Category Archives: History

The Money Masters

(I know I’ve posted this here before, but I’m gonna post it again anyway….)

This documentary tells you everything you need to know about money. They don’t outright name ‘The Jew’ as the controlling force behind international finance, but judging from the sheer number of Jews/Jewish families singled out, it should be pretty obvious that they are in total control. And with this financial power they have bought up 99% of everything else, including mass-media, governments, legal systems, real estate etc…..

“Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all
industry and commerce…when you realize that the entire system is very easily
controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not
have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

– James A. Garfield (20th President of the United States, 1881, just before he was assassinated)

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered…I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies… The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”

– Thomas Jefferson

These men knew what they were talking about.

– BDL1983

Why I Stand For What I Stand For!

Adolf Hitler - we need another one!

Adolf Hitler – we need another one!

I’m going to explain a few things here in relatively simple terms, so anyone who is confused or wondering what motivates me can refer to this article.

What Sort Of Society Do I Want To Live In?

I want to live in a society among my own kind, meaning my own race. I do not want to live among those of other races because they are not of my blood and do not share a common world view and basic morality with my race – the White Aryan race. Different breeds (races) of humans are different, and for that reason alone it should make sense to anyone with a thinking brain to keep them separate. Now, despite the fact that there are plenty of arsehole Whites around the place, I’d still a million times over prefer to live with them than non-whites. As for all the Whites who’s natural sense of morality has been led astray, well they need to be re-educated to adhere to proper Christian principles.

Essentially I’d like to live in a White nation which operates on a basic code of Christian morality, similar to what we saw in National Socialist Germany. There’s nothing devious or tricky about any of this. It is what it is.

Am I an “Extremist”?

It is not “extreme” to want to live in a White nation with Christian morality. It is a perfectly rational desire for any White person who wants their race and themselves to have a decent future. What is extreme though, is this Jewish agenda to try and force all the non-whites and their foreign belief systems into any White living space, anywhere on earth! That is fucking nuts, pardon my French! So, no, I am not an “extremist” by any stretch. If you want “extremism”, then look no further than the current day Jewish-run political establishment in the west!

Why Won’t I accept Jews, Moslems, Blacks And Other Assorted Mixed-Breeds?

Pretty simple folks – the answer here is that these people (non-whites in general) are trouble makers. People don’t like to hear it, but it’s true and it needs to be said. Follow the historical path of civilization and observe the pattern: White Aryans create the civilization and it flourishes. Then the Jews worm their way in and corrupt everything. Next, they start bringing in other non-whites as slave labour. Finally, we are left with a racially mixed decaying civilization. Hitler explains this in Mein Kampf and it’s true, whether fashionable to say so or not! (it will be fashionable a few years down the track, trust me!) So when I am presented with the options of a White racially pure society or a racially mixed, Jew and negro loving society, which one do you think I’d choose?

Remember - one doesn't exist without the other.

Remember – one doesn’t exist without the other.

Do I Have An Irrational Hatred Of Non-Whites?

Absolutely not. I have never been that sort of person. What I do have though, is a perfectly rational hatred for a lot of these people, not because I’m some sort of horrible monster, but because their actions warrant it! They have throughout history caused the downfall of my race’s civilizations, yet I’m supposed to love them all and welcome them in with open arms? People always talk about “learning from history” and if they were serious about it they’d pay attention to my reasoning above.

I Just Can’t Be Bothered With All The Bullshit That Comes Along With A Multicultural (Multiracial) Society

Racial Nationalism is natural. A race or breed should have it’s own territory. You respect the boundaries of your lands, and others should do the same with theirs. If not, you crush the wrong-doer. It’s that simple (in theory anyway).

Multicultural (multiracial) societies run by Jews always turn into Marxist cesspits of competing ethnic groups. This is no good because what it means is the most productive group (Whites) must carry all the useless groups (mostly non-Whites) via taxation and the welfare system until we can’t support it any longer and the society crumbles. Why would I want that?

Anyway, I don’t have any particular feelings of ill-will toward the other races. They can go and do whatever they feel like in their own lands, but not in mine! I just don’t want to live with them or have anything to do with them! Why is that so hard for people to understand?

Feelings About Fags

Faggotry is outside the boundaries of any healthy White Christian society. I do not want their disgusting degeneracy to have any place in my society. I do not uphold the Jewish idea of “freedom” which means anyone anywhere can just do whatever they want, including the dick up bum hole act. This sort of degeneracy all fuels the fire which destroys White society, and that is why I oppose it! A society must have standards if it is to survive!

More About Feelings

I just don’t care about the plight of non-whites. Be they Jews, Arabs, Negroes, Asiatics, or some other exotic mixture, I just don’t care. Never have, never will. I always think “well why would you involve yourself in someone else’s problems?” No, that’s for them in Arab-land or negro-land to figure out. It’s not my business, I don’t care, so they can go cry to someone else about their “oppression”. I won’t bother them if they don’t bother me. It’s pretty simple.

Finally…..

Just to reinforce the point:

I’d like to live in a White nation which operates on a basic code of Christian morality. The best example we have is what we saw in National Socialist Germany:

NSChristianAlter

None of this stuff is hard to understand, nor is it overly complex.

– BDL1983

Radio Stormer: Jewsury and How to Defeat It

Leave a reply

Daily Stormer
May 23, 2015

Oy Vey!!

Oy Vey!!

Sven Longshanks and Brett Light take a look at some of the different ways we can bring people to our cause.

Most people are sympathetic to criticism of the banking system, but are caught up in it themselves.

Explaining how the Third Reich funded its public works is a good way to get people interested.

Other people are far more aware of the damage the Moslems are doing and this can be used to explain the Nationalist solution to the problem.

Recent activism from Robert Ransdell and Trad Youth is also highlighted, as well as the innovation shown by Nordfront in their most recent videos.

Download Show

That picture of Lloyd Blankfein at the top says it all really. The Jew truly is the international trickster and swindler, capable of ‘Jewing’ pretty much anyone out of their money somehow. You’ve gotta hand it to ’em – their genius at parasitism is second to none, an inbuilt skill entrenched in their DNA which no-one else can rival. To live off of other people rather than land itself is not a particularly endearing attribute, that’s why the Jews natural defense mechanism is spending amazing amounts of time and money trying to convince his host that he isn’t doing what he is doing.

Anyway, enjoy the show! I think we nailed a few good points.

– BDL1983

Supporting Evidence for Christian Identity Doctrine

From Fascovereign Weltanschauung:

Dolmen in Wales, built with no metal tools.

Dolmen in Wales, built with no metal tools.

It has been asked what supporting evidence there is for the Christian Identity teaching, that White Europeans are the tribes of Israel. It has been suggested that it may have just been a convenient idea to serve the empirical ambitions of Britain. Anyone that thinks this cannot have properly investigated it, as the supporting evidence is all around us. Besides the actual wording of the scriptures themselves, which are obviously racially exclusive and quite definitive about Christ only coming for the lost sheep of the house of Israel, there are also many secular proofs to corroborate it.

Wherever the Hebrews went they left witnesses to show that they had been there, in the form of megalithic structures. Some were erected in memory of a vow or a battle and others were intended as way marks, to confirm to those following that they were going in the right direction to meet with more. There are many verses in the Bible referring to these stone structures, some of them were just piles of rocks, others were standing stones arranged in circles or rows and others were tombs, which took the form of the long barrows that are dotted all around Britain. A long barrow once the earth has been removed from it is called a cromlech or a dolmen and these are found as far afield as Japan, showing that our White ancestors once trekked all the way to the Orient. One particular long barrow that gets mentioned quite frequently in the Bible, is the one that was built in a field for Abraham.

The megaliths that are found around Britain also conform to the instruction given in the Bible for the building of Solomon’s temple, that no iron tools should be used in the making of them. Although many of the structures were built well into the iron age, they have clearly had no metal tools used in shaping them. There have also never been any idols found anywhere in Britain that were not Roman, unlike the many idols that are regularly dug up around the ancient cities of the Middle East. Again, the Bible stipulates that no idols should be made or worshipped by the Israelites.

The origin of European heraldry.

The origin of European heraldry.

Besides the witnesses to our heritage that any Briton can find for themselves on an OS map, there are also the royal family trees of Europe, which can be worked back through Brutus, Aeneas or Cecrops through to Zarah, the son of Judah. All the heraldry of Europe can be traced to an origin in the various ensigns that were given by Jacob Israel to his twelve sons on his death bed. The twelve tribes are described as pitching camp in the shape of a swastika made up of three tribes on each side, with their flags flying and the tabernacle and Levites in the middle. Perhaps the most striking example of the heraldic links is with the flag of Ulster, which is a red hand on a hexagram, the hexagram symbolising the six counties in the kingdom and the red hand symbolising the red cord that was tied around Zarah’s hand when he put it out of the womb first, although it was his twin Pharez that eventually arrived first. Obviously the legend of Zarah has evolved over time as all myths do, but even the later ones still point back to the original, with the most popular myth claiming that a warrior chief cut his hand off and threw it to the finishing line in a race, to ensure that he won.

Along with the proofs in Europe, there are proofs in the Middle East too. In Persia there is a giant rock inscription commemorating the conquests of Darius, carved into the face of a mountain around 515BC. It was inscribed in three different languages, old Persian, Akkadian and Elamite and talks about the conquered tribes that were vassals to him. One of these tribes were the Sakka (Isaaca), who later became known as the Scythians. In the Akkadian version of the inscription the word is ‘Gimiri’, which is where we get the words Cimmerian and Cymru from. So the Scythians and the Cimmerians were originally one and the same people. The word ‘Gimiri’ can be shown to have originated in the name of the Hebrew king ‘Omri’ and the area this conquered tribe is recorded as being in, is the same area the Bible tells us the Israelites were deported to by the Assyrians.

Huge sculpture and inscriptions on Behistun rock, halfway up a sheer cliff face.

Huge sculpture and inscriptions on Behistun rock, halfway up a sheer cliff face.

From before that time, we have the letters excavated at Tel-el-Armarna, that were missives written by the Canaanites to the Egyptian king, asking for his help as they were being invaded by a people named as both ‘Habiru’ and ‘Saga’, the same word as ‘Sakka’ on the Behistun rock. The letters clearly show that Sidon and Tyre were conquered by the Hebrews, with one of the writers lamenting the fact that all the cities which the Pharaoh had given him had fallen to the Saga and another stating that the ruler of Sidon had surrendered to them. It was after this conquest that the Hebrew occupiers became known as ‘Phoenicians’ to history and gained their reputation as colonisers, leaving traces of themselves all over Europe, particularly in Britain.

It is often wondered why the Persian King Cyrus allowed the remnant of the tribe of Judah that were held in Babylon to go back to Jerusalem and rebuild their temple at his expense. According to an inscription on the Cylinder of Cyrus, he was a ‘King of Anshan’ which designates him as being an Elamite, descended from Elam who was another son of Shem. The kings of Anshan had been conquered by the Medes at the time the tribe of Judah were taken, but once they were back in control again they naturally helped their brothers in the tribe of Judah to rebuild the temple to their God, the God of Shem.

The eventual infiltration and adulteration of this remnant of Judah by Arab (mixed-race) tribes such as the Edomites, Cuthites and Sephervaim, is dealt with in the Bible and the Apocrypha, along with the works of the historian Flavius Josephus and is confirmed in the modern Jews encyclopaedia.

The cylinder of Cyrus.

The cylinder of Cyrus.

All the relevant inscriptions that have been unearthed from Nineveh and elsewhere describe the Sakka/Iskuza/Scythians as being in the same place that the Gomri, Khomri, Cymru were, which is the exact place that other records state the ten tribes of the house of Israel were. Rather than having three nations all living in the same territory, it is much more likely that these were all just different names for the same people. Herodotus records the Scythians as abhorring swine, refusing to sacrifice them or even to touch them, which is also inline with the biblical commandments for the Israelites.

The Scythian Israelites moved west through the Israel pass in the Caucasus mountains, leaving grave stones in the Crimea giving dates going back to their original exodus from Egypt. The Irish have records of the prophet Jeremiah arriving with the Hebrew daughter of the last king of Israel, who married into Zarah’s line that were already in Europe. Again, there is a stone to witness this, the Bethel stone that commemorates Jacob’s dream of the ladder with angels ascending and descending, this stone going on to be used at every British coronation since. The Scots talked of when they first left the Egyptian captivity in the declaration of Arbroath and the early church fathers used to refer to Christians as Israel regularly. This tradition continued in Britain right up until a few centuries ago, not because Jews were in the country, but as a trace memory of the British people’s true heritage as the sons of Jacob Israel. In fact the ancient coronation ceremony of England is full of references to the Biblical coronations, right down to the cheer of ‘God save the King’.

One of the letters dug up at Tel el-Amarna

One of the letters dug up at Tel el-Amarna

The evidence that the White Europeans are the children of Israel is overwhelming and constantly being further reinforced by new archaeological discoveries. The Library at Nineveh was not discovered until the 19th century and the Dead Sea scrolls only uncovered in the 20th, complete with detailed physical descriptions of people like Noah and Abraham’s wife Sarah, as being 100% White. The Jews clearly do not want Europeans discovering this as it strips them of their claim to being a chosen people. But if you think about it logically, they never could have been a chosen people. Only the White Europeans have had all the prophecies come true for them, not the Jews. The knowledge that the Europeans were of Israel must have been known at the time of the early church, or else the Apostles would not have brought Christianity to us in the first place. They were told only to go to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the dispersed nations that grew from the displaced peoples of the Assyrian deportations.

The script on the left is Paleo-Hebrew and the right is Vinca script, from one of the oldest cultures in Europe.

The script on the left is Paleo-Hebrew and the right is Vinca script, from one of the oldest cultures in Europe.

There are many more proofs of the identity of the European people than I have listed, including all the references by our earliest historians, who all wrote that Europe was uninhabited except for the coast and that the original founders of Greece and Rome started out as captives in Egypt. There is also our mythology, which can be shown to have the same origin as our Bible. Our languages are all derived from paleo-Hebrew and our oldest European alphabet is uncannily similar to it. We have so many geographic names that originate in the Bible it is impossible to think that this was not once common knowledge. Names such as Denmark, the Danube, Zaragossa, the Hebrides, we even have places named ‘Zion’ all over Europe that have never once had any Jews living in them! Our druidic priesthood was hereditary just like the Levites’ was and they even dressed the same, as well as offered up the same sin offerings.

It really is the only logical explanation for the zeal with which our ancestors took to Christianity. They knew that it was theirs and they knew that Christ was a White European. The truth of it can be seen wherever you care to look and however you care to think. Our ancestors would never have accepted a foreign religion, as some who would like to denigrate their memory are saying today. The Bible identifies the Israelites as us, the oldest historians do, archaeology does and logic does.

Anyone who ignores all this is just lying to themselves.

The stones themselves bear witness.

The stones themselves bear witness.

Source Article

Christian Identity is the ultimate truth and I don’t care what people think of me pushing it. I’m going to continue to push the CI message because it’s true. Anyone who doesn’t like it is free to not visit this site. I couldn’t care less.

– BDL1983

Christogenea Radio: The Holodomor – Jewish Terror Famines in the Ukraine

Daily Stormer
May 10, 2015

Yes, this Holocaust actually happened!

Yes, this Holocaust actually happened!

William Finck goes into great detail explaining the two terror-famines that took place in the Ukraine.

The after effects of this horrific and genuine holocaust are still being felt and the wounds are still raw.

This information took many years before it finally became known by the west, as it had to be translated into English first.

The Germans were welcomed as liberators due to this horrific genocide and the Russians are still pretending it didn’t happen, while the Jews are ordering them to forget about it.

Download Show

It is very important that people know about crimes committed BY Jews – so spread this recording as far and wide as you can!

– BDL1983

Christogenea Europe – White Nationalist Cognitive Dissonance

Christogenea

This radio show with Bill Finck and Sven Longshanks is a very important one to listen to. It nails the Evolution vs Creation argument, along with many other often promoted falsehoods within the “White Nationalist community”.

Download Show

Show intro (Bill’s opening statement):

We are going to play a tape, actually a YouTube video, of a man who is interviewing several PhDs and science students, and asking them for one observed instance of macro-evolution. While micro-evolution is often used for what may better be called the adaptation of species, macro-evolution is the actual changing of one identifiable kind, such as a cat, into another identifiable kind, such as a dog or a cow. Evolutionists play with the word species, and when it comes to macro-evolution they are challenged by the concept of kind. When they are cornered, as one PhD in the video was cornered, they  insist that by adding an unspecified but very long amount of time, macro-evolution somehow happens. But they cannot prove that it has ever actually happened, and it has never been observed to happen. Therefore macro-evolution is a religious belief, and it is at least as fantastic a belief as those of any other religion. One PhD interviewed was forced to admit that evolution in this regard is a “belief”, even though he was very reluctant to do so. Other PhDs were speechless and fumbling when challenged on macro-evolution. Textbooks and journals, which hypothetically extrapolate entire genera from the bones of certain long-dead animals, are merely promoting conjecture which does not at all amount to valid science.

Related Article:

Symbols for Christ

swatikanazi

And Hitler can have the final word here:

“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people…. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.”

-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

Christogenea Saturdays with Bill Finck (18/4/15)

christswastika.png

After corresponding with Bill for about a year or so I finally appeared on his radio program this morning (Saturday night in the US). It was a good show and I think we hit a number of good topics including the biggest lie of all-time, namely that the Jews are “God’s Chosen People”. They are of course Satan’s children through Cain, and it must be said: the Jews are doing a damn good job of fulfilling their role of ‘pure evil’ in the world. Their Canaanite/Edomite blood ensures they obey their father, the devil. Will the pure White Adamic people ever realize who they truly are?

Download Show

Yep, that's the Jews alright....

Yep, that’s the Jews alright….

– BDL1983

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