rules for which we initially created them, and continue to fund them. They give mere lip-service to those rules, in order to continue the dispossession of Australia's founding Anglo-Celtic population without alarming us too much. Would you like proof of this? Well, Melbourne University claims that low student numbers for Old Norse have doomed the subject. When Monash University abolished the same subject, back in the Hawke-Keating era, the number of students enrolled for Old Norse at Monash had actually been growing substanially for several years under the direction of a dynamic young Anglo-Saxonist from Oxford. Yet Monash made no secret of the fact that it preferred to allocate resources to Asian languages, regardless of student numbers. In other words, student interest in subjects relevant to traditional Australians was of no concern to Monash, which preferred to be an agent of change toward Australia's so-called "Asian destiny".

The demise of Old Norse at Australian universities could be seen as just a footnote to the cultural dispossession of our founding population, which still remains a majority. In itself, Old Norse is of little consequence. Yet if traditional Australians continue to allow our institutions, which once served us so well, to become a chorus to our ongoing dispossession, we will have only ourselves to blame. If our children have less and less exposure to our own people's heritage, we can scarcely blame them if they adopt the culture of other groups that are promoted positively in the media and elsewhere.

It is hard to know how to fight back against Melbourne University's decision to drop Old Norse. As a Melbourne University graduate, I have made it clear that their begging letters will no longer be rewarded with a cheque. Of course, that won't be enough to make any difference to them. I think we must withdraw our support - totally - from all institutions that have turned against the founding Australian people that they were originally created to serve.

There is a good, old-fashioned word for individuals and institutions that have set themselves against their own kith and kin. That word is "traitor".

The author wishes to remain anonymous for professional and personal reasons.

Kevin Rudd: The Manchurian Candidate?

Is Kevin Rudd Australia's version of the "Manchurian Candidate"? Alan Fitzgerald, writing in The Independent Australian, thinks so.

It is generally accepted that Kevin Rudd is a detail man about running the country. Hence we can assume that four significant developments in Australia have his approval. These four developments are:

(1) Investment in the resource industries (covered below). The Chinese Government investment is so widespread and pervasive that they would have a better dossier on the resource industries in some details than the Australian Government.

(2) ‘Soft power’ - e.g... the establishment of Confucius ‘Institutes’ in the universities (also covered below).

(3) Large-scale immigration of Chinese via the educational institutions so that the Chinese are beginning to dominate the professional and managerial classes. This is the theme of The Howard Legacy so that there is no need to go into it here, save to note that one of the first actions of the Rudd government was to increase immigration rates to record levels. At the same time their was little financial help for Australian universities, so that they continue to be dependent on international students. This will lead to increased dominance and will be the topic of a future article.

(4) Becoming a large holder of Australian Government bonds issued to sustain the spiralling deficit. There is no information about who is buying Australian bonds, although it is understood that such information will be released soon. It seems highly probable that the Chinese are large buyers, as they have of US bonds. Once a capital importer like Australia becomes a perennial client of a sovereign state it must influence policy.


Read the rest here.

Multiculturalism, immigration and the "Chattering Class"

In a long article for National Observer, Paul Christopher examines the Australian "chattering class" and attempts to explain the reasons behind their enthusiasm for multiculturalism and Third World immigration:

Multiculturalism: A Political Artifact

Multiculturalism is the demand that Australians should adapt to rancorous demands by newly arrived or resident ethnic groups. Multiculturalism emerged from the New Left matrix of the 1960s and 1970s and is the crazed orphan of cultural relativism. In the Australian case it was designed to destabilise the affiliations to British-Australian traditions, institutions and values. The operational assumption that Australia was a W.A.S.P. (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant) paradise built on racism, genocide and oppression is still assiduously promoted by leftist historians and by ethnic and pro-ethnic media. Hating Australia became a profession.

In asserting the regressive fantasy that all cultures are "equal", cultural relativism ensures that the host country, Australia - a term that multiculturalists are trying to depreciate - was denigrated as the source of authoritative allocation of values and legitimacy. Australian multi-culturalism was never put to the people and was almost covertly promoted by progressive activist networks.

Multiculturalism became a contentious topic decades after the realisation that it was politically and culturally destabilising and the origin of many taxpayer-funded social problems including ethnic crime, narcotics, social and religious separatism and political vote-catching.

As two researchers recently summarised, "Multiculturalism was not well known or popular among ordinary Australians." Subsequent research into popular acceptance of multiculturalism reveals respondents were particularly concerned that "they were never asked to vote on it".

The historian of Australian multiculturalism, Mark Lopez, points out: "Multiculturalism was developed by a small number of academics, social workers and activists, initially located on the fringe of the political arena of immigration, settlement and welfare. The authors responsible for versions of the ideology were also principal actors in the struggle to advance their beliefs and make them government policy".

As Max Teichmann has noted: "The original definers of the multicultural scenario were few in number, so had to move carefully . . . Few Australians, native born or immigrant, really wanted it . . . Most Australians were quite unaware of this process of conversion by stealth of the decision makers and opinion formers."

Multiculturalism as a policy was never discussed internally at Cabinet level or party room within either political party. Members of both parties presumed that the legitimacy of multiculturalism derived from political leaders and elite support. Multiculturalism was public policy by stealth.

Lopez notes that through "core groups and activists' sympathisers and contacts . . . multiculturalism became government policy . . . because the multiculturalists and their supporters were able to influence the ideological content of the Minister's sources of policy . . . Contemporary public opinion polls implied...in the general population, a widespread resentment, or a lack of interest, of the kinds of ideas advanced by multiculturalists. ...The original constituency for multiculturalism was small; popular opinion was an obstacle, not an asset, for the multiculturalists."

Finally, "Multiculturalism was not simply picked up and appreciated and implemented by policy makers, government and the major political parties . . . [I]n every episode that resulted in the progress of multiculturalism, the effectiveness of the political lobbyists was a decisive factor. . . . [Multiculturalism was] tirelessly promoted and manoeuvered forward".

Gradually the downside of multiculturalism has become clear. The 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington have provided further insight into this perilous dimension, for as Walter Lacquer has written, the hijackers operated "all under the cover of multiculturalism".

By prescribing through law the status of numerous ethnic identities, Australia entered a new culture of complaint and litigation - against alleged discrimination. The multi-culturalists had a strategic advantage: their opponents were stigmatised as racists. Racism was described by university historians as the lynchpin of Australian nationalism and identity and involved a "cosmopolitan" hatred of Australians. As Lopez summarises: "In addition to being racist, the typical Australian was negatively stereotyped as parochial, boorish, narrow-minded, materialistic, suburban, culturally inferior and in need of improvement."

Multiculturalism became a profession based on the mobilisation of ethnic resentment. Grievance mechanisms required the expertise of the chattering class in the form of lawyers, social workers and, of course, the establishment of commissions and statutory bodies to rewrite "racist" laws and advance the interests of ethnic minorities repressed by the "dominant culture".

No country is naturally multi-cultural - it is always imposed. In 1996, the architect of multi-culturalism Jerzy Zubrycki described multiculturalism as, "a good idea that has gone wrong. Ethnicity has been cynically exploited for electoral and civic advantage. Morality rather than social engineering is now required to make Australia a better place." Multiculturalism poses the key questions of loyalty and allegiance to Australia: to whom do the hundreds of ethnic groups and communities owe allegiance? It may take a crisis to find the answer.

Immigration

The chattering class quickly attached itself to the immigration / refugee issue and promoted a climate of suspicion to all Howard Government claims. Immigration is a low or no-cost cause of high symbolic value. Demography and distance also shape its stance. The chattering class resides in areas and suburbs in which there are few ethnic minorities and therefore few attendant social problems.

The chattering class view immigration and illegal immigrants - commonly misnamed refugees - as a test of their cosmopolitanism, tolerance and cultural relativism. Support for immigration is a litmus test for moral superiority. They do not feel threatened.

However normals regard high immigration levels and illegal immigrants as threatening personal, community and national security (national security is a concept systematically devalued by the chattering class).

The chattering class accuse the Howard Government of exploiting the latent racism and xenophobia of Australians, thereby expressing their lack of understanding and contempt for one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world. The "illegal immigrants-refugee" issue also offers a media platform for a host of formerly anonymous legal mediocrities who can promenade as "men of principle", defending "refugees" in their favourite media outlets the A.B.C., The Age and S.B.S.

In mid-December 2001, bemused Australians television-watched "asylum seekers" burn down fifteen detention centre buildings, destroying four of them in Woomera, South Australia, as they chanted: "visa, visa, visa". The chattering class commentators justified their arson and sabotage against Commonwealth property by claiming it should be seen "in context" and they "shared their pain".

Living in their twilight zone, the commentators denied the existence of multi-million dollar people-smuggling rackets which placed hundreds of men, women and children at risk of death and massive trauma. They denied the existence of terrorist-sleepers entering Australia in the illegal immigrant streams. Thus the refugee-detention issue provided a unique insight into the moral posturing of the chattering class and their contempt for the key issue: Australian sovereignty.

Consistent with the compulsive attachment to "rights", the controversy over aboriginal rights and apologies is conducted by those who have knowledge by description rather than knowledge by acquaintance. Robert Manne, the chief academic exponent of the stolen generations myth recalls, "I did not encounter a single aboriginal child in my primary or high school years."

The use of the term genocide is particularly misleading and offensive to the many Europeans and genuine refugees from Asian countries who fled communist genocide and mass murder. Not only does it degrade and cheapen the horrific dimensions of genocide, but it also reduces genocide to a propaganda slogan against Australia's past. It is a chilling example of the "Big Lie".


You can read the full article here.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Playing the approved way

In his most recent column at VDARE.com, R.J. Stove writes:

If the boat people issue continues for long enough to do Rudd serious damage, Australia’s conservatives might have a chance at winning power. Or, who knows, they might even raise the issue of legal immigration, effectively kept out of politics by the usual bipartisan consensus since Hanson’s implosion.

But probably, like the GOP in the U.S., they will opt to play the political game in the approved way—and lose.


The Coalition does not have the stomach the question the immigration status quo. The useless Malcolm "I Can't Believe It's Not Labor" Turnbull and his hapless gang simply won't dare challenge Rudd's immigration free-for-all for fear of not only opening themselves up to allegations of 'racism' but also upsetting their Big Business friends and financiers who enthusiastically support open-borders.

The best thing that could happen would be for the Coalition to suffer a massive, debilitating defeat at the next election, thereby preciptiating its implosion and permanent disappearance from the Australian political landscape. This would allow an actual conservative party to take its place, a party that actually offered the electorate a real choice on immigration.

A joke

A politician died and went to Heaven to ask St. Peter for admission. St. Peter said "We don’t have many of your profession here in Heaven and it is our rule that you must spend a day in Hell and a day in Heaven before you elect for one or the other."

So the politician went to Hell, where he found himself on a beautifully manicured golf course, on which he enjoyed a pleasant round of social golf with some of his old mates who had preceded him. They then went to the bar and they reminisced about how they had conned and dudded people, followed by dinner - caviar, lobster, champagne - anything you fancied to eat or drink. The Devil turned out to be a most charming and solicitous host, full of jokes and leading the singing.

The next day the politician spent the day in Heaven, where he sat in the clouds, playing the harp and singing hymns. At the end of the day St. Peter asked him, "Which destination do you elect?" The politician replied, "Well it was very pleasant and relaxing in Heaven, but to be frank, I prefer Hell."

So down he went to Hell, where he found himself in a rubbish tip, where his old mates, with doleful expressions, were sorting rubbish and squabbling over the rotten scraps of food which had been thrown out. The politician cried out to the Devil "Where’s the golf course?" To which the Devil replied "Oh, that was during the campaign, this is the day after the election."

The enervated Anglosphere

Fjordman writes:

The entire Western world is currently in decline, not just in relative terms as a percentage of the global population or economy, but in real terms as functioning societies.

That being said, although all Western countries without exception are sinking under the weight of Third World mass immigration and in the process becoming a part of the Third World, they are not sinking equally fast. With the exception of France, Belgium and possibly the Netherlands and Sweden, the English-speaking world is leading the disintegration of the West, ideologically and demographically. The entire West is sick, but the Anglosphere is sicker than most. The English-speaking countries still have the most dynamic military traditions of the West, but that counts for little as long as they are used for promoting global Multiculturalism rather than for protecting the home country.

I cannot see that the Anglosphere has more freedom of speech than Continental European countries, either. The USA with its First Amendment does, which is great (we'll see what their new President does about that), but al-Canada is plain nuts and Britain is a Multicultural banana republic. Australia and New Zealand could be a part of Greater China by mid-century. Maybe they will be more prosperous than France will be as a part of Greater Algeria or the United States as a part of Greater Mexico, but by then they will be Asians, not Westerners.

I'm not sure why the Anglosphere is so bad. In the case of Britain, I strongly suspect it's partly caused by a Post-Imperial Stress Syndrome for a nation that once ruled much of the world and now cannot even rule its own suburbs. Empire was their identity. Much of the same can be said about the French. Indeed I suspect that one of their motivations for supporting the awful EU project is for them to resurrect some of their past imperial glory in another form.

Yet this cannot explain the actions of the United States, which is still the world's greatest power although that may not last forever. There is some form of universal proposition nation idea with roots dating back to the Enlightenment at work here. It's the concept that a country is not a nation based on a shared heritage, but an abstract entity which can be joined by absolutely anybody, a bit like an enlarged video club. If you claim that the United States is a "universal" nation and that Hamas-supporting Muslims, with which Westerners have absolutely nothing in common, can and should be imported to the USA, then you are a supporter of the concept of a proposition nation. This idea will eventually kill the United States as we once knew it.


While a secular theology of immigrationism certainly exists in the Anglosphere nations, a theology which teaches, quite falsely, that immigration is, and has always been, an integral part of their respective national characters, one cannot overlook the role that powerful transnational commercial interests have played in opening up the Anglosphere nations to massive Third World immigration. Continental European elites, in contrast, seem slightly more reluctant to throw their nations under the wheels of the "global economy" express.

Deconstructing Australia

Mark Richardson writes at Oz Conservative:

It turns out that immigration has been running at an astonishingly high level. And the officials in charge justify this on the grounds that the economy is king. Australia is one big labour market.

Last year there were 171,318 permanent arrivals in Australia. There were also 47,780 New Zealanders who settled permanently and 657,124 migrants with the right to work. This adds up to 876,222 arrivals in a country with a population of about 22,000,000.

What is the purpose of this immigration? The Immigration Minister gave this explanation:

"Senator Evans said immigration should be the nation's labour agency, meaning a continued high intake of migrants ... Decisions about who came to Australia would increasingly be left to employers."

Are we a nation or an economy? Do we want to develop economically and industrially or just grow by selling passports and having more people? Do we really want to sacrifice individual standards of living just to have a higher overall level of GDP?

My apologies to Australian readers who find all this demoralising. I expect that at first it is unavoidably demoralising. But I hope that there will be at least one positive effect, which is to show just how bankrupt Australian liberalism has become. There is nothing worthwhile animating it. The focus of government policy is not even on real economic development anymore; it's just about crude technocratic management of the economy to maintain overall growth of GDP.


Richardson asks: what are we being delivered to?

If the rhetoric of our elites is anything to go by, I would say the post-national "new world order" of the "global economy."

Driven by an open-borders ideology that justifies their economic and financial interests, Australia's elites in business, politics, and academia have embarked on a course that will result in a staggering increase in the size of the our population, a radical change in our country's ethnic makeup, and the erosion of our historic national identity.

Of course, whether or not the Australian people wanted these dramatic changes imposed upon them is a question they were never asked.

Our interests and wishes don't matter.

All that matters is that we are delivered to the "global economy" through open-borders and the deconstruction of our nation-state.

In many ways, Australia's elites are examples of what the late Samuel P. Huntington labelled 'Davos Man', people who "have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the élite's global operations".

As Huntington noted:

"The views of the general public on issues of national identity differ significantly from those of many elites. The public, overall, is concerned with physical security but also with societal security, which involves the sustainability—within acceptable conditions for evolution—of existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity. For many elites, these concerns are secondary to participating in the global economy, supporting international trade and migration, strengthening international institutions, promoting so-called 'universal values' abroad, and encouraging minority identities and cultures at home. The central distinction between the public and elites is not isolationism versus internationalism, but nationalism versus cosmopolitanism."

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Steyn on immigration

After years of avoiding the topic, Mark Steyn seems to have finally taken a stand on the issue of immigration. He writes:

Two generations ago, America, Canada, Australia and the rest of the developed world took it as read that a sovereign nation had the right to determine which, if any, foreigners it extended rights of residency to. Now only Japan does. Everywhere else, opposition to mass immigration is “nativist”, and expressing a preference for one group of immigrants over another is “racist”. Even though 40 years ago governments routinely distinguished between Irish and Bulgar, Indian and Somali, now all that matters is to demonstrate your multicultural bona fides even unto societal suicide, as if immigration is like a UN peacekeeping operation – one of those activities in which you have no “national interest”.

“It’s overblown that suddenly Islam is going to spread across the nation,” a candidate for Canada’s socialist New Democratic Party said on the radio the other day. “And, if it does, so what?” Jens Orback, the then “Integration Minister” of Sweden (and pity the land that needs such a cabinet official), was less devil-may-care. On Sveriges Radio five years ago, he advised his fellow Swedes to “be nice to Muslims while we’re in the majority so that they’ll be nice to us when they’re in the majority.” Another “Integration Minister”, Armin Laschet of North Rhine-Westphalia, tells his fellow Germans that “in our cities 30-40 per cent of children have an immigrant background. It will be them who will sustain this country in 20 years.”

Very few Swedes knowingly voted for societal self-extinction, yet in barely a third of century it’s become a fait accomplis. And in a politically correct world there is no acceptable form of public discourse in which to object to it. This is the triumph of the left’s assault on language. As my colleague John Derbyshire put it in another context: Better dead than rude.


Full article

Monday, June 1, 2009

Wrongfully accused?

Mark Richardson at Oz Conservative has a very interesting post about the recent attacks on Indian students in Melbourne.

Both internationally and at home, these attacks have been used as evidence of allegedly widespread European Australian racism, especially by the Australian mainstream media which loves to run stories about how evil and racist white Australians are.

Yet in the CCTV footage that Richardson posts of one particular attack, the attackers appear to be of non-European origin.

Richardson asks:

So what is going on here? Why would white Australians and white society be condemned for something they appear to have had no part in?

The answer, I believe, is quite simple: when it comes to allegations of racism, whites are always quilty until proven innocent. Moreover, it is only ever people of European descent who can be guilty of racism - non-European peoples are completely incapable of such a thing.

These are the rules that our modern, liberal, multicultural society seems to live by.

Stuart Macintyre: Anglophobe

Stuart Macintyre is a historian and former communist known for being one of the prime protagonists in the so-called "History Wars" here in Australia. He is also the chap that Kevin Rudd has decided should help write our national history curriculum for schools from the first year of school through to Year 12.

Unsurprisingly, Macintyre is one of those leftists who views Australian history since British settlement as little more than an appalling legacy of racism and genocide. Indeed, he is one of the leading proponents of this view. In his opinion, the sooner evil Anglo-Australia is relegated to the dustbin of history, the better. As this article points out:

Macintyre also harbours a deep distaste for this country’s British heritage. In the concluding chapter of A Concise History of Australia (1999), he is comforted by the prediction that, just as the Romans were displaced in Britain, Aborigines and Asians will eventually supplant the colonisers of British descent in Australia. Just as the only remnant of the Roman empire in Britain is “a thin slice of the island’s multi-layered past”, so too will the British colonisation be overlaid by the culture and practices of other peoples.

Personally, I'd like to know how someone with such strong biases was ever deemed the best choice to write the national history curriculum for a people and nation he so obviously loathes.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

Keep immigrants coming, demands non-Australian Rupert Murdoch

From the Courier Mail:

RUPERT Murdoch has urged Australia to keep its doors open to immigration in a glowing tribute to the nation's most successful arrival, Frank Lowy.

The News Corporation chairman declared Australia's richest man the face of a nation built by migrants.

Mr Murdoch made the comments at a tribute dinner for Mr Lowy held by the American Australian Association.

In a warm and at times intimate speech, he presented himself and Mr Lowy as something of mirror images of each other: He, the Australian who gave up his citizenship to pursue business overseas, and Mr Lowy, the Hungarian migrant who came to embody his adopted homeland.

"In my recent Boyer Lectures I spoke of the importance to Australia's future of a liberal immigration system," Mr Murdoch said.

"Few other Australians embody the breadth of achievement or the contribution to Australia's prosperity made by immigrants in this country than Frank Lowy.

"There are few stories in which such hardship in early life has been transformed into such towering achievement as the story of Frank Lowy.

"In the 80s he marvelled at the fact that I was an Australian who had become regarded as a foreigner while he was a foreigner who had made his name as an Australian."

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull both attended the dinner - an indication of Mr Lowy's influence - and as usual Mr Murdoch had a strong message for them: Keep them coming in.


Sorry, Rupert, but you aren't an Australian citizen anymore, and so your opinion is irrelevant. Go sell your open-borders agenda to the U.S. government.

The fact that Murdoch traded his Australian citizenship for an American passport for business reasons tells us everything we need to know about his views on the nation-state. He obviously has no concept of national loyalty. To him, matters of national identity and culture are irrelevant. He is a prime example of what Samuel Huntington labelled "Davos Man", global economic elites who "have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the elite's global operations."

If Murdoch had his way, Australia wouldn’t even exist in anything but a geographical sense.

As for Lowy, why are our political leaders honouring a notorious tax cheat? Are they such whores that they'll rub shoulders with anybody, as long as they have a buck or two to throw to their re-election campaigns?

Sunday, January 4, 2009

The innumerate Senator Evans

In his new book Overloading Australia, poet and population reduction advocate Mark O'Connor writes:

In May 2008 the Labor Minister for Immigration Chris Evans informed the ABC Radio's The National Interest that net migration, which according to ABS figures was some 177 600, was only 70 000. "Last year I think we brought in about 140 total settlers - about 140 thousand total arrivals and 72 thousand left so we only got the net gain of about 70 thousand." It appears he got his figure for net migration (immigrants minus emigrants) by subtracting total emigrants from a figure (some years out of date) that he had been given for net migration. In other words he subtracted emigrants twice.

Certainly inspires confidence in Senator Evans's capacity to effectively manage our country's immigration programme, doesn't it?

Given the sheer obtuseness demonstrated above by Senator Evans, it doesn't surprise me one bit that he has fallen for the "immigration is a fix for an ageing population" fallacy.