There was a time not so long ago, probably up till about 1988, that Australia Day was treated as most other Australian holidays were, with the exceptions of Easter and Christmas. That is, along with such other non events such as Labour Day and the Queen’s birthday, the main thing was that it was a holiday – no real reason to enquire further, although some may have languorously asked just what the nature of a welcome addition to the weekend in a working week was.
Flag waving and exhibitionistic patriotism was looked at askance – something best left to the Septics who had created an art form out of it. No, our patriotism was more of a type best kept to ourselves along with the deeper types of thoughts and emotions that most Australian men would rather keep out of conversations with their mates. We all knew, almost instinctively what it meant to be Australian. We were secure in that – something sporting commentators call being ‘quietly confident’. Asking the question: what or who is an Australian, or what is meant by it? wasn’t the party game that it is today. We just knew. Australian patriotism had been too emphatically demonstrated when it had needed to be for us not to know.
That’s not to say that the dreaded cultural cringe wasn’t with us then – it was, as it always has been and presumably will be. But at least the cringe was related to other white nations. That that may change some day though is not outside the realms of possibility. One is tempted to say that the cringers would be found more heavily populating the middle classes but of course the working class is not off the hook if the proliferating slavish parroting of Americanisms is any indication.
Is Australia Day, as it’s been repackaged since those far less ostentatious days, itself an Americanism? Were we exposed to too much imagery of Independence Day parades and the concomitant in-your-face celebrating and flag-waving we once sneered at?
Since we are becoming American in so many other ways, (not least the shameless scrambling after money that was once viewed as peculiarly American) that is not such an outlandish suggestion. A curious coincidence though suggests another motivating force, and that is that the Australia Day production seems to have grown parallel with the burgeoning multicultural industry. What better opportunity for a grand demonstration of ‘inclusiveness’? Do those suspicions harboured by many that Australia Day is becoming more and more Multicultural Australia Day have any foundation? Perhaps not. Perhaps it’s just an excuse for a good day out to be celebrated however one likes.
The dancing dragon in China Town is probably just as legitimate a celebration of Australia Day as a beach barbecue with plenty of Tooheys, even if a government grant is needed to lure the dragon out. But does the dragon dance with just as much gusto as it would on, say, Chinese New Year? (Who knows? There may even be a government grant quietly greasing a palm to get that dragon fired up as well.) Even so, who could begrudge our ethnic neighbours celebrating and having a good time like everybody else? But the question still lurks, do they really have any idea of what is actually being celebrated? Birth of a nation? Who cares? Let’s party. Anyway, wasn’t that the bad, old Australia – the one of invasion, genocide and almost two hundred evil years of racism? If there is any achievement mixed up in all that, it might best be forgotten, with the rest of that whole unfortunate period. Besides, trying to inculcate pride of white achievement into non-whites is nigh on impossible – ask any Aborigine. It’s a little like asking an acquaintance to feel the same pride in your great grandfather’s outstanding achievements as you do.
If there is a contradiction embedded in instant Australians celebrating Australia Day, it pales into insignificance in comparison with the flag-waving and patriotic dress of those who can call themselves simply Australian without a hyphen. One can imagine their political masters smiling upon this perfectly harmless, pressure-valve patriotism. Good god! If the fools only knew, they must be thinking. As the multiculturalist who passes himself off as a dyed-in-the-wool Aussie patriot drones in his song, True Blue, ‘you’re just another dying race’.
Forget this traitor and his mediocre music. Just focus on those words: you’re just another dying race. Did he pen them with a malevolent, gleeful grin twisting his face? If so, his death wish will be answered if the mindlessness of Australia Day is never converted into real nationalism which, unlike the state sanctioned, innocuous form of patriotism, politicians fear and loath. Stroking the dog lovingly, they lead him to the vet with the syringe in his hand. Wave those flags, drink your beer and celebrate your wonderful nation-state while we’re busy doing something else– selling it off. It’s the world stage for us; the nation-state is a quaint idea whose time has passed.
So revelers revel and sausages sizzle while what is being celebrated quietly disappears under waves of mass, third world immigration and the tearing apart of enforced multiculturalism. Hammer blows of globalization, free trade, out-sourcing and imported ‘skills’ pound the dark new world into shape. This is no mere fiddling while Rome burns; it is a rock concert with fire-works!
But Australia Day is celebrated determinedly. Is it because, like the mystic’s still, small voice, something within the Australian psyche murmurs of a great and terrible danger? This danger though is so overwhelming, so unbelievable, that perhaps, like reality itself, the human mind can deal with only so much of it. And just like reality itself is ignored by the alcoholic and the drug fiend, the great danger is muffled and blocked out by consumerism, sport and hedonism.
As the danger grows, it is more than likely that the celebration of Australia Day grows in direct proportion.
Sunday, January 28, 2007
Monday, January 22, 2007
BEWARE THE FLUSH DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE
A few short years ago, a National Parks and Wildlife Service master plan suggested a touch of air-brushing to Australian history centred on Kurnell – rightly designated the birthplace of Australia as it once bore the boot-prints of one James Cook, master British navigator, upon his first contact with Australian soil.
With the stealth of a panther the suggested changes were presented as just a little sensible bringing up to date of something that fast moving social engineering and manufactured opinion was rendering just a bit an anachronism. It was ‘merely’ proposed that an anchor and flagpole be removed from the site of Cook’s landing. After all, notwithstanding that we are only a generation or so removed from when such a proposal would have caused unbridled outrage, we have ‘progressed’ so far from when Britannia ruled the waves and a golden age of Western civilization uplifted the world. This kind of progress could possibly be compared to the blazing ruin the self-satisfied revolutionary looks down upon.
Also slated for removal were introduced species of trees including the magnificent Norfolk Island pines. ‘The message’ of the pines and their companions, according to the plan, ‘is one of European domination over the Australian landscape’. So apparently the European domination of the Australian landscape was in fact a mass hallucination lasting more than two hundred years.
We really needed to be returning to the indigenous type of vegetation so redolent of Australia au natural. (Are we deciphering the code yet? If not, perhaps it should be added that the offending flagpole supported an Australian flag above a NSW and Aboriginal flag.) But why stop there? Why not remove that nearby unsightly oil refinery and reintroduce the thick scrub that would have all but pinned Cook and his men to the water line.
But enough of this pussyfooting. Here’s the guts of the matter: again according to the plan, ‘The initial message is one of European arrival by boat, not years of occupation by Aboriginal people.’ The planners were evidently off their medication. Let’s see if we can navigate a passage through their dangerous mental pathology. The site of a major historical event which resulted in the birth of a dynamic, modern nation should not be commemorated as such. Rather, the site should be commemorated as a place where hunter- gatherers crouched in the bushes and watched an event taking place that should be quietly forgotten. Ergo, the site should be commemorated as a place where once upon a time an unknown number of people crouched in the bushes.
This entire nonsense can only begin to make a modicum of sense if seen in the context of European settlement as invasion, which of course itself is a nonsense. Interestingly, the teary-eyed ones who subscribe to the invasion theory apparently see no contradiction in happily enjoying all the benefits of living in Australia. One may reasonably ask, however, to see the courage of their convictions. If invasion, then isn’t their presence here illegitimate and shouldn’t they return to the land of their evil invading ancestors. But no, they wear their hypocrisy as lightly as the emperor’s new clothes.
The National Parks and Wildlife planners have for the time being been driven back into their boxes by raised voices of protest that should have been a howl. But be warned, they will be back. Just like those who imagine Australia would be free and independent as a republic, they will simply keep returning with their outrageous insult until the people get it ‘right’. Democracy for these types is when you agree with them.
It would be wrong though to dismiss this phenomenon as simply annoying foolishness, even though the perpetrators we see out in the open may themselves be just ‘useful idiots’. If we remind ourselves that those masters of the universe, the globalisers, see the nation state as an impediment to their grand plan of world domination, we may be able to see the erasing of our history in a different light. It’s been said that a nation without history is like a man with amnesia – pretty damned useless. It may also be worth noting that the collapse of every civilization has been preceded by a collapse in a people’s belief system – their faith and belief in themselves, their self-confidence, their culture and their values which of course includes seeing their heritage as worthy of transmission into the future.
It may of course be all coincidence. Perhaps there is no grand plan. Perhaps as Spengler saw it, a civilization is the equivalent of an organism, that is, it experiences birth, grows lusty and strong, then declines, withers and dies. Yes, perhaps it’s all apart of a natural process.
However, on the other hand, if there is a grand plan to convert nation states into branch offices of the global economy, histories will have to be rewritten. Moreover, rest assured that if this darkest of scenarios is being in fact played out, our descendants, being pretty much a lost, frightened tribe surrounded by a hostile world, will have little to no knowledge of the history that led to their situation.
As the writer and prophet extraordinaire, George Orwell, put it: ‘those who control the present, control the past.. Those who control the past, control the future.’
For those who may wish to delve deeper: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/preston1.html
With the stealth of a panther the suggested changes were presented as just a little sensible bringing up to date of something that fast moving social engineering and manufactured opinion was rendering just a bit an anachronism. It was ‘merely’ proposed that an anchor and flagpole be removed from the site of Cook’s landing. After all, notwithstanding that we are only a generation or so removed from when such a proposal would have caused unbridled outrage, we have ‘progressed’ so far from when Britannia ruled the waves and a golden age of Western civilization uplifted the world. This kind of progress could possibly be compared to the blazing ruin the self-satisfied revolutionary looks down upon.
Also slated for removal were introduced species of trees including the magnificent Norfolk Island pines. ‘The message’ of the pines and their companions, according to the plan, ‘is one of European domination over the Australian landscape’. So apparently the European domination of the Australian landscape was in fact a mass hallucination lasting more than two hundred years.
We really needed to be returning to the indigenous type of vegetation so redolent of Australia au natural. (Are we deciphering the code yet? If not, perhaps it should be added that the offending flagpole supported an Australian flag above a NSW and Aboriginal flag.) But why stop there? Why not remove that nearby unsightly oil refinery and reintroduce the thick scrub that would have all but pinned Cook and his men to the water line.
But enough of this pussyfooting. Here’s the guts of the matter: again according to the plan, ‘The initial message is one of European arrival by boat, not years of occupation by Aboriginal people.’ The planners were evidently off their medication. Let’s see if we can navigate a passage through their dangerous mental pathology. The site of a major historical event which resulted in the birth of a dynamic, modern nation should not be commemorated as such. Rather, the site should be commemorated as a place where hunter- gatherers crouched in the bushes and watched an event taking place that should be quietly forgotten. Ergo, the site should be commemorated as a place where once upon a time an unknown number of people crouched in the bushes.
This entire nonsense can only begin to make a modicum of sense if seen in the context of European settlement as invasion, which of course itself is a nonsense. Interestingly, the teary-eyed ones who subscribe to the invasion theory apparently see no contradiction in happily enjoying all the benefits of living in Australia. One may reasonably ask, however, to see the courage of their convictions. If invasion, then isn’t their presence here illegitimate and shouldn’t they return to the land of their evil invading ancestors. But no, they wear their hypocrisy as lightly as the emperor’s new clothes.
The National Parks and Wildlife planners have for the time being been driven back into their boxes by raised voices of protest that should have been a howl. But be warned, they will be back. Just like those who imagine Australia would be free and independent as a republic, they will simply keep returning with their outrageous insult until the people get it ‘right’. Democracy for these types is when you agree with them.
It would be wrong though to dismiss this phenomenon as simply annoying foolishness, even though the perpetrators we see out in the open may themselves be just ‘useful idiots’. If we remind ourselves that those masters of the universe, the globalisers, see the nation state as an impediment to their grand plan of world domination, we may be able to see the erasing of our history in a different light. It’s been said that a nation without history is like a man with amnesia – pretty damned useless. It may also be worth noting that the collapse of every civilization has been preceded by a collapse in a people’s belief system – their faith and belief in themselves, their self-confidence, their culture and their values which of course includes seeing their heritage as worthy of transmission into the future.
It may of course be all coincidence. Perhaps there is no grand plan. Perhaps as Spengler saw it, a civilization is the equivalent of an organism, that is, it experiences birth, grows lusty and strong, then declines, withers and dies. Yes, perhaps it’s all apart of a natural process.
However, on the other hand, if there is a grand plan to convert nation states into branch offices of the global economy, histories will have to be rewritten. Moreover, rest assured that if this darkest of scenarios is being in fact played out, our descendants, being pretty much a lost, frightened tribe surrounded by a hostile world, will have little to no knowledge of the history that led to their situation.
As the writer and prophet extraordinaire, George Orwell, put it: ‘those who control the present, control the past.. Those who control the past, control the future.’
For those who may wish to delve deeper: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/preston1.html
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
LIVING IN THE COMBAT ZONE
In December 2005 TV screens across Australia flashed and flickered ad nauseam with images of Southern Cross-caped young Australians venting dangerously overfilled spleens. From those same screens, the talking heads spewed rage and indignation, urging the entire (white) population to hang their heads in collective abject shame. For days the 'riot' on the screens was projected repeatedly like a whirling hypnotist's disc apparently intending to mesmerise us with our own foulness. Just when we looked like being accepted into the human race after centuries of evil deeds and institutionalised racism. Didn't we feel as though the only honourable thing to do was to shrivel up and die right in front of our televised moral superiors?
In the days after the stormy event at Cronulla, a sleeping giant of stored hatred shook itself awake and one of the few honest journalists in Australia took note of what he could only describe as an 'insurgency' that began convoying out of Muslim ghettos to unleash a storm of destruction, bloodshed, fear and grief. To the scribblers and talking heads though, this was simply a 'revenge attack', an anaemic euphemism so soothing the dozing viewer need not be alarmed in the least.
Meanwhile, back to the real atrocities perpetrated by hate-crazed, blue-eyed devils sullying our good name in every corner of the civilized world and creating admirable role models in the uncivilized parts ...
Now go back to sleep sweet viewer and dream dreams of unity in diversity in the paradise that can only be created by the magic of multiculturalism. Admittedly, the magic has failed dismally in every other part of the world that it has been attempted, but Australia is different - it doesn't belong to the real world.
But just like nature, the real world does not concern itself with juvenile, human fantasies. Another serious problem is that time has a habit of changing. There was a time when, cocooned as we were a long way from trouble and strife, we viewed the violence-rent US with sad disbelief. 'It couldn’t happen here,' we naively believed. Still labouring under this illusion, only a few short years ago we hosted the “friendly” Olympic Games.
Fast forward to now, when the chickens of mass, indiscriminate immigration have come home to roost with a vengeance. Rarely a day goes by when a murder isn’t reported – usually in a small piece buried in the depths of the local tabloids. There was a time when a murder would have rated banner headlines. Sydney, particularly in the South West – an area dominated by Middle Eastern, essentially Lebanese, immigrants – is now a dangerous city. A fusillade of bullets narrowly misses petrol bowsers in broad daylight and a gangster lies dead. An exchange of gunfire is let loose in a shopping centre car park, peppering cars with bullets and allowing shoppers to escape with their lives -- only just. In a suburb named Cabramatta, but known to locals as Vietnamatta, two men stroll into a back room of a pool hall about fifty metres from a police station. One is armed with a handgun; the other casually carries a Samurai sword. Seconds later, an eighteen-year-old girl attending a friend’s birthday party lies shot dead. Sorry, wrong person.
“Drive-by” shootings occur with the regularity and casualness of the Hollywood variety that more than likely inspires them. Young Australian women are particularly at risk. News broke not so long ago of racially-motivated pack rapes perpetrated by Lebanese Muslim men only after around seventy such attacks had occurred. I’ll repeat that – seventy. Testifying courageously, victims who had come forward averred that the attacks had been punctuated by epithets such as “Aussie pig” or “Aussie slut.” The remorseless leader of a gang of some fourteen rapists, some of whom still haven’t been apprehended, was sentenced to an unprecedented 55 years jail. The severity of the sentence was slammed, surprisingly also by some feminists, as a manifestation of "racism." After a massacre in Tasmania some years ago by a rampaging gunman – the “lone nut” theory taken to its most suspicious extreme – the law-abiding citizenry was subsequently effectively disarmed by a “buy-back” scheme. This in no way affected the non-law abiding citizenry whose ownership of hand-guns rises exponentially.
In a sweet irony, ATMs may soon run dry as security guards, repeatedly being robbed of their firearms, threaten industrial action unless demands are met for greater security: guards for the guards. An idea being mooted is that security guards be provided with bright red guns. This, it has been asserted with a straight face, would lower their resale value. Police stations and even military establishments are being raided and looted for firearms. Although the problem of Middle Eastern crime has been known to be growing for the last ten years, it was only relatively recently that an organization known as Task Force Gain was formed by state police to combat it. Earlier proposals for such a task force were frustrated by former Police Commissioner Ryan because, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald, “of fears that it would be seen as racist and politically incorrect.”
Better late than never, Task Force Gain has already arrested approximately 200 suspects linked to predominantly Lebanese or Middle Eastern crime syndicates. Robberies and drug offences make up the bulk of the charges but also included are a sprinkling of some nine murders and various shooting incidents. Almost inexplicably, these young gangsters, most of them born here of parents looking for a better life, seem to hate Australia and Australians with an intensity that would peel paint. Many young Australians have been victims of vicious attacks seemingly for no other reason than their Australianness.
A former police sergeant and “whistle blower,” Tim Priest, forced out of the force in 2002, warned repeatedly that a time bomb of ethnic crime was developing in the South West. Priest claimed that Middle Easterners were involved in crimes as diverse as extortion rackets, industrial strength car theft, drug importation, ware-house and factory break-ins, and drug importation. He also had strong words to say about “multicultural zealots” who, aided by their “politically correct allies in the media,” rendered the issue almost invisible. And still, unashamedly and with the earnestness of religious fanatics, we are told of how much multiculturalism is enriching our lives. One almost feels guilty for not showing enough gratitude.
All this of course pales into insignificance in the face of the heinous and loathsome, indelible stain that blackened our history on December 11, 2005, a day that will live in infamy - amongst the dwellers of cloud cuckoo land.
In the days after the stormy event at Cronulla, a sleeping giant of stored hatred shook itself awake and one of the few honest journalists in Australia took note of what he could only describe as an 'insurgency' that began convoying out of Muslim ghettos to unleash a storm of destruction, bloodshed, fear and grief. To the scribblers and talking heads though, this was simply a 'revenge attack', an anaemic euphemism so soothing the dozing viewer need not be alarmed in the least.
Meanwhile, back to the real atrocities perpetrated by hate-crazed, blue-eyed devils sullying our good name in every corner of the civilized world and creating admirable role models in the uncivilized parts ...
Now go back to sleep sweet viewer and dream dreams of unity in diversity in the paradise that can only be created by the magic of multiculturalism. Admittedly, the magic has failed dismally in every other part of the world that it has been attempted, but Australia is different - it doesn't belong to the real world.
But just like nature, the real world does not concern itself with juvenile, human fantasies. Another serious problem is that time has a habit of changing. There was a time when, cocooned as we were a long way from trouble and strife, we viewed the violence-rent US with sad disbelief. 'It couldn’t happen here,' we naively believed. Still labouring under this illusion, only a few short years ago we hosted the “friendly” Olympic Games.
Fast forward to now, when the chickens of mass, indiscriminate immigration have come home to roost with a vengeance. Rarely a day goes by when a murder isn’t reported – usually in a small piece buried in the depths of the local tabloids. There was a time when a murder would have rated banner headlines. Sydney, particularly in the South West – an area dominated by Middle Eastern, essentially Lebanese, immigrants – is now a dangerous city. A fusillade of bullets narrowly misses petrol bowsers in broad daylight and a gangster lies dead. An exchange of gunfire is let loose in a shopping centre car park, peppering cars with bullets and allowing shoppers to escape with their lives -- only just. In a suburb named Cabramatta, but known to locals as Vietnamatta, two men stroll into a back room of a pool hall about fifty metres from a police station. One is armed with a handgun; the other casually carries a Samurai sword. Seconds later, an eighteen-year-old girl attending a friend’s birthday party lies shot dead. Sorry, wrong person.
“Drive-by” shootings occur with the regularity and casualness of the Hollywood variety that more than likely inspires them. Young Australian women are particularly at risk. News broke not so long ago of racially-motivated pack rapes perpetrated by Lebanese Muslim men only after around seventy such attacks had occurred. I’ll repeat that – seventy. Testifying courageously, victims who had come forward averred that the attacks had been punctuated by epithets such as “Aussie pig” or “Aussie slut.” The remorseless leader of a gang of some fourteen rapists, some of whom still haven’t been apprehended, was sentenced to an unprecedented 55 years jail. The severity of the sentence was slammed, surprisingly also by some feminists, as a manifestation of "racism." After a massacre in Tasmania some years ago by a rampaging gunman – the “lone nut” theory taken to its most suspicious extreme – the law-abiding citizenry was subsequently effectively disarmed by a “buy-back” scheme. This in no way affected the non-law abiding citizenry whose ownership of hand-guns rises exponentially.
In a sweet irony, ATMs may soon run dry as security guards, repeatedly being robbed of their firearms, threaten industrial action unless demands are met for greater security: guards for the guards. An idea being mooted is that security guards be provided with bright red guns. This, it has been asserted with a straight face, would lower their resale value. Police stations and even military establishments are being raided and looted for firearms. Although the problem of Middle Eastern crime has been known to be growing for the last ten years, it was only relatively recently that an organization known as Task Force Gain was formed by state police to combat it. Earlier proposals for such a task force were frustrated by former Police Commissioner Ryan because, as reported by the Sydney Morning Herald, “of fears that it would be seen as racist and politically incorrect.”
Better late than never, Task Force Gain has already arrested approximately 200 suspects linked to predominantly Lebanese or Middle Eastern crime syndicates. Robberies and drug offences make up the bulk of the charges but also included are a sprinkling of some nine murders and various shooting incidents. Almost inexplicably, these young gangsters, most of them born here of parents looking for a better life, seem to hate Australia and Australians with an intensity that would peel paint. Many young Australians have been victims of vicious attacks seemingly for no other reason than their Australianness.
A former police sergeant and “whistle blower,” Tim Priest, forced out of the force in 2002, warned repeatedly that a time bomb of ethnic crime was developing in the South West. Priest claimed that Middle Easterners were involved in crimes as diverse as extortion rackets, industrial strength car theft, drug importation, ware-house and factory break-ins, and drug importation. He also had strong words to say about “multicultural zealots” who, aided by their “politically correct allies in the media,” rendered the issue almost invisible. And still, unashamedly and with the earnestness of religious fanatics, we are told of how much multiculturalism is enriching our lives. One almost feels guilty for not showing enough gratitude.
All this of course pales into insignificance in the face of the heinous and loathsome, indelible stain that blackened our history on December 11, 2005, a day that will live in infamy - amongst the dwellers of cloud cuckoo land.
ASIANISATION: And never the twain shall meet
Having just returned to Australia after some hard traveling through a large chunk of South East Asia, I was more convinced than ever of the unbridgeable gulf separating radically different races and cultures. In the final analysis, a common ground of understanding does not exist. For instance, the endemic practice of accosting foreigners in a country like Vietnam, be it by taxi drivers, ‘cyclo’ drivers, motorcycle taxi drivers (by far the most impervious to the word ‘no’) hawkers, vendors, shoe shine boys and sundry touts can, after intense reflection, only be understood either in terms of their seeing the foreigner as so completely alien (almost as in other-planet alien) that they do not share the same human feelings, or that they do indeed recognize a commonality but simply do not care. That is, the foreigner -- and here what is really meant is ‘Westerner’ -- being so much ‘the other,’ is not worthy of the same consideration as would be shown a member of the native people.
Presupposed here is a system of manners, mores, and general civility that lubricates the workings of every society and, moreover, without which a society would not be able to peacefully survive. So assuming that Vietnam is not an aberrant society lacking this social lubricant and that the behaviour shown to foreigners would be seen as offensive and be morally disapproved of if exhibited amongst one’s own, either one or the other of the aforementioned dynamics must be operative.
Before one, nearing despair, reaches for the coin to be flipped, it may be more profitable to enlist the aid of Occam’s razor, the philosophical imperative that the simplest answer is more than likely the right one. It could be safely assumed that the razor would cut away the foreigner-as-visitor-from-outer-space theory, leaving the more mundane but less palatable concept of the foreigner as sucker to be exploited for all he or she is worth. Here, though, we are getting perilously close to what anthropologists would recognize as a ‘tribal’ moral system, that is, a dual system dictating moral behaviour depending on whether said behaviour is related to the members of one’s own tribe or to members of an ‘out group.’ The two systems are more often than not polar opposites -- with robbery, cheating, and even rape, murder and torture of ‘the other’ being not only sanctioned but praiseworthy.
This, needless to say, is becoming a dark picture but, it must be said, has only been arrived at after a long, hard, exasperating effort to understand the complete ease with which the foreigner can be viewed as an insensate being with none other than the economic value of, say, a pig trussed for market -- of no other value than whatever can be extracted for the benefit of the 'in group.'
The implications of this train of thought for the crowding together of diametrically opposed races and cultures in the experiment of Australian multiculturalism are truly frightening. For, conversely, just as the behaviour of the Vietnamese towards foreigners in their midst -- the cheating, the rudeness, the harassment, the stalking, the inability to take ‘no’ for an answer -- is seen as morally justified, it would be seen as just as morally justified, if not legally so, in Australia to react to this behaviour with physical retaliation.
This currently is an abstraction, a projection, because groups such as the Vietnamese are still relatively small minorities in Australia with a long way to go before any kind of critical mass can be achieved. This status engenders caution and hobbles the urge to fly true colours. For argument’ sake however, let’s assume that critical mass is being achieved -- or, because a state of denial will forever preclude this acceptance for some, let’s simply play the ad absurdum game. The number of Vietnamese has achieved parity with that of ‘Australians.’ (More than likely the first ‘minority’ to achieve parity with the majority, because of subtle but irresistible pressure placed on compliant Australian political leaders to accept ‘excess’ population, will be the Chinese, but let’s just for the moment stay with the Vietnamese.) A law of nature states that two distinctly different groups sharing the same territory will be in conflict. Parity suggests an equal contest. If this equality did exist a type of mutual deterrence may preclude a degeneration into deepening, more chaotic violence.
Equality, however, will not prevail. As has already been noted, a tradition of dual morality with long historical roots will be practised by one group while the other will be hamstrung by a universalism animated by 2,000 years of Christianity, with humanism and the new religion of anti-racism now receiving the baton of social control (some would say mind control) -- control, that is, of White people, of ‘Australians.’ As realisation dawns that Australians are losing the battle that was never even conceived of as a battle, and bleeding from a thousand small wounds inflicted by guile and stealth, protection against which they have been deprived, an escalation into outright, non-pretend violence will be inevitable.
But even before critical mass has been achieved it may well be the little things -- the small darts that sting and scratch in that no man’s land of non-understanding -- that marshal the tribes into opposing armies. In Vietnam when, as a foreigner, you are harassed and stalked by cyclo-drivers and hawkers, you take it (more or less). In Vietnam, when someone is trying to force his way onto a train while you’re trying to alight laden with luggage, you take it. Or when someone is simply standing in the doorway of a train while you’re trying to board laden with luggage, you take it. When someone blithely invades your personal space, you take it. When someone routinely pushes in front of you in a queue, you take it. When there seems to be a law that precludes pedestrians using so called crossings -- the contempt of the horseman for the dismounted never so egregious -- you take it. When you see cruelty to animals, you take it.
In Australia, you don’t. Therein lay the seeds of impending disaster.
Presupposed here is a system of manners, mores, and general civility that lubricates the workings of every society and, moreover, without which a society would not be able to peacefully survive. So assuming that Vietnam is not an aberrant society lacking this social lubricant and that the behaviour shown to foreigners would be seen as offensive and be morally disapproved of if exhibited amongst one’s own, either one or the other of the aforementioned dynamics must be operative.
Before one, nearing despair, reaches for the coin to be flipped, it may be more profitable to enlist the aid of Occam’s razor, the philosophical imperative that the simplest answer is more than likely the right one. It could be safely assumed that the razor would cut away the foreigner-as-visitor-from-outer-space theory, leaving the more mundane but less palatable concept of the foreigner as sucker to be exploited for all he or she is worth. Here, though, we are getting perilously close to what anthropologists would recognize as a ‘tribal’ moral system, that is, a dual system dictating moral behaviour depending on whether said behaviour is related to the members of one’s own tribe or to members of an ‘out group.’ The two systems are more often than not polar opposites -- with robbery, cheating, and even rape, murder and torture of ‘the other’ being not only sanctioned but praiseworthy.
This, needless to say, is becoming a dark picture but, it must be said, has only been arrived at after a long, hard, exasperating effort to understand the complete ease with which the foreigner can be viewed as an insensate being with none other than the economic value of, say, a pig trussed for market -- of no other value than whatever can be extracted for the benefit of the 'in group.'
The implications of this train of thought for the crowding together of diametrically opposed races and cultures in the experiment of Australian multiculturalism are truly frightening. For, conversely, just as the behaviour of the Vietnamese towards foreigners in their midst -- the cheating, the rudeness, the harassment, the stalking, the inability to take ‘no’ for an answer -- is seen as morally justified, it would be seen as just as morally justified, if not legally so, in Australia to react to this behaviour with physical retaliation.
This currently is an abstraction, a projection, because groups such as the Vietnamese are still relatively small minorities in Australia with a long way to go before any kind of critical mass can be achieved. This status engenders caution and hobbles the urge to fly true colours. For argument’ sake however, let’s assume that critical mass is being achieved -- or, because a state of denial will forever preclude this acceptance for some, let’s simply play the ad absurdum game. The number of Vietnamese has achieved parity with that of ‘Australians.’ (More than likely the first ‘minority’ to achieve parity with the majority, because of subtle but irresistible pressure placed on compliant Australian political leaders to accept ‘excess’ population, will be the Chinese, but let’s just for the moment stay with the Vietnamese.) A law of nature states that two distinctly different groups sharing the same territory will be in conflict. Parity suggests an equal contest. If this equality did exist a type of mutual deterrence may preclude a degeneration into deepening, more chaotic violence.
Equality, however, will not prevail. As has already been noted, a tradition of dual morality with long historical roots will be practised by one group while the other will be hamstrung by a universalism animated by 2,000 years of Christianity, with humanism and the new religion of anti-racism now receiving the baton of social control (some would say mind control) -- control, that is, of White people, of ‘Australians.’ As realisation dawns that Australians are losing the battle that was never even conceived of as a battle, and bleeding from a thousand small wounds inflicted by guile and stealth, protection against which they have been deprived, an escalation into outright, non-pretend violence will be inevitable.
But even before critical mass has been achieved it may well be the little things -- the small darts that sting and scratch in that no man’s land of non-understanding -- that marshal the tribes into opposing armies. In Vietnam when, as a foreigner, you are harassed and stalked by cyclo-drivers and hawkers, you take it (more or less). In Vietnam, when someone is trying to force his way onto a train while you’re trying to alight laden with luggage, you take it. Or when someone is simply standing in the doorway of a train while you’re trying to board laden with luggage, you take it. When someone blithely invades your personal space, you take it. When someone routinely pushes in front of you in a queue, you take it. When there seems to be a law that precludes pedestrians using so called crossings -- the contempt of the horseman for the dismounted never so egregious -- you take it. When you see cruelty to animals, you take it.
In Australia, you don’t. Therein lay the seeds of impending disaster.
RACE SUICIDE AS FASHION
In the Melbourne Age of May 11, 1985, in an article entitled ‘Hayden hopes for a Eurasian Australia,' the Australian Foreign Minister was quoted as saying that Australia ‘should welcome the process of gradually becoming a Eurasian-type society. We are an anomaly – a white race with Asians between us and the rest of the world … I believe that if you look at things in the span of history, and not in one man’s lifetime, we will become not just a multicultural society … we will become a Eurasian society and we will be all the better for it... ‘There is absolutely no reason why Australia should not be that sort of mixed society. We should welcome the process of becoming a Eurasian-type society...'
For this treachery, treason, and betrayal, a particularly overheated corner of hell should be reserved for this now doddering old fool (as opposed to a younger and fitter fool).At the time this outrageous statement was made, the great mass of the Australian population was not having a bar of Asianisation - that is, beneath a veneer of intimidated politeness. Most reacted with shock and dismay, if not complete befuddlement at why their nation needed to be racially transformed. Since then, given years of an unrelenting barrage of propaganda and mind control, widespread resentment still smoulders at our elite’s wanting to replace and eventually to eradicate us. (A new twist on ‘democracy’ perhaps: the government exists not to serve and represent the people, but to annihilate the people!)
Sadly though, this dangerous bitterness lives mainly amongst older Australians –- those who remember what the country used to be like –- those terrible, evil days of ‘White Australia’. For the majority of the youth of the country it appears to be different. And for good reason, considering the years they must waste passing through the [re]education centers that masquerade as schools. Natural consciousness tampered with, deracinated and set adrift in a multiracial soup, how can they be blamed for seeing Asianisation as fashionable? It is this irrational call of fashion that is now being exploited by the propagandists who grow cleverer by the day.
For this treachery, treason, and betrayal, a particularly overheated corner of hell should be reserved for this now doddering old fool (as opposed to a younger and fitter fool).At the time this outrageous statement was made, the great mass of the Australian population was not having a bar of Asianisation - that is, beneath a veneer of intimidated politeness. Most reacted with shock and dismay, if not complete befuddlement at why their nation needed to be racially transformed. Since then, given years of an unrelenting barrage of propaganda and mind control, widespread resentment still smoulders at our elite’s wanting to replace and eventually to eradicate us. (A new twist on ‘democracy’ perhaps: the government exists not to serve and represent the people, but to annihilate the people!)
Sadly though, this dangerous bitterness lives mainly amongst older Australians –- those who remember what the country used to be like –- those terrible, evil days of ‘White Australia’. For the majority of the youth of the country it appears to be different. And for good reason, considering the years they must waste passing through the [re]education centers that masquerade as schools. Natural consciousness tampered with, deracinated and set adrift in a multiracial soup, how can they be blamed for seeing Asianisation as fashionable? It is this irrational call of fashion that is now being exploited by the propagandists who grow cleverer by the day.
A SHORT HISTORY OF AUSTRALIA: How a Continent Was Won and Almost Lost
IT WAS a shimmering dream -- a dream that was for a short time realized, and then tragically allowed to fade: a continent for a people and a people for a continent. In one of history's brighter moments, the British Empire, the greatest ever known and wearing the zenith of Western civilization like a crown, cast a far flung outpost into the deeper reaches of the Pacific -- an eighteenth century equivalent to a colony on the Moon.
The only previous human habitation comprised scattered bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers numbering around 300,000 in total with only the barest minimum of social organization. The descendants of these people claim as their most impressive achievement a 40,000 year long 'occupation.' That indeed is a long period for time to stand still. Whites quickly went to work taming a most inhospitable and unforgiving land. In less than a human life span, these convicts, soldiers, free settlers, administrators and adventurers had transplanted the civilization of their former homelands so successfully it was a perfect outgrowth.
Not more than a century after the first fleet of tall ships glided into what was to become known as Sydney Harbour, the country was enjoying close to the highest standard of living in the world. It had become in fact 'the working man's paradise.' The term, 'the lucky country,' originally coined by a bitter cynic, seemed to fit so well it came to be innocently accepted as well meant. Luck, gold and sudden fortunes, however, formed a minuscule part of the story. The remainder was written in sweat, blood, grief, despair and unconquerable spirit. Gold in fact attracted a solid proportion of bad luck in the form of the original wave of Asian invasion.
Notwithstanding whatever plans British overlords might have had in terms of cheap, easily managed non-White labour, it was on the goldfields that it was emphatically decided by the social class closest to this sun-blazed earth of Australia that this would be a White man's land. The pitched battles that ensued between White and Yellow (and for which we are told we must now hang our heads in everlasting shame) ensured commonsense prevailed in regard to radically different races attempting to live within the same polity. Incidentally, the existence of a southern continent had been known throughout Asia for centuries, but its exploration and settlement had obviously not been considered worth the trouble. Why not wait until someone else had done the spadework?
A strong, well organized working class gave birth to the Labor Party as a means of protecting its interests. This meant most urgently raising whole planks of its platform as a barricade to non-White immigration. The de facto 'White Australia Policy' was thus born. Etched into the Australian psyche was a fear and loathing of 'the Yellow peril.' And it was not an unfounded fear. As if to eradicate the slightest possible doubt about who now truly occupied -- and thus owned -- this land, a mortal threat from the north ensured that the blood and treasure spent in parrying it sealed the matter of ownership for evermore. Or should have. This was an unspoken sacred pact between those who remained and those who had unhesitatingly, unselfishly let slip their hold on life so that their nation might live: a nation in the true sense of the word, held together by -- to quote one of our early and visionary statesmen -- 'a crimson thread.'
The excitement, euphoria and relief, not to mention hubris, attending being on the winning team in history's greatest cataclysm blinded us for many years to just what a pyrrhic victory it had been in perhaps the most avoidable war ever fought. Perhaps being willfully blind, we could not see the chickens unleashed by being on the same side as international Communism coming home to roost. With the needless deaths of 55 million people, the cultural treasure of Europe in smouldering ruins, the rubble of two Japanese cities glowing radioactively and international Communism on a rampage, the wartime propaganda machine spewing out its lies about the 'just' war could never be turned off. Indeed, for over sixty years the foul nature of the vanquished, and far and away that of the 'anti-Semitic' German section, has been fortified to a point where, in the minds of many, no blacker evil could exist this side of hell.
Uncomfortably though, we came to see that many of the now-hated characteristics that had typified the now-crushed fascists lived on in ourselves. This process of moral inventory was aided by the 'chosen' ones whose perennial job it is to point out the faults of their 'cattle.' Hating ourselves became a moral imperative There was, for example, our sense of racial supremacy, even, God forbid, our own brand of 'anti-Semitism.' There was oppression, injustice, 'male chauvinism,' and even something the Germans in their mouth-frothing rabidity hadn't gotten around to giving a name to -- 'homophobia'!
And there was nationalism: the well-spring from which in logical sequence, they tell us, flows false pride, ethnocentricity, hatred, war, extermination, genocide, and the genocide that would render all others pale by comparison: the Holocaust! The only rational response? Self-loathing. Thus began national and racial suicide. Interestingly, every poison supposedly swirling about the Right end of the political spectrum could find its antidote conveniently available at the opposite extreme.
The all-pervasive power of Communism was so total that even when its death was officially pronounced, it would reincarnate in a form that would dwarf its earlier existence. It may be more accurate to say it transmogrified. Marx would no doubt have been delighted to have been able to see his beloved dialectic actually coming to life, but at a level a U2-flight above his own modest predictions. Forget bourgeoisie + proletariat = Communism. Try Communism + Capitalism (or rather, finance capitalism) = Globalism. Now, instead of the chicken-feed game of transferring wealth between classes within a state, we could move into the main draw of transferring wealth between nations.
Nationalism and nation states may put a monkey wrench into this operation, but no problem. Simply eliminate them both. And while the masses of the world participate in a race to the bottom, a fabulously rich and powerful but tiny clique become the planet's Politburo. Those who lust after and roll like pigs in the intoxicating power of bending others to their will know that even the most evil and egregious deeds can be accomplished by gradualism. Not for nothing is Fabius, the slow acting but deadly Roman, the hero of Fabian socialists. Forming the thin edge of a catastrophically destructive wedge, the first waves of non-British immigrants -- albeit fellow Europeans fleeing their devastated homelands -- were warily accepted into Australia. The near invasion by the Japanese had shaken us to our very foundations and rammed home the reality of our situation: a sparsely populated continent with teeming millions of envious non-Whites on our doorstep.
"Populate or perish", was the cry. Ironically, it first issued from the throat of an extremely nationalistic, first class member of the old and rapidly fading school of Labor. Given the need for bolstered population in defence terms -- although sheer numbers were becoming a rapidly outmoded factor in the face of exponentially growing technology -- and the need for labour to accomplish the visionary projects that were a hallmark of a country undergoing a huge confidence boost, as well as the assimilability of our racially closely-related new members, the immigration scheme of the early post war years was a remarkable success. Or so it seemed.
Moving like a silent undercurrent beneath the glowing success stories were growing and shifting dynamics that were soon to thrust a dagger at the heart of the Australian nation. The crystallizing threat, paradoxically more lethal than that recently launched from Tokyo that had originally engendered it was given a name: Multiculturalism. Richly ironic though was that it had not been the 'multicultural' new arrivals who had demanded, agitated for, or apparently even wanted this policy. It was do-gooder, native-born 'liberals' behind the push to counter what they perceived as the tyranny of the majority robbing the newly arrived of their full rights as residents of the land of 'the fair go.' Why should these unsuspecting innocents be forced to learn English, assimilate or even integrate, and jettison their rich cultures? Why in fact shouldn't they be made to feel that they'd never left home (or fled) in the first place? This was cruel and unusual punishment of the first order. This of course led to, as even those with the most frosted up crystal ball could have predicted, ghettoisation.
Even some of those who had been previously happily assimilated became unassimilated and moved to the ghetto. Not to forget our most cruelly victimized minority group, the Aborigine: he became a prince amongst 'equals of the persecuted.' Sufficiently softened up by the self-flagellation we'd been invited to participate in, it was then decided that Australia simply wasn't multicultural enough. Evidently there were still far too many people looking roughly similar. But what luck! The first 'boat people' from Vietnam had just arrived. Corresponding with this eventuality and the resulting low murmur of unwelcoming resentment, the word 'racist' began to be flung as if from an exploding nail bomb, and with equally apparent ability to silence the recipient.
The art of blaming the victim would soon need an opulent gallery to house it. In 1984 an unassuming University professor was indiscreet enough to opine that Asian immigration was getting a little ahead of public acceptance. He was summarily hounded out of his profession but his observation had, for a time at least, let a genie out of a bottle. Our social engineers went immediately into damage control. Even though it was now being claimed that Australia was now a part of Asia -- at least by our elite if by no one else, least of all Asian leaders -- and the term 'Asianisation' was now being used openly by Australian betrayers, in a breathtaking display of enforced doublethink, we were assured that the flow of Asian immigrants would 'have no discernible effect on the nation's racial makeup.'
Twenty three years later, walking any day through the centre of Sydney, one could be forgiven for mistaking the location for an Asian city. Could it be possible that we were misled? For a less insipid term, try betrayed, deceived, held in contempt, treated like fools, led to the slaughter house and nationally violated, all on a scale that could only have been perpetrated by the lying, perverted filth spewed up by what we laughingly call our 'democracy.'
Worse, this has been done in such a way -- fiendishly cleverly one might be tempted to concede if ignoring the awesome machinery of persuasion and mind control available to the deceivers -- that huge numbers of those deceived believe that this is what they themselves wanted! In The Anatomy of Power, John Kenneth Galbraith states: "There is a successful expression of power when the individual submits to the purposes of others not only willingly but with a sense of attendant virtue. The supreme expression, of course, is when the person does not know that he or she is being controlled. This, at the highest level, is the achievement of conditioned power; belief makes submission not a conscious act of will but a normal, natural manifestation of the approved behavior. Those who do not submit are deviant." And so it is with huge numbers of the native-born population -- joyfully willing to lie down and die for some 'greater good' that has never really been spelt out, but must be very good indeed given how amenable we are to remove ourselves to make way for it. A grinning madness now stalks this land, a land for which, two generations earlier, men unhesitatingly hurled themselves into eternity for the sake of its preservation as a home for their people; a home which is now being given away without a shot being fired.
Only a people who have been grotesquely mentally disfigured would do this. In a Down-under now truly upside down, it is the brave, the defiant, and the sane who are seen as mentally and morally suspect -- the 'deviant.' Abstract thinking is apparently not a favoured past time of most people. And to extrapolate from what is happening now to project into the future, even just a little way, requires this type of thinking. So the herd continues in its prepared rut: as it is now is as it will always be. Why do evil racists spread so much 'hate' and endanger multicultural peace, love and harmony by fanning fears of what might happen?
This line of thinking is milk and honey to multiculturalists, Australian politicians in particular -- and cyanide to those determined to hold on to what their ancestors created. It is fuel for the illusion, created by the propaganda masters, that multiculturalism and Asianisation will not fundamentally alter a country that is in fact being transformed with fantastic speed and fanatical energy. When Australians turn on their television sets, they see, reassuringly, a profusion of White faces. The citadels of power are still manned by Whites. The White faces of our sporting heroes still beam from victory daises. Very comforting. As it is … But like some gigantic, loathsome deep sea monster, a new Australia is rising inexorably toward this thin, White surface. The day the sun strikes this thing from below will be the day the Great Southland is lost to the White man forever. A little sand remains, though, in the hourglass still. Not much, but enough in which to do what has to be done. If it is not done, at some point in the future, the mirth of other men will attend the legend of a weak and foolish people who gave away their own homeland.
The only previous human habitation comprised scattered bands of nomadic hunter-gatherers numbering around 300,000 in total with only the barest minimum of social organization. The descendants of these people claim as their most impressive achievement a 40,000 year long 'occupation.' That indeed is a long period for time to stand still. Whites quickly went to work taming a most inhospitable and unforgiving land. In less than a human life span, these convicts, soldiers, free settlers, administrators and adventurers had transplanted the civilization of their former homelands so successfully it was a perfect outgrowth.
Not more than a century after the first fleet of tall ships glided into what was to become known as Sydney Harbour, the country was enjoying close to the highest standard of living in the world. It had become in fact 'the working man's paradise.' The term, 'the lucky country,' originally coined by a bitter cynic, seemed to fit so well it came to be innocently accepted as well meant. Luck, gold and sudden fortunes, however, formed a minuscule part of the story. The remainder was written in sweat, blood, grief, despair and unconquerable spirit. Gold in fact attracted a solid proportion of bad luck in the form of the original wave of Asian invasion.
Notwithstanding whatever plans British overlords might have had in terms of cheap, easily managed non-White labour, it was on the goldfields that it was emphatically decided by the social class closest to this sun-blazed earth of Australia that this would be a White man's land. The pitched battles that ensued between White and Yellow (and for which we are told we must now hang our heads in everlasting shame) ensured commonsense prevailed in regard to radically different races attempting to live within the same polity. Incidentally, the existence of a southern continent had been known throughout Asia for centuries, but its exploration and settlement had obviously not been considered worth the trouble. Why not wait until someone else had done the spadework?
A strong, well organized working class gave birth to the Labor Party as a means of protecting its interests. This meant most urgently raising whole planks of its platform as a barricade to non-White immigration. The de facto 'White Australia Policy' was thus born. Etched into the Australian psyche was a fear and loathing of 'the Yellow peril.' And it was not an unfounded fear. As if to eradicate the slightest possible doubt about who now truly occupied -- and thus owned -- this land, a mortal threat from the north ensured that the blood and treasure spent in parrying it sealed the matter of ownership for evermore. Or should have. This was an unspoken sacred pact between those who remained and those who had unhesitatingly, unselfishly let slip their hold on life so that their nation might live: a nation in the true sense of the word, held together by -- to quote one of our early and visionary statesmen -- 'a crimson thread.'
The excitement, euphoria and relief, not to mention hubris, attending being on the winning team in history's greatest cataclysm blinded us for many years to just what a pyrrhic victory it had been in perhaps the most avoidable war ever fought. Perhaps being willfully blind, we could not see the chickens unleashed by being on the same side as international Communism coming home to roost. With the needless deaths of 55 million people, the cultural treasure of Europe in smouldering ruins, the rubble of two Japanese cities glowing radioactively and international Communism on a rampage, the wartime propaganda machine spewing out its lies about the 'just' war could never be turned off. Indeed, for over sixty years the foul nature of the vanquished, and far and away that of the 'anti-Semitic' German section, has been fortified to a point where, in the minds of many, no blacker evil could exist this side of hell.
Uncomfortably though, we came to see that many of the now-hated characteristics that had typified the now-crushed fascists lived on in ourselves. This process of moral inventory was aided by the 'chosen' ones whose perennial job it is to point out the faults of their 'cattle.' Hating ourselves became a moral imperative There was, for example, our sense of racial supremacy, even, God forbid, our own brand of 'anti-Semitism.' There was oppression, injustice, 'male chauvinism,' and even something the Germans in their mouth-frothing rabidity hadn't gotten around to giving a name to -- 'homophobia'!
And there was nationalism: the well-spring from which in logical sequence, they tell us, flows false pride, ethnocentricity, hatred, war, extermination, genocide, and the genocide that would render all others pale by comparison: the Holocaust! The only rational response? Self-loathing. Thus began national and racial suicide. Interestingly, every poison supposedly swirling about the Right end of the political spectrum could find its antidote conveniently available at the opposite extreme.
The all-pervasive power of Communism was so total that even when its death was officially pronounced, it would reincarnate in a form that would dwarf its earlier existence. It may be more accurate to say it transmogrified. Marx would no doubt have been delighted to have been able to see his beloved dialectic actually coming to life, but at a level a U2-flight above his own modest predictions. Forget bourgeoisie + proletariat = Communism. Try Communism + Capitalism (or rather, finance capitalism) = Globalism. Now, instead of the chicken-feed game of transferring wealth between classes within a state, we could move into the main draw of transferring wealth between nations.
Nationalism and nation states may put a monkey wrench into this operation, but no problem. Simply eliminate them both. And while the masses of the world participate in a race to the bottom, a fabulously rich and powerful but tiny clique become the planet's Politburo. Those who lust after and roll like pigs in the intoxicating power of bending others to their will know that even the most evil and egregious deeds can be accomplished by gradualism. Not for nothing is Fabius, the slow acting but deadly Roman, the hero of Fabian socialists. Forming the thin edge of a catastrophically destructive wedge, the first waves of non-British immigrants -- albeit fellow Europeans fleeing their devastated homelands -- were warily accepted into Australia. The near invasion by the Japanese had shaken us to our very foundations and rammed home the reality of our situation: a sparsely populated continent with teeming millions of envious non-Whites on our doorstep.
"Populate or perish", was the cry. Ironically, it first issued from the throat of an extremely nationalistic, first class member of the old and rapidly fading school of Labor. Given the need for bolstered population in defence terms -- although sheer numbers were becoming a rapidly outmoded factor in the face of exponentially growing technology -- and the need for labour to accomplish the visionary projects that were a hallmark of a country undergoing a huge confidence boost, as well as the assimilability of our racially closely-related new members, the immigration scheme of the early post war years was a remarkable success. Or so it seemed.
Moving like a silent undercurrent beneath the glowing success stories were growing and shifting dynamics that were soon to thrust a dagger at the heart of the Australian nation. The crystallizing threat, paradoxically more lethal than that recently launched from Tokyo that had originally engendered it was given a name: Multiculturalism. Richly ironic though was that it had not been the 'multicultural' new arrivals who had demanded, agitated for, or apparently even wanted this policy. It was do-gooder, native-born 'liberals' behind the push to counter what they perceived as the tyranny of the majority robbing the newly arrived of their full rights as residents of the land of 'the fair go.' Why should these unsuspecting innocents be forced to learn English, assimilate or even integrate, and jettison their rich cultures? Why in fact shouldn't they be made to feel that they'd never left home (or fled) in the first place? This was cruel and unusual punishment of the first order. This of course led to, as even those with the most frosted up crystal ball could have predicted, ghettoisation.
Even some of those who had been previously happily assimilated became unassimilated and moved to the ghetto. Not to forget our most cruelly victimized minority group, the Aborigine: he became a prince amongst 'equals of the persecuted.' Sufficiently softened up by the self-flagellation we'd been invited to participate in, it was then decided that Australia simply wasn't multicultural enough. Evidently there were still far too many people looking roughly similar. But what luck! The first 'boat people' from Vietnam had just arrived. Corresponding with this eventuality and the resulting low murmur of unwelcoming resentment, the word 'racist' began to be flung as if from an exploding nail bomb, and with equally apparent ability to silence the recipient.
The art of blaming the victim would soon need an opulent gallery to house it. In 1984 an unassuming University professor was indiscreet enough to opine that Asian immigration was getting a little ahead of public acceptance. He was summarily hounded out of his profession but his observation had, for a time at least, let a genie out of a bottle. Our social engineers went immediately into damage control. Even though it was now being claimed that Australia was now a part of Asia -- at least by our elite if by no one else, least of all Asian leaders -- and the term 'Asianisation' was now being used openly by Australian betrayers, in a breathtaking display of enforced doublethink, we were assured that the flow of Asian immigrants would 'have no discernible effect on the nation's racial makeup.'
Twenty three years later, walking any day through the centre of Sydney, one could be forgiven for mistaking the location for an Asian city. Could it be possible that we were misled? For a less insipid term, try betrayed, deceived, held in contempt, treated like fools, led to the slaughter house and nationally violated, all on a scale that could only have been perpetrated by the lying, perverted filth spewed up by what we laughingly call our 'democracy.'
Worse, this has been done in such a way -- fiendishly cleverly one might be tempted to concede if ignoring the awesome machinery of persuasion and mind control available to the deceivers -- that huge numbers of those deceived believe that this is what they themselves wanted! In The Anatomy of Power, John Kenneth Galbraith states: "There is a successful expression of power when the individual submits to the purposes of others not only willingly but with a sense of attendant virtue. The supreme expression, of course, is when the person does not know that he or she is being controlled. This, at the highest level, is the achievement of conditioned power; belief makes submission not a conscious act of will but a normal, natural manifestation of the approved behavior. Those who do not submit are deviant." And so it is with huge numbers of the native-born population -- joyfully willing to lie down and die for some 'greater good' that has never really been spelt out, but must be very good indeed given how amenable we are to remove ourselves to make way for it. A grinning madness now stalks this land, a land for which, two generations earlier, men unhesitatingly hurled themselves into eternity for the sake of its preservation as a home for their people; a home which is now being given away without a shot being fired.
Only a people who have been grotesquely mentally disfigured would do this. In a Down-under now truly upside down, it is the brave, the defiant, and the sane who are seen as mentally and morally suspect -- the 'deviant.' Abstract thinking is apparently not a favoured past time of most people. And to extrapolate from what is happening now to project into the future, even just a little way, requires this type of thinking. So the herd continues in its prepared rut: as it is now is as it will always be. Why do evil racists spread so much 'hate' and endanger multicultural peace, love and harmony by fanning fears of what might happen?
This line of thinking is milk and honey to multiculturalists, Australian politicians in particular -- and cyanide to those determined to hold on to what their ancestors created. It is fuel for the illusion, created by the propaganda masters, that multiculturalism and Asianisation will not fundamentally alter a country that is in fact being transformed with fantastic speed and fanatical energy. When Australians turn on their television sets, they see, reassuringly, a profusion of White faces. The citadels of power are still manned by Whites. The White faces of our sporting heroes still beam from victory daises. Very comforting. As it is … But like some gigantic, loathsome deep sea monster, a new Australia is rising inexorably toward this thin, White surface. The day the sun strikes this thing from below will be the day the Great Southland is lost to the White man forever. A little sand remains, though, in the hourglass still. Not much, but enough in which to do what has to be done. If it is not done, at some point in the future, the mirth of other men will attend the legend of a weak and foolish people who gave away their own homeland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)