The War on White Australia: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 1 of 5

Note: I’m REPOSTING this article because bugger-all White Australians know about the Jewish role in disposing of the White Australia Policy. White Australians – memorise the Jewish names mentioned so you can rattle them off when quizzed on the subject. (People listen if you actually know what you’re talking about… well, they might…..)

From The Occidental Observer:

By Brenton Sanderson

Results from the 2011 Australian Census reveal that, for the first time in that nation’s history, the majority of migrants are now arriving from Asia instead of Europe. Indians and Chinese have become the fastest growing sections of the Australian population. Between 2006 and 2011 the number of Australian permanent residents born in India increased by 100 per cent, those born in China increased by 54 per cent, while those born in the Philippines by 42 per cent. These startling figures do not even include those born in Australia to Indian or Chinese parents. The Census also revealed that other non-White immigrant groups are also expanding rapidly, including various African groups. All of this is dismal news for White Australians and, indeed, for White people everywhere. Unfortunately, these figures only mirror what is happening throughout the West, where White people are under demographic and cultural siege from race-replacing levels of Third World immigration and the official embrace of “multiculturalism.”

In just a few decades these malignant policies have transformed Western societies to the detriment of their European-derived populations and culture. It is a remarkable fact that this revolution in immigration and social policy throughout the West occurred at around the same time (1962-1973), and that in all countries these changes reflected the attitude of elites rather than the great mass of citizens. Changes in immigration policy and the imposition of multiculturalism were imposed on resentful European populations despite overwhelming popular opposition to non-European immigration. The driving force behind this totally undemocratic shift in policy was the Jewish intellectual movements and ethno-political activism that Kevin MacDonald documented in The Culture of Critique. For those aware of the pivotal role of Jews in driving the demographic and cultural transformation of the United States, the story of the Jewish role in radically reengineering Australian society will have a depressingly familiar ring to it.

Australia was the last habitable continent settled by Europeans. In 1901 the British colonies of Australia federated to form an independent nation. The first Act passed by the new federal parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act which, through imposing a dictation test in any European language (usually English), effectively barred non-White immigration to Australia. Until the cultural revolution of the 1960s, Australia remained an unashamedly White Christian nation with a strong Anglo-Celtic ethnic base. Indeed the long-running (now defunct) news magazine The Bulletin maintained the slogan “Australia for the White Man” on its masthead until 1961. By 1947 the non-European population, other than Aborigines, was measured at 0.25 per cent of the total. As a result of the Immigration Restriction Act, Australia had become, by this time, one of the Whitest countries in the world. Ian Cook makes the point that “The ‘White Australia’ policy was a fairly self-conscious and explicit attempt to protect a particular genetic inheritance from being diluted by other genetic lines.”[i] The policy was extraordinarily successful in this endeavor, and the historian Eric Richards observes that, in retrospect, it is extraordinary that so remote a settlement could maintain such a homogeneous population composition.[ii]

Australia and New Zealand were also the two most “British” societies outside the United Kingdom, and Australia was, proportionately, the most Irish society outside Ireland. The imperial loyalties of the Australian colonists were often explained by reference to the “crimson thread of kinship” that existed between Britain and Australia. Australian identity was founded upon three distinct yet interrelated components: racial Whiteness, “Britishness,” and “Australianness.”[iii] The attempted Japanese invasion of northern Australia in WWII proved that the longstanding fear of an Asian invasion (the “Yellow Peril”) was far from the neurotic, xenophobic anxiety disparaged by today’s politically correct historians. In the 1960s there was no popular movement for ending the White Australia policy, a policy that had retained the bipartisan support of Australia’s political class since its inception in 1901. Indeed, Richards notes that “Australia’s adherence to ‘Whiteness’ was its defining characteristic,” and that “None of the other great immigrant countries was able to sustain such a degree of homogeneity.”[iv] Hawkins makes the point that

the primary and identical motivation of Canadian and Australian politicians in trying to exclude first the Chinese, then other Asian migrants and finally all potential non-white immigrants, was the desire to build and preserve societies and political systems in their hard-won, distant lands very like those of the United Kingdom. They also wished to establish without challenge the primary role there of her founding peoples of European origin. … Undisputed ownership of these territories of continental size was felt to be confirmed forever, not only by the fact of possession, but by the hardships and dangers endured by the early explorers and settlers; the years of back-breaking work to build the foundations of urban and rural life. … The idea that other peoples, who had taken no part in these pioneering efforts, might simply arrive in large numbers to exploit important local resources, or to take advantage of these earlier settlement efforts, was anathema.[v]     

Tied in with these natural and legitimate expressions of racial and ethnic solidarity, were concerns hordes of non-White immigrants would drive down the wages and living standards of White Australians. This was a key part of the original rationale for the White Australia policy as articulated by Alfred Deakin, Australia’s first Attorney-General, who argued that

a white Australia does not by any means just mean the preservation of the complexion of the people of this country. It means the multiplying of homes, so that we may be able to defend every part of our continent; it means the maintenance of conditions of life fit for white men and white women; it means equal laws and opportunities for all; it means protection against underpaid labour of other lands, it means the payment of fair wages. A white Australia means a civilisation whose foundations are built on healthy lives, lived in honest toil, under circumstances which imply no degradation; a white Australia means protection.”[vi]  

An analogous view had been expressed as early as 1841 by James Stephen, the powerful head of the British colonial office in London, who declared that Australia should be a land “where the English race shall be spread from sea to sea unmixed with any lower caste.” He maintained that the introduction of Indian “coolies” into New South Wales would “debase by their intermixture the noble European race… bring with them the idolatry and debasing habits of their country… beat down the wages of poor laboring Europeans… [and] cut off the resource for many of our own distressed people.”[vii] Charles Pearson, a British scholar who migrated to the colonies in the late nineteenth century, published a book entitled National Life and Character in 1893. In it, he described Australia as “an unexampled instance of a great continent that has been left for the first civilized people that found it to take and occupy. He warned, nevertheless, that it was still questionable whether the white races would be able to hold on to it in the face of the Asiatic threat:

We know that coloured and white labour cannot exist side by side; we are well aware that China can swamp us with a single year’s surplus of population; and we know that if national existence is sacrificed to the working of a few mines and sugar plantations, it is not the Englishman and Australian alone, but the whole civilized world, that will be the losers.[viii]

Such concerns echoed through the decades of the White Australia policy, where the country explicitly defined its nationhood in terms of Whiteness and a policy of economic protectionism designed to benefit the entire group by preventing, say, Australian capitalists from importing cheap labor that would undercut the standard of living of other White Australians. The policy reflected the desire of Australians to build a strong and prosperous society founded upon the principles of racial and cultural homogeneity and fairness within the racial group. Gwenda Tavan notes that the White Australia policy was a “morally imbued affirmation of the type of society Australians wanted to build: white and British-Australian as well as cohesive, conformist, liberal-democratic and egalitarian.”[ix] One commentator reflected this view when noting in 1939 that “The Australian prides himself on his high standard of living; he wishes to do nothing that will endanger it. Neither does he wish to bring into being a colour problem such as he sees in South Africa.”[x]

 

Early twentieth century Australian poster

Rather than being driven by any shift in public opinion, the impetus for the progressive dismantling of the White Australia policy, and the move from assimilation to multiculturalism between 1966 and 1975 came “from a small group of reformers that began appearing in some Australian universities in the 1960s” who, like their counterparts in the United States and Britain, soon comprised a hostile intellectual, academic and media elite who “developed a sense of being a member of a morally and intellectually superior ingroup battling against Australian parochial non-intellectuals as an outgroup.”[xi] In the changing ideological climate of the 1950s and 1960s, the moral foundations of Australia’s British history were subjected to radical criticism, and once foundational patriotic works like Keith Hancock’s Australia (with its maxim that “among the Australians pride of race counted for more than love of country”) were no longer compulsory reading for students. [xii]

Boasian anthropology and the fall of White Australia

The Boasian ideology of racial egalitarianism (discussed in Chapter 2 of The Culture of Critique as a Jewish intellectual movement) was a critical weapon in opening Australian immigration up to non-White groups. Jewish academic Jon Stratton notes that the dismantling of the White Australia policy and the ultimate adoption of multiculturalism was a direct result of “internal and external pressures related to a general turning away from biological racialism.”[xiii] The Australian Jewish academic Andrew Markus articulates the standard critique of “white racism” that became prominent in the 1960s when he asserts that it was based on the notion that

(i) as a result of some (undefined) “natural” process, national groups (or ‘races’ or ‘cultures’) have inborn (‘essential’) qualities which will never alter; and (ii) there are inherent characteristics in such groups which interpose barriers against harmonious co-existence, not least against interbreeding of populations. Such ideas give rise to closed forms of nationalism which restrict membership to those qualified by birth or descent, in contrast to open forms which grant citizenship to individuals on the basis of residence and adherence to the governing principles of the nation. They justified European colonial rule; the denial of basic human rights and citizenship; segregation in the workplace, housing and education; and policies of genocide culminating in the “factories of death” established in the period of Nazi domination of continental Europe. Rarely challenged in western societies prior to 1940, the idea of biological racial difference lost much of its legitimacy in the aftermath of the Holocaust.[xiv]

It is obvious from this statement just how closely acceptance of the myth of racial equality from the 1960s onwards was bound up with Jewish post-Holocaust ethno-political activism. Note also the outright lies and hypocrisy in the above paragraph. The “(undefined) ‘natural’ process” that Markus claims is the wholly irrational basis for “racism” is the very well-defined process of human evolution itself. The differential evolution of human groups in response to selection pressures imposed by diverse environments, resulted, after thousands of years, in differences in external morphology and psychological traits—including intelligence as measured by IQ tests. The average intelligence of a group will profoundly influence the society that will be created by that group. There is nothing undefined, irrational, or pseudo-scientific about this whatsoever.

Professor Andrew Markus: Propagating “noble lies”

In his description of “closed” forms of nationalism which restrict “membership to those qualified by birth or descent” Markus could be describing traditional Judaism, with its strict endogamy and built-in assumptions of Jewish racial, intellectual and moral superiority. As always, however, Judaism is outside the critical frame of reference of such reflexively anti-White Jewish intellectuals. Jewish ethno-nationalism (exemplified in Israel’s racially restrictive immigration laws) is tacitly held to be legitimate and uncontroversial (indeed a moral imperative), while White nationalism is inherently illegitimate and morally corrupt.

The rampant hypocrisy of this is particularly striking given that Australian Jews have “been at the forefront of support for the right of the state of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, to determine its own security agenda, and to do what is needed to ensure its own survival.”[xv]  Indeed, the academic and Australian Jewish activist Danny Ben Moshe points out that Australian Jewry is fiercely Zionist and “outdoes all other Diasporas in their commitment to Israel.” A 1993 survey of Melbourne Jewry found that 63 per cent had visited Israel with over 40 per cent having done so two or more times. This is compared with 36 per cent of American Jews. Australia also has the highest rate of aliyah in the world.[xvi] While strongly in favor of non-White immigration and racial-mixing among the non-Jews in Australia, a publication like the Australian Jewish News can openly express the view that for Jews, “Intermarriage has always been and will always be an individual, spiritual and communal tragedy. No amount of petty rationalising will ever change that.”[xvii]

Noting the incredible hypocrisy involved in simultaneously condemning white racialism while defending the Jewish ethno-nationalist state of Israel (and traditional Jewish prohibitions against intermarriage), Kevin MacDonald observes in The Culture of Critique that:

Ironically, many intellectuals who absolutely reject evolutionary thinking and any imputation that genetic self-interest might be important in human affairs also favor policies that are rather self-interestedly ethnocentric, and they often condemn the self-interested ethnocentric behavior of other groups, particularly any indication that the European-derived majority… is developing a cohesive group strategy and high levels of ethnocentrism in reaction to the groups strategies of others. …  A Jew maintaining this argument should, to retain intellectual consistency, agree that the traditional Jewish concern with endogamy and consanguinity has been irrational. Moreover, such a person would also believe that Jews ought not attempt to retain political power in Israel because there is no rational reason to suppose that any particular group should have power anywhere. Nor should Jews attempt to influence the political process … in such a manner as to disadvantage another group or benefit their own. And to be logically consistent, one should also apply this argument to all those who promote immigration of their own ethnic groups, the mirror image of group-based opposition to such immigration.[xviii]  

Since the academic world is international and hierarchical, it was inevitable that intellectual movements originating in elite American universities spread throughout the West (see “Liberal Bias in Academia: The role of Jewish academics in the creation and maintenance of academic liberalism“) As a consequence of the growing influence of the Jewish intellectual movements described in The Culture of Critique, and direct Jewish activism in Australia, “Such views [i.e. the assumption racial equality] became standard within schools and universities and provided the intellectual basis for campaigns against racial discrimination in the late 1950s and 1960s.”[xix] Tavan notes that: “As a result of these shifts, universities in particular became ‘hotbeds of resistance’ to White Australia during the late 1950s and early 1960s. … The emergence of a body of Marxist-inspired social theory in Europe and the United States at that time also reinvigorated radical left-wing political theory in Australia.” For Tavan, the new critical theory of the Frankfurt School “played a crucial role in exposing the racist underpinnings of many of Australia’s key institutions and values.”[xx] The Frankfurt School abandoned the White working class because they were insufficiently radical and had succumbed to fascism in Germany and Italy. This caused them to reject the orthodox Marxist emphasis on class struggle, replacing it by advocating non-White immigration and multiculturalism, as well as recruiting Whites who had complaints against the traditional culture, particularly feminists and sexual minorities, into a new coalition of the left.

With the adoption in 1963 of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, member governments were urged to eliminate racial discrimination from their society altogether. Internal intellectual currents were thus augmented by mounting external political opposition to the White Australia policy, especially during the years of European decolonization in Africa and Asia. Eric Richards notes how

Prime Minister Menzies [1949-1966] was increasingly vexed by the intrusion of racial and immigration issues at meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government. Menzies (and even more vehemently, one of his successors, John Gorton) loathed the way in which he was lectured on the “principle of racial equality” by newcomer members of the Commonwealth. Menzies and Gorton [1968-1971] believed that Australia’s immigration policy was perfectly defensible and, in any case, none of their business. But the die was already cast. Australia in the 1960s felt pressure from within and from beyond, and its immigration policy was a growing embarrassment.[xxi]    

Senior Australian public servants serving on a committee formed to respond to the changed situation agreed in 1964 that “there was an urgent need to remove, as far as practicable, instances of racial discrimination in Australia in order to ensure Australia’s international reputation and influence are not to be seriously endangered.”[xxii] In response to these internal and external pressures, the administrative apparatus of the White Australia policy was gradually dismantled from the mid-1960s, until, in 1974, the then Labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam (1972-1975), declared in a speech that: “On Immigration, we have removed the last remaining pieces of legislation which could be described as discriminatory on racial grounds.”[xxiii]

According to the Australian academic and multicultural activist Bronwyn Hinz, this policy change merely formalized shifts in policy approach that had begun in the 1960s in response to reforms to the United States migration policy.[xxiv] Richards observes that this “hesitating shift towards a non-discriminatory Australia” triggered “a social and demographic revolution” in Australia[xxv] In both America and Australia, Jewish intellectual movements and political activism were pivotal in driving this revolution. The national editor of the Australian Jewish News, Dan Goldberg proudly acknowledges this, noting that: “In addition to their activism on Aboriginal issues, Jews were instrumental in leading the crusade against the White Australia policy, a series of laws from 1901 to 1973 that restricted non-White immigration to Australia.” The exact nature of this crusade will be explored in subsequent parts of this essay. 

Source Article & References

Part 2 of 5 – The History of Judaism in Australia –

Part 3 of 5 – Walter Lippmann – The Jewish architect of Australian Multiculturalism

Part 4 of 5 – Opposition to multiculturalism in Australia and the Jewish response

Part 5 of 5 – Jewish anti-White activism and Australia’s Aborigines

An absolutely irrefutable, superb series of articles proving why we say it’s the Jews behind our “multicultural” woes in Australia.

– BDL1983

4 thoughts on “The War on White Australia: A Case Study in the Culture of Critique, Part 1 of 5

  1. Steven King

    Brett,

    Learn self affirmation: look in the mirror in the morning and repeat as I do ” I’m fucked, my family and offspring are fucked, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Canada, and the United States of America are all fucked”

    UNLESS WE DO SOMETHING NOW!

    Keep It Up brother. We just need to balance out the white genocide, AT THE VERY LEAST! Glad I found you two years ago. Keep it up. I’m doing all I can. HAVE LOTS OF WHITE MIDS. I’m working on my second…

    Steven

    Sent from my iPhone

    >

  2. Pingback: Naziyahu “showed his true colors” during election |  SHOAH

  3. Noachideous

    The jew will whine like a chaimsaw that these research efforts exist be cause concerned others hate ‘jews’ more than they love the truth.

    https://originsofleftism.wordpress.com/

    Snip “In fact, the religious Jews who have studied the Talmud and who follow all of the 613 Commandments of true Jewish teachings have spoken out vociferously against Leftism and its attempt to replace the actual teachings of the Jewish religion with the cult of Sabbatean-Frankist nihilism ”

    This is to provide further empirical evidence pointing to the duplicity of the jew. The jew will section itself and fragment into a notional ‘6 million’ pieces as part of a masking process to confuse those who seek to understand it and stuff engage in a defensive action to counter the predations of jew perpetraitors.

    In the treacherous tradition of Esther, the Daily Stormer has seen the transitory appearance of one ‘Shira’ who attempts peddle the snake oiled notion to goyische lambs that these orthodox jews are somehow disconnected from the Buffalo Bill BnaiBrith jews like the OHPI 48 jews who are active in dismantling racial nations by process of harrassment and accusatory shaming. (It puts the (jew) OHPI lotion on its (goy) skin or else it gets the hose (nose) again).

    https://originsofleftism.wordpress.com/

    The jewess claims that the orthodox fractal of the jew hive calculus follow the full 613 mitzvot of the torah and they are thus the ‘true’ moral jews… or something along that line of TV marketing. The Sabbatean Frankist conspiracy of fallen jews are offered as abstract distraction as much as they are elsewhere.

    In searching for the origin of the 613 laws, you’ll find all sorts of edgy explanations by super special representatives of the already extra special and entitled ‘chosen’ who call themselves ‘rabbis’. One of the explanations relates to the 365 days in a year and the balance of the 613 is made up by some interpreation as to the number of parts of the body…..

    http://ohr.edu/yhiy/article.php/973

    These peristaltic extrusions being infinitely heavier than the feather of Maat are probably
    more duplicitous Shit of the Jew. ………KerPlunk……….The more likely origin is again a derivative of the number 42, a number pointed to by numerological confluences and noticed by others long before the jew imagined itself most magnificent and in its delusional mind, the singular purpose of the creation.

    As detailed earlier, you can derive the number 1948 from the numbers 42 and 58, as in 6 and 13 (613) summing to 19, with 8 and 40 summing to 48…
    Likewise, reading the number backwards as in 3 16 reveals the same as in 19 and 3by16 is 48..

    Surely THAT is the true origin, and these othodox jews know it….. They’re just slitherin’ about the place, jewing again and are no different from the BnaiBrith SlackBastard, FightDemBack 48 ‘illuminutter’ jews……
    So it snot the ‘illuminati’…… it is just ‘jews’…… again…..
    They be the Eloccchhheeeemmm…. They be above us all…..

    Which brings us full kikel to the question of the Corn Poppies or Paul Cummins’ born 1968, now 1977 (get it Hmmm?hmmmm, wink, wink see notes below)…. Ceramic Poppies or 3 16 and their inappropriate use in Remembrance ceremonies related to AngloCeltic Men and Women.

    https://www.awm.gov.au/blog/2015/03/03/news-military-heraldry-technology/

    Jew Britain recently sent jew Oorstralia six (who’d of imagined precisely 6) Ceramic Poppies (316 or 1948). There are 888 246 of these CP 1948 symbols in total, supposedly representing a number of military servicemen of predominantly AngloCeltic origin. The number smells of putrescent jew numerological symbolism as much as the 6 million of the hollercost. Here’s Hau.

    The numbers 8 and 6 are the product and sum of the numbers 4 and 2.
    8 squared and 6 squared amount to 64 and 36, summing to 100, amounting in sum to 24 and 18, then by sum 42.The numbers 888 666 amount to 24 and 18 also summing to 42.

    So the jew manufactured these 888 246 (BackDemFight) Ceramic Poppies (CP1948) in total.. to ‘remember’ my racial kin in the UK….. Awwwwww how ‘noice’ of da jew to do dat…..
    If it is a masked allusion to the number 42, and jew israel in 1948, then there will exist a numerological mechanism to prove the wilful intent and design.

    888 246…. Place 420 under the 246 and sum to derive the full 666 and thus point again to 42… the 4×2……. jew……
    They sent six Poppies to the AWM…. leaving 888 240 or 24 24 or 48…. Again more jew numerology…. These ceramic poppies are BlackRed in colour… or 218…..or 36…derived of 6 squared…. By method of sum and product of the two numbers 6 and 6 is found 36 and 12… sum 48….

    The jew messiah is due in 2018 according to the Kabbalah secrets goy….. A nasty duplicitous prick it will likely be to. The jew probably sees the lives of others as a blood sacrifice to its ‘messiah’…. hence…RedPoppies.

    The Doolan feller appears to be something other than jew and in all probability is genuine in his concern for the memory of his kin…. He has seemed somewhat uncomfortable when surrounded by ABC, highly edjumacated and lowly institute think tank jews on the talking tefillin discussing the subjects related to the memory of ANZACs……

    The empirical evidence demonstrates that the Poppies are thus likely to be of jew origin… Consistent with the behaviours required of judaism, their purpose can only be to mock, celebrate and delight at the deaths of AngloCeltic fighting Men and Women in the two contrived wars necessary of the creation of this monstrosity known as jew ‘israel’…..in 1948.

    It makes sense that the jew would like to have its greater israel construct in place before it presents the ‘messiah’ artifice to the massses in 2018. That may be why the BnaiBrith have been and are vociferous advocates of immigration from those middle eastern nations the jew would have its AngloCeltic proxies war against for the benefit, profit, pleasure and shadenfraude of the jew. Far from preventing the hate…. the jew is engaged by stealth in its manufacture.

    Pending further research by those more capable and enabled than this scribbler, it is entirely appropriate that establishment jews, particularly those of the OHPI 48 and the BnaiBrith be forcibly excluded from places like and including the AWM.

    A ceremonially armed and Ancestral guard of honour might be considered at these places for the purpose of defending the honour of remembered and making a statement that gollumesque jew gloating is unwelcome in all its creeping, crawling and sneakin’ manifestations.

    ………………………………………………………………

    The following comprise research notes for the use of interested parties…Paul Cummins might have been selected for the intial gematria of his name, over others equally skilled… The fact that the birth date was incorrectly quoted as 1968, 6 and 8 derived of 42 and amounting to 14 and 48 should lead rational and honest others to ask why and by who.

    https://exploreartwithme.wordpress.com/2014/11/13/paul-cummins-and-his-tower-of-london-poppies/
    Paul Cummins (born 1968) is an English artist who produces landscape installations using ceramic flowers.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Cummins&direction=next&oldid=633420224

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Cummins&direction=prev&oldid=634117644

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Cummins&direction=next&oldid=633507197

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paul_Cummins&direction=next&oldid=634117530

    Found on Google side bar. Birth Date now corrected in Kikepediaphiles to
    1977… Who and why placed 1968 as the birthdate when both PC and 1968 by gematria point to 1948… as do RedPoppies or Corn Poppies or Ceramic Poppies as in 1816 316 or 316.

    Paul Cummins Artist Paul Cummins MBE is an English artist from Chesterfield, Derbyshire, who
    produces landscape installations using ceramic flowers. Wikipedia Born: 1968

Comments are closed.