Tag Archives: Australia

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

Australias “Love Affair” with the Jew-run US Government gets worse by the day…

As if any of this needed reconfirming, but our government is so thoroughly kosher and in love with the Jew USA, that it is almost beyond words. Regardless, I do have some words about this AUSMIN meeting to make you all feel sick! I heard a couple of speeches from Julie Bishop and Jew John Kerry praising the hell out of each other on the radio today. It was absolutely sickening to hear the way they talk about each other, as if they actually represent the people in the “countries” they come from, and not World Jewry! Yeah right….

The Happy Couple.

The Happy Couple.

Here’s the most nauseating passages of a relevant article.

From The Australian:

Our economic relationship is deep, with high levels of cross ­investment and vigorous bilateral trade, underpinned by the Australia-US free trade agreement. We’ll redouble our efforts to conclude a high-quality, comprehensive Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. This will allow regional economic integration on a greater scale, bringing down the barriers to trade which impede free exchange and enterprise. As we look ahead to the G20 leaders’ summit in Australia in November, we’re working together to ensure it delivers tangible outcomes that create jobs and strong, sustainable and balanced global growth.

This is the fancy way of saying “you’re in this Jew plan of economic integration whether you like it or not, and if you want to protect what’s yours, then you’re impeding free exchange because all countries are the same, right”? G20 equals Jew puppet leaders getting together to discuss how much they agree with each other – another thrilling event pending, obviously.

The alliance makes an enormous contribution to Australia’s security through participation in joint training and exercises, strengthening disaster response and humanitarian assistance capabilities throughout the region, and access to cutting-edge defence technology.

Yep, an alliance with the Jewish-controlled US regime, who with Israel carried out 9-11, sure is going to make a wonderful contribution to our “security”!

Since the dawn of the 20th century, Australia and the US have stood together with a shared vision for a free, peaceful and prosperous world. Today we reaffirm our confidence that the relationship will continue to be a force for good in the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean regions, and the world.

“A vision of a free, peaceful and prosperous world”?

Really?

Does anyone actually believe that?

The US is the chief instigator of pretty much all world conflict, under the auspices of Jewry, and has been at the forefront of every disastrous war for at least the last hundred years, yet people still think they are going to one day bring peace and prosperity? What the hell are people thinking?

Total and utter insanity awaits this planet if we continue down this path toward One World Government, also known as the Jew World Order.

No-one can say they weren’t warned.

Related articles from the Jew-media:
AUSMIN defence talks to canvass possible Australian involvement in Iraq against Islamic State militants
US secretary of state John Kerry arrives in Australia for AUSMIN amid plan to bolster US troop numbers in NT during the dry season

– BDL1983

Radio Stormer: Sven and I talk about Jews…… and the White race!

Daily Stormer
June 7, 2014

1910s_3

Sven and Brett discuss the problems Whites are facing in Australia and the rest of the White world.

Racial crimes against Whites are being covered up and Police are too frightened to do anything due to accusations of ‘racism’.

Australia’s ex-Foreign Minister Bob Carr has spoken out recently about the Jewish lobby’s disproportionate voice in government.

The Jews hand in promoting vice and depravity is exposed.

The way the Jews use their media to ridicule and silence dissent is highlighted.

Download 

Well, there you go! That’s me rambling for an hour and a half! I hope it’s not too bad to listen to! I thought it went pretty good, and I didn’t even swear….. no that’s not true, I slipped up once in the middle of the show! F*&king Hell!

– BDL1983

“Holocaust Denier” (Truth-teller) Frederick Toben backs George Brandis’ plans for discrimination law

From The Sydney Morning Herald (check the comments on the SMH article for a laugh):

Holocaust denier Frederick Toben has strongly backed the Abbott government’s plans to water down race hate laws, describing them as a welcome challenge to “Jewish supremacism” in Australia.

In an explosive submission to Attorney-General George Brandis’ review of the Racial Discrimination Act, obtained by Fairfax Media, Mr Toben congratulated the government for its attempt to rectify what he describes as a “flawed law, which only benefits Jewish-Zionist-Israeli interests”.

His comments drew immediate anger in the Jewish community, which has warned that the government’s plans for Section 18C of the act will open the door to “vilification on a massive scale”.

Mr Toben said Senator Brandis – who famously defended people’s “right to be a bigot” – had incorrectly claimed the need for reform of the Racial Discrimination Act was about free speech and the conviction of News Corp columnist Andrew Bolt under 18C.

Frederick Toben - Truth Teller

Frederick Toben – Truth Teller

“The essence of what the RDA Section 18C is all about and why it needs to be repealed is that the so-called ‘Bolt law’ is in effect a ‘Holocaust’ protection law,” Mr Toben wrote.

“The ‘Bolt law’ case was used in an attempt to hide this Holocaust matter and to make it a free expression issue. The trap set for the multiculturalists in Australia by Jewish interests, who designed Section 18C, is that the sole aim of this section has always been to legally protect … the Holocaust-Shoah narrative.”

Senator Brandis distanced the government from Mr Toben’s support on Tuesday, describing him as a “nutter”.

“I’ve never read anything that Mr Toben has said but I’m aware of his views from press reports and views I’ve heard attributed to Mr Toben are absolute rubbish,” he said.

“I don’t agree with Mr Toben but I do agree with President Barack Obama who said last week in relation to the Donald Sterling case: ‘when people, when ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don’t have to do anything, you just let them talk’.”

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the Australia-Israel and Jewish Affairs Council, and the Zionist Federation condemned Mr Toben but said it was the government’s proposal that would allow him to freely peddle his views.

Mr Toben, a German-born Australian, was found to be in breach of discrimination laws in 2003. He went to jail in 2009 for defying Federal Court orders to remove material from his website that claimed there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz, and describing the murder of millions of Jews during World War II as the “Holocaust myth”.

Read More

Interesting.

“His comments drew immediate anger in the Jewish community”

No surprise there. Jews always get a bit touchy when the truth is involved!

Senator Brandis distanced the government from Mr Toben’s support on Tuesday, describing him as a “nutter”.

“I’ve never read anything that Mr Toben has said but I’m aware of his views from press reports and views I’ve heard attributed to Mr Toben are absolute rubbish,” he said.

He has never read anything that Frederick Toben has said, but Mr Brandis knows that his views are “absolute rubbish” and that Frederick is a “nutter”! Yep, that’s really sound logic Mr Brandis. Typical ‘liberal’ logic in fact!

“I don’t agree with Mr Toben but I do agree with President Barack Obama who said last week in relation to the Donald Sterling case: ‘when people, when ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance, you don’t have to do anything, you just let them talk’.”

Then why don’t the organised Jewish groups simply allow Frederick to express his “ignorance” openly and publicly? After all, anyone who doubts the officially sanctioned Holocaust story is clearly a nutter, right?

Well consider this:

It is illegal in 16 European countries to question the official Holocaust story! I wonder why? The truth is that the Jews don’t want questions being asked because all they have to back up their story is lying so-called “eye-witnesses” and the obligatory emotional banter. If you investigate the Holocaust story honestly and objectively you’ll find no actual substance whatsoever supporting the official version of events. It is a big Jewish fairytale about how much of a victim they always are, meanwhile these same people are running all the banks, mass-media, governments, and education systems throughout the ‘West’. Go figure…..

Truth does not fear investigation, nor does it require force of law to uphold it! Lies do, and that’s exactly what the Holocaust is!

Don’t be scared to think for yourself!

– BDL1983

The Pogues – South Australia

This is my home state & where I was born.

This is my home state & where I was born.

In South Australia I was born
Heave away, Haul away
In South Australia ’round Cape Horn
We’re bound for South Australia

Haul away your rolling king
Heave away, Haul away
Haul away oh hear me sing
We’re bound for South Australia

As I walked out one morning fair
Heave away, Haul away
‘Twas there I met Miss Nancy Blair
We’re bound for South Australia

There’s just one thing that’s on my mind
Heave away, Haul away
That’s leaving Nancy Blair behind
We’re bound for South Australia

And as we wallop round Cape Horn
Heave away, Haul away
You’ll wish to God you’ve never been born
We’re bound for South Australia

Seen the carnival at Rome
Had the women I had the booze
All I can remember now
Is little kids without no shoes
So I saw that train
And I got on it
With a heartful of hate
And a lust for vomit
Now I’m walking on the sunnyside of the street

Stepped over bodies in Bombay
Tried to make it to the U.S.A.
Ended up in Nepal
Up on the roof with nothing at all
And I knew that day
I was going to stay
Right where I am, on the sunnyside of the street

Been in a palace, been in a jail
I just don’t want to be reborn a snail
Just want to spend eternity
Right where I am, on the sunnyside of the street

As my mother wept it was then I swore
To take my life as I would a whore
I know I’m better than before
I will not be reconstructed
Just wanna stay right here
On the sunnyside of the street

That has to be one of the happiest tunes ever!!

– BDL1983

Last Day of the Year!

This site will be on auto-pilot until at least the 5th of January, 2014. I won’t be logging in at all until then, so comments will be approved when I get back.

I’m taking a week or so away from thinking about the filthy Jews. In the meantime, I’m just going to auto-post a few good songs and make the site all slow and annoying to load!! Haha!!

I plan on enjoying some female ‘company’ whilst going on a holiday here in Australia! A man must make the most of his opportunities when a decent girl is involved! So that’s what I’m doing.

Have a great New Years Eve & Happy New Year fellow truth-tellers! Never give up the fight, and make sure you take a break from it all every now and then, or the Jew will succeed in ruining your life by making you miserable and angry all the fucking time!!

– BDL1983

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

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

Anti-Semitic incidents rise 21% in Australia

A feel-good” story from a couple of days ago:

"Oy Vey, What did I ever do?"

“Oy Vey, What did I ever do?”

SYDNEY, Australia – Anti-Semitic incidents in Australia rose 21 percent in the last year and are the second highest on record, according to an annual report.

The Executive Council of Australian Jewry’s annual “Report on Anti-Semitism in Australia” – tabled at Sunday’s annual general meeting in Melbourne – revealed 657 reports of racist violence against Jewish Australians and Jewish community buildings between Oct. 1, 2012 and Sept. 30, 2013.

Serious physical attacks were at the lowest since 2005, however, with fewer than 20.

“In general, it can be said that Australians neither particularly like nor dislike Jews,” wrote the authors, Julie Nathan, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry’s research officer, and Jeremy Jones, director of international and community affairs at the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council.

“Although stereotypes of Jews remain part of the culture in Australia, these are not as deeply ingrained or hateful as in European and Middle Eastern cultures,” according to the authors. “Anti-Semitism remains at the fringes of Australian politics and society, and though there are exceptions, anti-Semitism is not generally part of the mainstream discourse.”

The 202-page report does not include the recent brutal assault of five religious Jews walking home from Shabbat dinner in Bondi last month, described as the worst anti-Semitic incident of its kind since records began in 1989.

Read More

Well done Australia! A big ‘pat-on-the-back’ and cheers!!

Mmmm... Delicious German beers to celebrate with!

Mmmm… Delicious German beers to celebrate with!

 – BDL1983

The New South Wales Parliamentary Menorah-Lighting Ceremony

Here’s a sickening display of Jewishness in the New South Wales parliament. (Showing us all who’s boss.) From J-Wire:

Chanukah got off to an early start when Rabbi Pinchus Feldman lit all eight candles at a special ceremony in the NSW Parliament.

A fully lit Menorah by Rabbi Pinchus Feldman

Premier Barry O’Farrell

The event, co-hosted by the Sydney Yeshiva and the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies, was attended by many NSW State politicians as well as Federal members Michael Danby and Josh Frydenberg together with NSW Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells.

During his speech preceding the lighting of the candles the Yeshiva’s Rabbi Feldman recited a special prayer for the victims of the Philippine typhoon as well as victims of other disasters around the globe.

Speakers included Premier Barry O’Farrell, Leader of the Opposition John Robertson, President of the NSW Legislative Council Don Harwin, Speaker of the NSW Legislative Assembly Shelley Hancock and President of the NSWJBD Yair Miller.

In his address, Premier Barry O’Farrell reaffirmed Don Harwin’s statement that the NSW Parliament was the oldest in Australia and effectively where modern-day Australia began. He said that Chanukah not only represented a story of multiculturalism but also one of multi-faith. He added: “The story of the Jewish people is a story of survival. Your values, the values of Judaism, underpin Western society.”

Rabbi Pinchis Feldman, Senator Concetta Fierravanti-Wells and Premier Barry O’Farrell

He told a WWII story from Holland which he described as “a Chanukah miracle”. He said: “A young woman who had survived too many pograms decided to flee and to change her name and pretend she was Christian in order to survive the war.The good news is that she did. The bad news is that she left her home by train with a package packed for her by her sister on the eve of Chanukah with all the usual Chanukah treats including latkes. As she was sitting in the train with part of her luggage a Gestapo officer walked into the carriage and she suddenly realised that within her luggage was something that would disclose her religion…something that could have ultimately have lead to her death. As she worried about this a young girl who was eating an apple, spat the apple out and as luck would have it, like a miracle of Chanukah, the Gestapo officer slipped on the apple and knocked himself out and was carried out of the carriage.”

There just had to be a Holohoax miracle involved somewhere along the line! Hahaha!!

“Your values, the values of Judaism, underpin Western society.” – There you go. Straight from the Premier’s mouth! The modern “West” most certainly is a Jewified culture, that’s for sure.

For more on this disgusting ceremony click here.

– BDL1983