Wednesday, February 21, 2007

MISCEGENATION - that's the name of the game, and each generation, they're less of the same (apologies to Bobby Darin)

It's difficult to ignore an interesting phenomenon arising in Sydney where ghettos spill over onto areas still predominately white (yes, a few survive). It's the burgeoning number of mixed race couples with the results of their coupling in tow. I for one can seldom resist the urge to satisfy my curiosity with a quick check of just how the result panned out, which genes ended up where and in what proportions. It's a type of morbid fascination usually engendered by nature being a little out of kilter.

Why have so many people decided to over-ride the instincts developed over eons of time and marry or cohabit cross-racially? Currently, the most conducive reason is the same as the one motivating so many men to now wear the type of garb that was once the sole province of circus clowns - pants that aren't quite shorts, and shorts that aren't quite pants. In a word, as pitiable as this is when considering the mixing together of the fluffy inconsequential and the most deadly of consequences, it is fashion. It has become cool. And why would that be? It's probably for the same reason that clothing fashion does not spontaneously materialise; they are orchestrated by the so called trend setters who are invariably clothing producers. The trend setters in the racial fashion houses are those engines of society - the media, the schools and universities, governments and bureaucracies - whose power has been harnessed by ideologues relentlessly pursuing a world-view based on a scientifically as well as self-evidently false premise - that race is either merely skin deep or a social 'construct' - to its logical conclusion.

This artificially created Zeitgeist however merely accelerates a process that would have taken place anyway due to the necessary conditions already being created courtesy of a thirty year old official policy of race-mixing. Needless to say, there was little miscegenation in Australia when it was basically racially homogeneous. Given the nature of the male human sex urge, race tends to be a far less important consideration than sexual attractiveness which, much in tune with the law of supply and demand, waxes and wanes according to availability.

So with the raw material of race mixing provided courtesy of a 'non-discriminatory' immigration policy rigged in favour of coloureds and unashamedly against those who would blend in unobtrusively and almost unnoticed, 'nature' more or less takes over, given that truly natural tendencies to mate within one's own race have been largely over-rode by the aforementioned system of propagandising - some would call it brainwashing.

That the primal instincts in regard to loyalty to the tribe seem to survive in proportion to unfortunate circumstances or the degree of freedom from neurosis requires some investigation. It is received wisdom that woman marry up and men marry down, more so now that the so called 'bourgeoisification' of sociey has, if not actually propelling members of the working class upwards, at least infects them with the middle class aspirations and obsession with status constantly being role-modelled on television. This peculiar phenomenon does not mean that the working class is disappearing; just that the subculture that sustained it is. But where does that leave the male inhabiting the ground floor of society, if not the basement. His female equivalent is reaching upwards and there is no-one below.

Enter the submissive, sweetly feminine (as opposed to a feminist trained competitor and male impersonator) third-worlder who respects a man simply for being a man and is perfectly contented to leave the decision making to him. This man has instantly become a prince. His looks or his age don't seem to matter. And he may not even have a job! To the newly arrived, unemployment benefits seem like manna from heaven. And if he has a half-way decent job, he's a king! How different this is to the scalding experiences he may have had with the 'liberated' white woman. As the racially aware constitute only a small minority, the majority still in thrall to the mind-benders, our man has the icing on his cake provided by virtue of the schoolboy-star awarded for being a certified 'non-racist'. A sad irony here though is that the submissive, obedient third-worlder, once out of her natural habitat, doesn't always stay that way on learning the ways of the modern Australian woman.

And the female race-deserter? How would her profile look? Prolonged observation shows that she is not particularly attractive. She has either given up on attracting a member of her own race or is so embittered she is on the rebound not only from a man but from an entire race of men. It is well known that women are vulnerable to the 'stranger syndrome', that is simply that the unfamiliar is more tempting than the familiar. This may have served an evolutionary purpose in that, for 98% of the history of the human race, the stranger came from the village in the next valley and would have been a fresh addition to a localised and possibly somewhat stagnating gene-pool. Obviously, when the mystique of the stranger extends not to the next village but to countries many hours jet flight away, the gene-pool is not simply being refreshed - it is being destroyed.

No doubt also featuring in the psyche of the woman who turn her back on her own race is the want and need of the female of the species, from little girl to the old woman, to be 'good', whatever is deemed to be 'good' at any given time. Not for nothing has she been termed 'God's police'. And given that racism is bad, and anti racism, no better exemplified than by race-mixing, is 'good', here is society's seal of approval laid on with a trowel, society here meaning those equally deluded.

What of the offspring of parents of different races - those once called half-breeds, but now in the age of the euphemism, called 'those of mixed race'. There is unfortunately here a paucity of studies done. However, that does not prevent one from attempting to arrive at a conclusion via the method of inductive reasoning, where strong probability must suffice when iron-clad proof remains elusive. When two worlds developed over millenia of time collide in the psych of a single individual it would be reasonable to assume that a certain degree of confusion is the result. Straddling two worlds, where does one belong? Why is one so different to either parent and a possible step brother or sister? Why is one so different, period? When a person of mixed race who is born in Australia is constantly asked the question: 'where are you from?', how is the frustration and anger contained?

Interestingly, when one contemplates the perennial problem of White/Aboriginal relations in Australia, one cannot help but be struck by the fact the 'problem' is mainly one between Whites and people who for probably 190 of 229 years of white settlement have been called half-breeds, most of whom are more white than black. It is within them and not full-bloods that an inextinguishable hatred burns. Should that not tell us something about the mental world of those from two worlds? But who really cares about the fate of those resulting from the coupling of racial strangers? If there is any damage done it is small price to pay for the creation of Utopia.

Which, my friends, bring us to the nub of the matter. Race-mixing throughout the Western, once predominantly White world is not something that has come about by chance or accident. It is all a part of bold, grand dream dreamt by romantics and idealists so frightened of and contemptuous of human reality that they are barely of this world. Their world is more a fairy tale land of chocolate cake and rainbows where all conflict has been abolished and perfect harmony prevails. Extremely difficult, I know, for the uninitiated to believe, what we are seeing now is the fruit of an agenda pushed fanatically and tirelessly for decades.

To these simple-minded sentimentalists, most of the world's problems have been caused by the white race. A cursory glance at world history is all that's needed to confirm this assertion. Look at all the great sins and then at who was responsible: slavery, colonialism, imperialism, the most devastating wars, attempted or actual genocide, invention of the most diabolical weapons (along with everything else) and of course, let us not forget the Holocaust. Underpinning all these atrocities is racism, which naturally was also invented by the white race (along with everything else). The ANSWER. It goes like this: racism is the greatest evil known to man. The white race is the father of racism. Ergo, in order for evil to be eliminated and good to rein supreme, the white race must be destroyed. All this, let it be remembered, when it is held to be gospel that there is really no such thing as race - it's just a figment of our imagination. No more graphic example could be given on what George Orwell called 'doublethink'.

But here now is the sweetest/bitterest irony of all. Assuming that the one-worlders achieve their goal of the destruction of the white race and the creation of the chimerical coffee coloured man, it will all have been in vain.

If the history of mankind is anything to go by, societies will always be stratified. To borrow the laconic words of CJ Dennis, 'it's 'ow a man is built'. If the experiences of countries subjected to extreme racial mixing such as India and Brazil are anything to go by, stratification will always be largely informed by shades of colour, the light rising to the surface, the dark sinking to the bottom (how many Tamils make it to Bollywood?), the evenly coffee coloured man therefore remaining an eternal mirage.

The great, fundamental flaw in in the scheme of the those who would dispose of the white race is that human nature is not simply plasticine in the hands of men who would be gods. It is immutable. This was the stumbling block of Karl Marx and his followers that led to the catastrophic mistake of Communism. That the same mistake is being made by the one-worlders is not altogether surprising that, stripped of the rags of the economic nonsense so beloved by old time Marxists, one finds a uniform cut from the same cloth, its wearer worshipping at the same alter of egalitarianism. Substitute race for class and the picture is complete.

That these people cannot live with the reality of inherent human inequality says more about them than their ideology. It says that their pathology is so severe, so beyond hope, that they must eventually be cut from the body of the human race like the cancer they are in order for there to be any hope at all of a recovery.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

The Difference Between Being Globalised and Being Sodomised: Apparently with the latter, there's usually a pillow to bite on

The popular conception of Globalisation is that, at some time or other, governments of the world got together with a view to revolutionising world trade so that, as we are constantly told, the smooth streamlining would lead to an economic Utopia . Of course governments of the world were content to let sleeping dogs lie and weren't about disabusing their governed of this most monumental of illusions. To do otherwise may have had a type of domino effect on other popular illusions, such as the smoke and mirrors production that casts national governments as actually being in control of the nations in which they are ensconced.

As we shall see, in the true state of play national governments have been reduced to little more than pawns on the global chess board, bearing out the sentiment behind the words of one Meyer Rothschild: 'I don't care who makes the laws, as long as I control the money.' 'The money', Meyer knew, would be followed by politicians like birds on a trail of bread crumbs.

Humans, being humans, the urge to dominate has been around since, well ... since humans became humans. With every incremental step that has led to the marvelous peak of technological achievement we stand on today, the scope for domination has increased. When it was that people began thinking in terms of world domination is unclear, but it's a safe bet that it began around the time that people first began conceiving of a world - any kind of world, no matter how small or flat.

Since the world we actually have has been understood as such, the first real attempts at world domination have been made via the great empires. A case in point would be a supposedly determined effort spearheaded by the genius of Cecil Rhodes and using the British Empire as a superstructure.

Lurking in the shadows between empires, rumours have constantly abounded of dark conspiracies aimed at shackling the world for the benefit of small cliques of faceless, immoral men. The more famous include the descendants of the Knight Templars, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Jews, but hard evidence has been sadly lacking. Besides, the logistics and practicalities prevailing during most of the time this scheming was alleged have been taking place would have severely hampered the gathering together of the nuts and bolts needed to anchor any of these schemes in reality. These 'conspiracies' may have belonged more under the heading of 'wishful thinking'.

This, in a nutshell is what separates earlier salivating at the thought of world domination, and the New International Economic Order (NIEO) we are currently being saddled with: lack of hard evidence and the probability of preclusion by practicalities. In regard to the former, the proof is everywhere we look - it is being rammed down our throats; the perpetrators gloat and boast about it. '... the nation-state as a fundamental unit of man's organised life has ceased to be the principal creative force: International banks and multinational corporations are acting and planning in terms that are far in advance of the political concepts of the nation-state,' said Zbigniew Brzezinski (1), of whom more later. Could it be any plainer? They never tire of proclaiming how 'we'll all be better off', because of it. (This must be a private joke. Irrepressible images arise of boardrooms full of men doubled over with laughter: 'if the idiots believe that, they'll believe anything'.)

In regard to the latter, we do not need to be told one more time about the 'global village'. Indeed, in financial terms, the world has shrunk to the size of a large casino, with trillions of dollars sloshing about the planet every day. Our sparkling technology isn't of course limited to the hyper efficient transfer of money; it has also taken communication to limits undreamed of just a few generations ago. 'Communication' can also be read as 'mind control'. Propaganda didn't die with Joseph Goebells - it was hardly even born! In the intervening sixty odd years it has been honed into a devastatingly effective weapon. And of course, should a little less subtlety be called for, war fighting technology has also improved exponentially - perhaps there are some misguided souls who do not fully appreciate the benefits of globalisation: the name given to the world domination that had to eventually become possible, and because it was possible ... well you know the rest.

What drives those who see their reason for existence as the corralling and domination of as many of their fellow humans as possible? Or put another way, what do you get for the man who has everything? Answer: more! And that more is brought more clearly into focus if distilled into two main elements, those being, MONEY and POWER. But we have to try and get our heads around the fact we are not dealing with ordinary men here.

As illuminated in The Global Elite: Who are they? , we are dealing here with men whose appetites are gargantuan, their lusting after the twin treasures of money and power so obsessive, so all consuming, so pathological, it is beyond the comprehension of those not similarly afflicted.

The first, real, great beacon of hope for men such as these was the United Nations. Here was embryonic world government, and after the world being in flames twice in little more than twenty years,with enough despair and enough optimism supporting it, the fulfillment of its potential brimmed with possibility. Indeed, this was the first time in the several centuries since the birth of the nation- state that such states would even consider voluntarily relinquishing even a modicum of sovereignty.

Quickly clustering about the UN, determined to use it as a tool for world governance suiting its own agenda was an organisation known as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Although sparkling with stars of the 'Eastern Elite' it failed for two main reasons: it became too large, diverse and unwieldy and, although immensely formidable, it represented only the elite of North America - much too limited in scope, ability and outlook for a truly global system.

The CFR failed as a grab for global power but as a shake-down exercise and dress-rehearsal for the real thing it was invaluable. The real thing was the Trilateral Commission. Launched in 1973 by the aforementioned Zbiginiew Brzezinski in partnership with David Rockefeller (land for the UN building in New York had been donated by the Rockefeller family), it was constructed according to a bold and ingenious plan.

Moving away from the relatively small pond of North America, it encompassed the three main engines of economic power: the US, Western Europe and Japan. Hence trilateral. After targeting the main areas of moving and shaking in these key chunks of the planet, which were corporate -Rockefeller's domain - academic -Brzezinski - and political - too numerous to list here, the talent scouting was on in earnest. In an ancillary position is the media which doesn't rate alongside the big three as it is dominated by all three. 'In general, the goals for globalisation are created by Corporate. Academic then provides studies and white papers that justify Corporate's goals. Political sells Academics arguments to the public [via the media] and if necessary, changes laws to accommodate and facilitate Corporate in getting what it wants.' (2)

Cherry picking the best and brightest, not to mention greediest and most lustful, advanced at a prodigious pace, attracting the most desired personnel apparently presenting no problem. In fact those tapped for inclusion seem to have positively flocked to the banner of what might arguably be termed the ultimate symbiosis. For example, '.. of the 54 original US members of the Trilateral Commission, Jimmy Carter was fronted to win the presidential election of 1976. Once inaugurated, Carter brought no less than 18 fellow members of the Commission into top- level cabinet and government agencies'. (3)

No US executive since the Carter administration has been free of Commission domination. Bearing in mind that Commission members - American as well as foreign - march to the sound of a different drummer than the one supposedly maintaining the beat of the US national interest, this obviously does not augur well for US sovereignty or democracy. And given that the US leads to 'free world', one can only wonder at the type of freedom that is enjoyed by those who follow the pied piper of globalisation.

As posited, all that has been delineated stands out in sharp relief to all that preceded, which rightly or wrongly belongs in the categorisation of conspiracy theory by virtue of the fact that we can see unfolding before our very eyes a perfectly executed plan that realises exactly all that could be desired by the megalomaniacs who now rule the roost.

For instance, it may just be a wild coincidence that the disease of multiculturalism broke out all over the Western world at almost exactly the same time that The Trilateral Commission was born - although it must be conceded that misguided zealots and ideologues had long struggled, albeit without much success to bring it about. Why would multiculturalism figure in the schemes of the Trilateralists? Simply because the nation- state and that central tenet of Western liberal democracy - individualism - would be the two main stumbling blocks to a world under new, globalist management. These open conspirators knew full well that both would be destroyed by multiracialism and multiculturalism.

Now in private hands, the world with its open borders and free flow of goods, capital and labour is in a 'race to the bottom'. The only logical conclusion is that when all wages have bottomed out around the level of what is paid to Indonesian coolies, and the great preponderance of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few and, with stampeding technology thrown into the mix, the 20/80 world has been entered - 20 percent of the world's population productive, 80 percent nothing but useless mouths to feed - that world won't be fit to live in.

The next time a party politician makes you a promise, you'd better ask him if he has permission to deliver on that promise. And remember, the only antidote to globalism is nationalism.

(1) Between Two Ages: The Technetronic Era, by Zbigniew Brzezinski, as quoted in The August Review, Vol 5, Issue 12

(2) The August Review, Vol5, Issue 12

(3) Ibid

Sunday, February 4, 2007


“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” George Santayana

If there is not a determined, deliberate plan to destroy this country, it is apparently unneeded, because the way it is happening could not be improved upon. Simply take a healthy, robust nation and begin injecting the poison of multiculturalism. Similar to the process of execution by lethal injection in the US, where sodium pentothal and pavulon are first injected to cause a stupefying, paralyzing effect, once multiculturalism and its foundation of mass immigration have brought about a similar result, the coup de grace is released into the bloodstream. In the US death chamber, it is potassium chloride; in the once strong but now stricken Australian body politic it takes the form of Islam – the avowed nemesis and destroyer of all who would have the temerity to not submit to the will of Allah.

Islam is like no other religion. There may have been some similarities between Islam and Christianity – but that was 500 years ago. Christianity progressed; Islam is still medieval. Christianity still goes to some lengths to win converts, but has never thought in terms of conversion or death: a hallmark of Islam which since its inception has been spread by the sword. In juxtaposition, Judaism has never gone out of its way to win converts and views those who do convert with a certain degree of suspicion. Buddhism gently woos, and Hinduism … well one is pretty much reincarnated in amongst this pantheon of gods.

What most non-Muslims apparently fail to appreciate is that Islam is not simply a religion. Rather, it is an entire package-plan for living – a seamless, socio-political religious system lacking even the conception of a separation between church and state. Born in blood and strife and sweeping across an unforgiving desert-world, it was a force uniquely capable of uniting primitive tribes entrenched since time immemorial in a war of all against all.

Also apparently missed by worshippers of more gentle gods, as well as those who worship no gods at all, is that Allah is a fearful god of great ambition inspiring expansionist-militaristic regimes. So it has been; so it always will be. However, in outright, frontal-attacking war, Islam has sustained too many defeats to not revise its strategy. Although fought to an exhausted stand-still, the Crusades no doubt greatly impressed Muslim warriors with the ferocity and tenacity of their counterparts. Notwithstanding that history re-writers are now painting the Crusaders as the initial aggressors, any historian worth his salt knows the truth: the Christians were motivated solely by the sacred purpose of winning back the holy lands from the Muslim invaders and plunderers.

In 732 AD there was absolutely no doubt about who the aggressors were. This is when Charles Martel (the Hammer) defeated Muslim forces at the battle of Tours and was credited with saving Western Europe from the Moorish Umayyad expansionism that had oppressed the Iberian Peninsula from 711 and which wasn’t to be finally taken back (Reconquistada) by Spanish Catholic forces in 1492.

The year 1529 was the year credited with being when the argument over who would rule Europe was finally settled (until the 21st century). This was when the forces of Sultan Suleiman 1 were stopped and turned back at the gates of Vienna.

As science and technology and exploration drove the West in great, unprecedented surges while Muslim lands stagnated as though anchored in time, the balance of power had shifted so decisively that it was obvious that the West could never again be challenged by Islam in conventional, military terms.

Instead, it smouldered with resentment for the centuries of being left floating in the wake of Western progress, with the ultimate humiliation eventually being suffered under the yoke of European colonization and the ensuing plundering of treasure (oil). Had the proud and fiery god failed? A Muslim could only harbour such thoughts at the risk of terrible retribution. At last, it appeared that Allah in fact was a patient and cunning god. The main chance came with the toxins that began to leach through the West in the form of liberalism, described by James Burnham as ‘the ideology Western suicide’ (1).

With this liberalism which had been perverted beyond recognition from its original doctrine of freedom of the individual to almost its exact opposite: political correctness, came the atoning waves of immigration from the third world, a belief, or rather the suspension of disbelief, in human equality held to with a fanaticism rivaling that of the most dedicated Communist and, of course, multiculturalism. Along with all the animals now being equal, all cultures, all beliefs, every bizarre practice and sexual perversion, and all religions were also equal. Hail postmodernism!

Accordingly, Islam, the former deadly enemy of the West (Western Christendom) was welcomed as warmly as a long lost relative. The strange incongruity of mosques sprouted like mushrooms. When the natives complained about their former peace and quiet being shattered by the unfamiliar noises issuing from these new establishments, they were treated with looks that were usually reserved for scab-encrusted drug-addicts and were remonstrated with for being ‘racist’. In the light of this response, a new reverence was learnt and, disarmed by ignorance, the natives, if they remembered anything at all of history, were told that everything had now changed and that Islam after all was simply another religion and as such deserving of tolerance.

The Muslims now ensconced in the camps of their enemies however knew better. They knew that nothing in fact had changed and that Islam was anything but just another religion. Any difficulties, any lingering antipathy was usually smoothly dealt with by a variation on the good-cop/bad-cop routine. How this works is that, given that ostensibly Islam comes in two speeds: fundamentalist and moderate, when a member of the former utters something shocking to ears of the kaffir (non-Muslim, thereby corrupt and rotten), a representative of the latter immediately sooths hurt feelings with claims that the former has been misinterpreted/comment taken out of context, and anyway does not represent true Islam. So when, for example, a Muslim leader claims Australian rape victims brought it upon themselves by dressing as Western women do, that is, as meat laid out for Muslim cats, a chorus is heard from the moderates (not immediately but eventually and with prompting) that this isn’t the teaching of true Islam.

The problem with this particular shell-game is that the true nature of Islam remains forever hidden, at least to the infidel. However, bearing in mind that just like Islam is like no other religion, the Koran is like no other holy book in that it is held to contain the voice of God itself, a reading of it should, it seems logical, reveal the true nature of Islam. Interestingly, the moderates don’t get much of a look-in; this is a book dripping in blood and giving unequivocal advice about dealing with non-believers.

As if no further proof that multiculturalism bears within itself the seeds of its own destruction, now that the barbarians are inside the gates they are decidedly not tolerant of ‘tolerance’ and have vowed to bend the host society into an image of themselves. Once this is accomplished (scoff as some may, in France, where breeding is proving to be the ultimate weapon now that the scimitar is no longer needed, one in three babies being born is a Muslim) it is difficult to see how the joys of diversity can continue to be celebrated.

If it wasn’t so fatally tragic, it would be laughable. Even as master politician, John Howard appears to be retreating from multiculturalism - because even he can smell the stench - to integrationism, which was the intermediate step after the immensely sensible immigrant settlement policy of assimilationism, Muslims not only contemptuously defy integration but are avowed to bending us to their will.

In the midst of our greatest city, an international caliphate was recently declared by a member of a terrorist organization barred in most other Western countries. This was nothing less than a call for the Islamic destiny as foretold in the Koran, but held up by historical events.

Elsewhere, a home grown Muslim now resident in London because of ‘Australian racism’ extolled the virtues of instilling into children the readiness to die for Allah in jihad against the forces of Satan – children raised for suicide! It doesn’t rate as suicide though because dying in the cause of an expansionist Islam is a glorious death, the reward to male martyrs being, amongst other things, seventy one virgins in an eternal paradise. As Muslims apparently unquestioningly believe such things, this would make for an easy death. One wonders though about the reward for female recruits.

There are of course laws, such as the one pertaining to incitement to racial hatred, in place with which to punish such behaviour, but given they are not used to curb it, it is glaringly obvious just who these laws were designed to be aimed at. It is also a graphic illustration of the cowardice of Western governments frozen like the mouse before the stare of the snake.

Australians have every right to fear the so called clash of civilizations coming to bus, train or market place near them. It is not a matter of if but when. This isn’t rocket science or star-gazing. Just do a quick reality check. Consider for a moment that, where other nations may be just a little circumspect, Australia is best mates with a superpower - itself a satellite of Israel -that has lost its mind and enjoys nothing better than belting the Muslim hornets' nest with a stick.

Given this extreme danger, it might appear advisable to re-evaluate the wisdom of bringing yet more Muslims into our country. But no. Even if this occurred to our illustrious leaders, they would be prevented from doing so by their shared, iron-clad globalist doctrine and by the fact that it would be damning heresy in the religion of multiculturalism. As they say in America, ‘go figure’.

(1) SUICIDE OF THE WEST: The definitive analysis of the pathology of liberalism
James Burnham

Sunday, January 28, 2007

AUSTRALIA DAY: Celebration or whistling in the dark?

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.

Monday, January 22, 2007


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:

Wednesday, January 17, 2007


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.

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.