ETHNIC BLOCK VOTING
ONE NATION PREFERENCES AND CONSERVATIVE POLITICS IN AUSTRALIA - Dr. Rodney Spencer

Western nations are now experiencing the phenomenon of ethnic, minority block voting. In Western societies fairly evenly divided between left and right, who will be the beneficiary of this new voting pattern?  So far it appears to be the politicians and parties of the left. Is this voting pattern a local manifestation of Huntington’s theory, that future conflict/politics will not be fought over ideology but over civilisational/ethnic values? Well Conservative parties be able to withstand both the ideological and ethnic challenges, have they a strategy to deal with this, or is ethnicity about to do what Communism never could, moving us into the "Brave New World" of ascendant left politics?

We are used to seeing governments change every few terms, swinging back and forth, between Labour and Conservative in the U.K., Democrat and Republican in the U.S.A. and Labor and Liberal in Australia. A new factor to this pattern is the growing numbers of ethnic-block votes resulting from immigration and multicultural policy, with racial voting patterns world-wide.

The recent American elections saw over 90% of Blacks, 77% of Jews and 70% of Hispanics vote Democrat, according to exit polls from the Voter News Service.  Democrats traditionally get their support from poorer voters, so is it poverty or race that gains votes for the Democrats?  The Jewish 77% vote for the Democrats suggests race trumps economics.  Asian Americans 20 years ago voted in a pattern similar to white but in the last federal election changed to support Gore over Bush.  As Asians economically are becoming more affluent their new voting pattern can only be attributed to racial voting again.  The "us" against "them" syndrome.

President Bush faired poorly among ethnic groups despite proclaimed ethnic friendly policies, political messages and support for higher immigration. Had it not been for Ralph Nader splitting the Democrat vote, Bush would have lost the election.  In the United Kingdom, similar problems beset the Conservative Party. Prime Minister Blair, like Labor here, runs a rainbow ethnic friendly party but the Conservatives, unable to argue their philosophy on immigration and multiculturalism, have back peddled and their immigration, multicultural and ethnic policies are virtually indistinguishable from Labour's.   So voters in the U.K. have two parties with similar policies and no nationalist alternative.  Should a credible Nationalist Party arise in the U.K., many unhappy Conservative voters could then express their dissatisfaction as voters and defect, as we have seen in Australia with One Nation.

Australia is the only country of' those under consideration, with a Nationalist Party of significance to take disillusioned voters away from the traditional conservative party.

Yet we see the Liberal Party here following the English and American right wing or conservative philosophy of moving social policy to the left so as to be perceived as being ethnic friendly.   By moving to the left on social policy, will a right wing party gain or loose votes, and will ongoing and increasing immigration and multiculturalism eventually lead to their moving further and further to the left resulting in the death of conservatism in the U.K., USA and here?  After all, conservative forces can never compete with the far left on ethnic matters. Conservatism by its very nature resists social change. Saying “sorry” to native peoples, reparations, deep multiculturalism, ethnic quotas etc., can never satisfy both the rainbow coalitions and the white conservative voters in England, USA or Australia. The left can keep offering more to the ethnic voters until the time that this drives their blue collar supporters to the conservative side.  In the USA the Republicans have dropped the Southern strategy, which aimed to increase white votes, and instead have adopted rainbow Republicanism but, as seen in President Bush's case, this was unsuccessful in increasing ethnic votes and his white vote declined to 54%.

Only, therefore, by getting white Christians to vote ethnically/religiously for the Republicans, in the same percentages as Jews, Hispanics and Blacks vote Democrat, will the Republican Party continue in power.

What is the Liberal Party in Australia doing to position itself for ethnic changes which, if immigration continues unabated, must also threaten the survival of Conservative politics in Australia.  Moving to the left socially, by having Peter Costello as a leader who supports all the politically correct agenda of immigration, multiculturalism, Asianisation, aboriginal reconciliation with "sorry" statements, republicanism, enhanced social welfare, soft drug policies and a rabidly "anti racist" agenda, and therefore copying Labor is not an option as Liberal notes will desert to One Nation, a party of the right.   So far the most obvious move has been to put One Nation last at all electoral opportunities, to convince ethnic voters that the Liberal Party is an ethnic friendly party. The Liberal Party obviously has put its faith in Asian Australians being entrepreneurial, small business inclined, caring little for social welfare for the community, and hopes these capitalist attributes will make them Liberal Party voters, especially as they become more affluent.  But even in July 98 The Australian reported that the Chinese community, usually split 60% Labor and 40% Coalition, would now vote solidly pro Labor because John Howard had not unequivocally opposed One Nation.  This mirrors the American experience of Asian block voting. The desire among Asian Australians to bring in more of their own people and own way of life to Australia, probably alone would result in votes for Labor, the more migrant accommodating party.  Multicultural policy, now supported by the Liberals, will also exacerbate block ethnic voting to the detriment of the Liberals.

One million people voted One Nation at the 1997 election and the vast majority of these votes, if One Nation and the Liberals exchanged preferences, would go back to the Liberals and ensure Liberal electoral success. What is more natural than exchanging preferences with a party with a social policy to the right of the Liberals as Labor exchanges preferences with parties to their left - the Greens and Democrats.  Instead, to show their ethnic friendly nature, the Liberals put One Nation last, refuse to exchange preferences and "ostrich like" are prepared to risk electoral defeat. A high price to pay. Of course, the Liberals can simplistically state that One Nation is a racist party and on principle take the high moral stand regardless of the consequences. Looking principled always goes down well with martyrs. But we must ask has the Liberal Party been manoeuvred into a self destructive position by the left and the media who have promoted this idea of evil and racism being inherent in One Nation?

The Liberals have an alternative. Firstly exchange preferences with One Nation. Secondly attract those who support traditional western civilisation values, mostly Anglo/Europeans, to vote Liberal in the same way that the Labor Party attracts Jewish, Asian, ethnic migrant and aboriginal voters. The only way to neutralise ethnic voting for Labor is to have Anglo/European voting for Liberals.  This can be done by promoting policies such as immigration control, abandonment of multicultural policy, strict refugee policies, no reparations or "sorry" statements for imagined crimes, stopping the Asianisation of Australia and showing pride in our history, traditions and way of life - all issues Labor has manipulated to create its racial block vote.  If the Liberals did this, it would create a real difference between Liberal and Labor, would be popular with the majority and would draw in votes from the blue collar supporters of Labor. As long as Labor maintained its racial and divisive policies to attract ethnic votes the Liberals would then be in power with no foreseeable ethnic electoral threats.  This would then finally bring about a change in Labor policy.

If the Liberals persist along their current path which comes from aping the English and American experience, a situation not analogous to ours as we do have a nationalist alternative, then minority demographics and ethnicity, not policy and philosophy, will decide the direction for Australia. As the Liberals are about to see the folly of their policy in upcoming elections, could we ask them to "please explain"?

THE REAL WORDS OF ISLAM - Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun - 6/12/01

Our multicultural lobby should do the country a favour and stop pretending that Islam's only problem is with its racist critics. Let me give you an example of how we are being misled. The non-profit Melbourne based Adult Multicultural Education Services is the country's biggest English training scheme for migrants, and runs courses for the Education Department. AMES boasts of its “philosophical commitment to multiculturalism”, and recently wrote to state politicians "at the suggestion of the office of Mr John Pandazopoulos", the Minister who helps the Premier run our multicultural policy.

Its letter asked MPs to distribute an AMES brochure called "Understanding Islam and Muslims in Australia", meant to increase tolerance of our more than 200,000 Muslims, two-thirds of whom were born overseas. The brochure tries to do this by "explaining" Islam to us, claiming, for instance, that "tolerance of other religions is part of Islam itself", which understands that "freedom of choice is an intrinsic human right". It also claims that jihad "does not mean 'holy war' and it does not mean harming innocent people". ("Innocent" isn't defined.) True, most Muslims here seek no trouble, but this brochure seems to me to lack the frankness we now need for an honest debate about Islam in Australia. For a start, the word "jihad" isn't quite so harmless. Right now, the terrorist Islamic jihad is praising the devastating suicide bombings in Israel, and 7000 Laskar jihad fighters are wiping Out Christian towns in Sulawesi. The AMES brochure excuses this by saying "the behaviour of extremist groups should not be identified with Islam itself.”

But then I turn to two books being sold right now by the Islamic Council of Victoria. What Islam is all About is a popular textbook for children by Yahiya Emerick, who writes that, "Muslims dream of establishing the power of Islam in the world", and of ensuring that "the law of the land is the Shari'ah of Allah". (Shariah law, it points out helpfully, demands that those who fight Allah "should be murdered, or crucified, or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned".)

AS for jihad, Emerick explains it is "most often associated with the act of physically confronting evil and wrong-doing, hence, it can be applied to the act of fighting as well." And such fighting is allowed to “eliminate an evil force which is oppressing people" or to "remove any barrier to the free flow Of Islamic da'wah (preaching)". Which sounds worryingly broad. Another book sold by our Islamic Council is the famous Let Us all be Muslims by Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdudi, who declares: "Stated simply, the ultimate objective of Islam is to abolish the lordship of man over man and bring bum under the rule of the One God.  To stake everything you have - including your lives - to achieve this purpose is called jihad." In case you're still not clear what this means, Mawdudi adds: "Wherever you are, in whatever country you live, you must strive to change the wrong basis of government, and seize all powers to rule and make laws from those who do not fear God ... The name of this striving is jihad." This applies even if you live under the laws "of Britons, of Germans”, and, presumably, of Australians.

These preachings by Muslims to Muslims here raise grave questions about the role of Islam in a secular, multi-ethnic nation like Australia. It is dishonest for our multicultural lobby to pretend there is nothing here to worry about or even debate.

IMPOTENT FURY OF THE ILL INFORMED - Frank Devine, The Australian, 16/11/01

Who cares what foreigners say about us? Good grief!   It must be right.  We are a pariah nation. Here on television were people at a foreign airport pummeling, booing and identifying themselves as wogs by spitting at chaps in green Aussie blazers.

Paul Keating, Malcolm Fraser and Phillip Adams will be pleased, I thought grumpily.  Their constant assertion that we are deplored by the world because of John Howard's racist policies, including rejection of boatpeople, was being given proof. Having caught only a flash of the melee on TV, I learned from the morning papers, however that the spitting wogs were Uruguayan soccer fans, angry not at Australians generally but at the Socceroos for beating Uruguay in a game in Melbourne. Subsequently, the Uruguayan ambassador to Australia said that, apart from soccer hooligans, Uruguayans were fond of Australians and that 20,000 Uruguayan immigrants loved it here. A setback for Keating, Fraser and other pariah proclaimers, I reflected, with as straight a face as possible.

With Uruguay out, the ranks of countries available to hate and despise Australia is thinnish.  In the past couple of years I have mingled on their borne grounds with Cambodians, Vietnamese, Americans, Italians, Turks, Austrians, Croatians, Slovenians, Hungarians, Czechs and Slovaks and found feeling towards Australia ranging from utmost cordiality to complete indifference.  Of hostility not a fleck.

Friends and relations travelling to other parts of the world bring back similar reports, even from England. Yet Keating assures us: "Howard won by staining the soul of the country, won at the cost of the country's reputation." Fraser: Our policy falls heavily on those seeking to flee hunger... brutality and tyranny ... Our international reputation has slumped.  It has never been worse.  It has suffered enormously." My colleague Adams: "It was Australia that lost the federal election ... Malignancies of fear and bigotry are spreading ... Australia is pursuing pariah status in the world."

Where have we heard that before? "Pariah" made its popular debut, I think, when Pauline Hanson danced on the scene defying political correctness four years ago. She was awakening an inherent Australian racism that would make us the untouchables of the world, the outraged defenders of correctness told us. But just as there now appear to be far too few interested countries for us to achieve pariahdom, there seemed then to be too few racists to handle all the racism alleged. I personally knew no racists and polled about 50 acquaintances on how many they knew. The score was low, stretched by exigent judgment, to half a dozen or so as I recall. Keating's recent narrowing of racist suspects to "a blue-collar element," doesn't suggest a pervasive presence of racists in Australian society nor even the inclination to racism.

Keating advised a study of foreign media to ascertain the extent to which Howard's policies had damaged us abroad. I looked at The Economist and found its criticisms excessively eclectic, taking in our failure to apologise to Aborigines and Hanson's existence, as well as Howard and the boatpeople. A longish pre-election report in The New York Times by Seth Mydans, with the headline, "Which candidate has the hardest heart?", struck me as ideologically weighted, but soufflé light.  The first paragraph: "Three sweet, little girls. Eman, Zabra and Fatimah, stared earnestly from the front pages; party ribbons in their hair, their dark eyes shining - three of nearly 400 refugees who drowned [after being pushed by armed people smugglers and Indonesian cops] on [an unseaworthy] refugee boat heading through a stormy sea [close to the Indonesian coast] to an Australia that wouldn't have them." The words in square brackets are those I would have inserted as an editor so New Yorkers would have been better informed. Mydans took notice of Australian doomsayers: "The language of outrage [about immigration policy] from many Australians has been vivid -barbarism, hideousness. inhumanity, our worst instincts, callous, brutal, myopic stubbornness, an insensitive, hairy-chested approach, ashamed to be an Australian, never thought I would live to see the day..." He missed my colleague Adams's puzzling accusation of Howard's dealing from the bottom (rather than anywhere) of a pack of 52 race cards.  Mydans comments that "these are the voices of Australia’s elite and articulate".

Why are our elite and articulate so keen to have their denunciations of Australia's purported wickedness taken up for condemnation abroad? It could be that they feel inadequately noticed at home and hope to raise their own profiles by being seen to have global recognition. Their challenge is Sysyphian, though. Researching his book Down Under, Bill Bryson found in The New York Times archive 20 articles mainly about Australia in 1997, compared with 120 on Peru.  Next year there were only six. In addition, Australians know their country to be just, generous and achieving. Why should they worry about what ill-informed foreigners are stirred up to say of them?

DISTORTIONS MALIGN A COMPASSIONATE COUNTRY
FROM:   The 'crime' of being a young refugee, by Richard C. Paddock, Los Angeles Times, 5 January, 2002

WHAT THE TIMES SAID

“Unlike other Western-style democracies, Australia has a policy of locking up all applicants for political asylum who have arrived without proper documentation. A 2-year-old was put in leg locks for 45 minutes and an 8-year-old boy was handcuffed, the group (Children Out of Detention) says. Several children have attempted suicide.  Others have gone on hunger strikes. At least three teenage boys have sewn their lips shut to protest their incarceration and treatment. Some former staff members say that the detention system creates opportunities for sexual abuse of children and that allegations of abuse are not properly investigated."

Philip Ruddock responds to two articles last week in the Los Angeles Times about the Federal Government's treatment of refugees:

Australia is a nation that has a very proud - arguably unrivalled - record of assisting people in great humanitarian need. We are an active participant in global refugee settlement, with our contribution dating back to the 1930s when we took 7000 German Jews.  Since WWII, we have taken 600,000 refugee and humanitarian settlers. In the past year, under Australia's refugee and humanitarian program, 13,733 people were given visas.   This is one of the highest rates in the world, about double that of the US on a per capita basis. Australia is, in fact, one of only 10 or so countries that operate a dedicated offshore resettlement program that accepts the most needy, and desperate refugees. Australia is also among the 12 largest donors to the core budget of the UNHCR (the UN Refugee Agency).

There are 21.8 million refugees worldwide. Australia cannot take them all but we will continue our efforts to assist those most in needy. We will not resile, however, from stopping those acting illegally. It is within this broader framework that your articles are notable for their lack of attention to the detail surrounding Australia’s program of dealing with asylum seekers and unlawful arrivals. Several inaccuracies and distortions need correction.

Chief among them is the allegation that Australian Government policies are responsible for the deaths of people who drowned at sea coming to Australia. Tragic as those events were, we cannot be held responsible for illegal actions that occur outside our international boundary. The source of many of the distortions in the articles may be some of the small number of advocacy groups in Australia opposed to government policy. Simplistically, they think that people who come to Australia covertly should be treated like heroes and rewarded. The result of this attitude is to encourage others to come, thus endangering more lives.

Contrary to the articles’ claims, the Australian Government does not lock up refugees, nor does it detain people for seeking asylum. We do, however, place in detention people who arrive unlawfully until their asylum claims are determined and we find out who they are, where they are from, and whether they have criminal records or health concerns. To do otherwise, and let them free into the community, is to risk their disappearance. Once a person is determined to be a refugee, they are released immediately.

Your report further asserts that Australia is alone in the international community in its policy of immigration detention. This is wrong. The US, Canada and the UK are moving towards more rigorous detention systems and they already detain people - a simple, and easily determined fact. In Australia, the great majority of detainees spend on average only 15 weeks in detention while their claims are processed. Most of those who stay longer have been found not to be refugees and have chosen to pursue avenues of further review and litigation, lengthening their detention. They need not remain in detention - they are free to depart at any time. Perhaps the most lamentable of your claims is that we have used leg locks on children.  No such practices have ever been used in Australian detention centres.

In relation to education, and again contrary to your article's assertions, we provide social and educational programs for all children in detention. In some centres, children attend local schools. In others, a school curriculum-based program is provided and is conducted by qualified staff. Social and recreational activities are also organised. Your articles also question the Australian Government's tolerance to Islamic asylum seekers, claiming that Australia has practised racial discrimination during much of its existence. The facts could not be more to the contrary. Australia is one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world. It is home to people from more than 200 countries and almost 23 per cent of the population was born overseas.

Your report rightly says that many asylum seekers leave their homeland and "first reach safety in neighbouring countries such as Pakistan and Iran". What is omitted is that, in so doing, they have already reached a haven in another country: they make a lifestyle choice to travel on to Australia. In comparison, millions of people in squalid refugee camps do not have this luxury, or the money to pay, criminals to smuggle them across borders. The unlawful movement of people in search of a better life directly undermines the limited capacity of countries like Australia to assist the UNHCR in resettling people in greatest need.

Many people who arrive in Australia illegally, have come originally from harsh and difficult conditions. Among them, feelings of loss, grief, anxiety and stress would obviously be present. It is unreasonable to suggest that these psychological problems are solely attributable to being in detention centres. Australian detention centres offer a full range of health and psychological services, provided by qualified doctors, nurses and other health professionals. The level of these services is the same as those in the wider Australian community, and even exceed those in some regional areas.

Let me make it clear that Australia is a compassionate, tolerant, strong and prosperous nation.   Australia's immigration program - one of the few such programs in the world, which this year will grant visas to 93,000 people - reflects these ideals. It does not discriminate on the ground of race, religion, colour or ethnicity.

Although the media largely focuses on Australia's approach to unauthorised boat arrivals, it is crucial that the broader scope of Australia’s internationally envied assistance to refugees is understood.

It is also vital that unfounded and patently incorrect claims are not used to form judgments that erode the pride we as a nation are entitled to feel about the hand we extend to those in such great need.

Philip Ruddock is Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.
Sunday Age 13 January 2002

WINNING CONDITIONS FOR AUSTRALIA NATIONALISM
A Paper by Graeme Campbell

We on the moderate nationalist side of politics welcome the give-and-take of political debate. We believe that our position is the best reasoned and can only benefit from exposure, but our opponents demand a monopoly in the media and in our parliaments. They fear the voices who stand up for Australia's predominant ethnic interest - those of Anglo Celt and European background. We have seen this intolerance demonstrated incrementally by the chorus of denunciations of Prof. Blainey in 1984 and John Howard in 1988. I then became a target for my support of Australians Against Further Immigration in the early 1990's, Australia First and in more recent times of Pauline Hanson and One Nation. Bob Hawke had me censured by the Parliament for saying that we should slow down the rate of South East immigration to a level that we could accommodate. It did not occur to me that this was racist as I considered it common sense. This crescendo of intolerance has been building, ironically but aptly since 1984.

I believe the cause is that the multicultural elites who have been forcing radical change on this country know that their aims, if clearly understood, would be rejected outright by the Australian people. That is also why, with rare exceptions, immigration policy continued to be "bipartisan" even after the Australian people began to oppose mass immigration after the dismantling of the White Australia Policy from Whitlam onwards. When Malcolm Fraser committed the Liberal Party to multiculturalism in 1974, this eliminated choice for the Australian electorate because Whitlam and Grassby had adopted the same policy for the Labor Party.¹ The Melbourne sociologist Katharine Betts² has argued that high levels of immigration (and by extension high levels of non-European immigration) have been imposed on the Australian people by a bipartisan conspiracy of the political elite. Betts refers to the same view expressed, though proudly, by ex-prime minister Bob Hawke, as a participant.

Hawke discussed the importance of keeping non-White immigration out of the hands of the electorate at a government conference on immigration policy held in May 1993.  He said it was "quite unique" in Australian politics that for most of the post-World War II period the major parties had maintained bipartisan support for immigration in the face of public opposition.³ “with the common cement of ACTU support to advance the national interest ahead of where they believed the electorate to be ". "Unique" indeed!  Australia is a democratic society, and from the early 1970s onwards most Australians have opposed what was being done to them by their major political parties in the realm of immigration.  Katharine Betts⁴ has tracked the extent of support and opposition for immigration from 1954 to 1996, and found a dramatic fall in support and rise in opposition from around 1967 to 1972, the period when the White Australia Policy was dismantled.

This helps explain why the multicultural lobby wants to silence nationalist voices.  They sense that their message is so unnatural, so counter-intuitive, so lacking in common sense, that, to have their message taken seriously, political and media monopoly was essential.  Dissenting voices need to be silenced. Until the recent post-election reflections we have seen this process almost every day as journalists and politicians are intimidated into toeing the party line, and for the vast majority this is still the case.

The multiculturalists are right to fear the Australian people's good judgment.  That is why the nationalist winning condition is far more modest.   We only need a fair say to have our ideas accepted; we don't need or want to silence other viewpoints.

(2) More on multiculturalism's undemocratic nature

Dr. Mark Lopez has pointed out in his important book on multiculturalism, that the multicultural movement has always been secretive, has always mistrusted the Australian people, has always relied on infiltrating committees and agencies to surreptitiously foist a destructive policy on Australia. Lopez writes:

"The source of the shift towards multiculturalism in public policy was not parliamentarians, vulnerable at elections, but the influence exerted by multiculturalists from positions in the Immigration Advisory Council (IAC), the Migrant Task Force Committees, the Immigration Department's Integration Branch, non-government organisations like ACOSS, or through lobbying relevant Government ministers. . . The multiculturalists could potentially maintain their degree of influence as long as they maintained their strategic presence in these committees and agencies."⁵

Even Al Grassby was seen as expendable by the shadowy backroom operators, who treated our elected representatives as tools, not as honest spokesmen of sincerely held policies.⁶  The ethnic revolution that has taken place in Australia since the 1970s has never been the result of democratic process.  In fact it has been quite the opposite.  Gough Whitlam destroyed the Old Department of Immigration for example, because he knew that people loyal to Australia as a nation in the European tradition manned this Department. It was a department painstakingly built up over many decades by governments whose ethnic policies were publicly stated. The department was charged with maintaining a homogeneous Australia, one free of the endemic ethnic conflicts experienced by multi-ethnic societies overseas.  And Whitlam dismantled it, partly because it contained the old guard of Australia's ethnic interests appointed by true Australian leaders like Labor's Caldwell and the Liberals' Menzies.

Another reason for Whitlam's mistrust of the old Immigration Department was that the Australian people had rejected AI Grassby, the departmental minister from 1972 to 1974.⁷ In other words, the dismantling of the Department of Immigration was a tactic meant to circumvent Australian democracy. Instead of democratic choice being allowed to dismantle multiculturalism and the prospect of mass Asian immigration, elite multiculturalists had dismantled and circumvented expressions of democratic will.

The multicultural establishment emphasizes the rights of minorities against the "tyranny of the majority". But what is multiculturalism? What should we call a regime that has replaced relative ethnic harmony with polarization, conflict, and a campaign of vilification against the majority ethnic group?  What should we call a situation where racial minorities are displacing our own people in the professions and therefore poised to play a disproportionate role in governing the country?  It should not be necessary to remind those who have led this country to its present situation that the worst tyranny is when majority interests are subordinated to a minority.  That is why aristocracy has been overthrown throughout the West.   That is why we resent conquest by other countries, because this usually leads to the loss of liberty, not only individual liberty but also the right of a people to govern their own affairs.  Multiculturalism is tyrannical in its methods.  Mass Asian immigration was foist on the Australian people without their permission; no referendum or even an election campaign was ever fought on the issue.   Yet survey after survey has indicated that a large majority preferred a European Australia.  Australians, like all other peoples, prefer to live among their own people.

Compare the undemocratic, surreptitious methods and goals of Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating with the forthright, open declaration of then Prime Minister Alfred Deakin during the first session of Australia's federal parliament in 1901:

"However limited we may be for a time by self imposed restrictions upon settlement-however much we may sacrifice in the way of immediate monetary gain-however much we may retard the development of the remote and tropical portions of our territory-those sacrifices for the future of Australia are little, and are, indeed, nothing when compared with the compensating freedom from the trials, sufferings and losses that nearly wrecked the Great Republic of the West".⁸

Restrictive immigration was a plank in the nation-building program of the early nationalists of federation, as they sort to build an egalitarian, cohesive community but look in vain for any such common sense in the texts of the much promoted but misnamed Centenary of Federation Deakin Lectures of May 2001. They reek of the most perverse anti-Australian multicultural drivel seen for many a moon. Multiculturalism is the legacy of Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating who, for a variety of reasons, put the interests of minorities ahead of those of the Australian people.  What have they done to us?  They have tried to change who we are, as a walk through any capital city attests.

(3) Diversity, social cohesion, and welfare

The suppression of open debate on Australia's ethnic future has resulted in some remarkably stupid constellations of ideas. For example, the Left is proudly anti-discriminatory in its immigration policies, but simultaneously advocates an egalitarian social structure with generous welfare.  In fact ethnic and racial diversity produces inequality and depresses welfare.⁹ This was known by Australia's founding fathers, but has become politically incorrect, one suspects precisely because such knowledge would have impeded the multicultural industry.

The economic rationalist Right also is also muddled. Many believe that Australia's economic future can only be secured with permanently high levels of immigration, from anywhere and everywhere that people can be found.  In fact economic data indicate that the most efficient, prosperous nations are the most homogeneous.¹⁰ Ethnic diversity creates pressures on government to conduct "pork-barrel" politics that result in suboptimal economic policies.

In keeping with John Stuart Mills' views on the advantages of ethnically homogeneous nation states, the global trend is towards ethnic groups seeking autonomy in their own nations by bloody separation from multi-ethnic states. The resulting homogeneous states then become more prosperous once freed from the corruption and inequality endemic in multicultural societies.¹¹

It would seem that Australia's architects in the late 19th and early 20th century were right and that the modern elites who imposed multiculturalism and ethnic diversity on the country were ignorant and short-sighted. The extreme left unions actually believe and promote borderless states. The paradox here is that there is nothing else that would more severely damage the very quality of life and general welfare, of the people they purport to support. In many cases it is the people they are selling out that pay their wages. Borderless states are the golden grail of communists, religious zealots and extreme capitalists alike. Their joint aim in this desire is not the welfare of the citizens but their own aggrandisement or the fulfilment of their own ideology.

A survey of British Muslims carried out in Britain by The Sunday Times, October 2001 found that when asked the question " Which is more important to you?"

(a)   To be Muslim?
(b)   To be British?

68% of the respondents declared to be Muslim was more important. 14% said it was more important to be British, and 18% were undecided.  The survey was the largest since the bombing of Afghanistan began and interviewed 1172 people. The survey also exposed many other examples of the breakdown of social cohesion. There can be no reason to believe that a similar poll in Australia or the USA would be any different.

Some of Australia's intellectual elites would argue that the opposition of multiculturalism infers an opposition to the tenets of individual freedom. The freedom of speech, the freedom to succeed, the freedom of faith and the freedom to expect a high standard of human rights for example. In fact the exact opposite is true with the aim of those opposed to multiculturalism being to protect these freedoms before they are further eroded.  What the multicultural debate has lacked is truth and honesty.

The official ideal of what the Australian multi-cultural state is simply defies the reality.  On November 15th 2001 Mr Carr the Premier of NSW convened a meeting of religious leaders. They predictably pontificated that all Australians should all live in harmony and be united by our differences and a greater love of humanity. If history has taught us anything, it is that differences within a nation divide and weaken it, making it vulnerable to exploitation. It is indeed difficult to imagine how Australian society could be united along side the "The political objectives of Islam,." as promulgated by Dr. Kalim Siddiquie¹², which are as follows:

1.    To eliminate all authority other than Allah and his prophet.    2.    To eliminate nationalism in all its forms, in particular the Nation States.    3.    To reconstruct the world of Islamic movements into a single global Islamic movement to establish the Islamic state.    4.    To reconstruct the world of Islam .... to express the unity of the worlds Islamic community.    5.    To eliminate all political, economic, social, cultural and philosophical influences of Western civilisation that have penetrated ... Islam.    6.    To re-establish a dominant and global Islamic civilisation based on ... the unity of Allah.    7.    To create the necessary institutions for the pursuit of that which Allah approves and the forbidding of that which Allah disapproves.     8.    To establish justice [Sharia Law] in all human relationships at all levels throughout the world.

Time and again, we receive examples of what the desires of fundamentalist Islam are.  Their objectives are clear, and yet we still invite them to share their way of life. The followers of fundamentalist Islam express contempt for the west especially in relation to the West's concept of multiculturalism. This contempt is mirrored by the disregard shown by our own leaders for the wishes of the majority of Australian people.

(4)   The damage done
(a)   Separation of city and country; and the polarisation of the community.

Driving from a country town into a large metropolis is a journey between two different countries.   Rural Australia preserves the old Australia.   Post 1960s immigrants, especially Asians, have stayed in the large cities, transforming them. The distance between city and country, an inevitable result of differences in economy and lifestyle, has grown into a yawning chasm of racial divides.  Our large cities, especially the poorer suburbs where the residents are subject to the whims of the politicians, are now multicultural 'non-nations', while the hinterland remains true to the dream of our founding fathers.  Australia's greatest poet, Les Murray, has expressed this in heartfelt words:

"They are creating an Australia that is exclusive.  Multicultural, they call it.  But they are discriminatory; they exclude. They are the ruling elite of today's Australia.. the cultural bureaucrats, the academics, the intellectuals … They are excluding people like me from their Australia-the country people, the rednecks, the AngloCelts, the farming people-they have turned their backs on us.  They act as though they despise us … We Old Australians, not always Anglo but having no other country but this one, are now mostly caught and silenced between the indigenous and the multicultural.¹³ "

(b) Crime

The inevitable has happened. The less assailable minorities hold White Australians in contempt. "Fraser's children" are raping our young women, feeding the drug plague, terrorizing ghetto suburbs, and murdering those that try and stand against them: remember John Newman, MP for Cabramatta.

(c) Stratification by race.

Asianisation is proceeding apace in the Australian professional elite.  Paul Sheehan¹⁴ reports that in 1996 Asian-Australians, mainly ethnic Chinese, won over 36 percent of the top 5,000 positions in the New South Wales Higher School Certificate, an overrepresentation of about 500 percent.  Chinese representation approached dominance in several maths- and science-based disciplines.  Of the top ten places, Asians of mainly Chinese ancestry won 8 places in chemistry, 7 in 4 unit mathematics (the most difficult level), 7 in 3 unit music, 6 in 3 unit mathematics, 4 in 2 unit physics, 4 in 3 unit economics, and so on. The pattern was repeated in 1997, when 17 of the top 42 students were Asian-Australian, including the only two students to achieve a perfect overall score.  Sheehan remarks, "This is a social revolution".¹⁵

More accurately, it is an ethnic transition of the professional class. These outstanding performances will flow through to Asian-Australian overrepresentation in the university system', and actual dominance in some maths and science-based disciplines.  And as elsewhere, Chinese performance in business is exemplary. Even without further Asian immigration, the outcome will be a disproportionate Asian representation among Australia's professional and business elites. But in fact Asian immigration, though marginally slower in recent years, continues, and Asian-Australians, both immigrants and Australian born, are projected to grow from 8.2 percent of the population in 1996,¹⁶ to 19.5 percent by 2025,¹⁷ by which time "The Anglo Celtic share will fall to 62.2%".¹⁸

Australians need feel no embarrassment at the relative success of ethnic Chinese immigrants.  By and large these immigrants are an elite group selected from a total population numbering well over one thousand millions.  The most enterprising and highly educated tend to present themselves as immigrants and be selected by our bureaucrats.  These qualities are held to enrich Australia, which is true to a point.  It also makes them fierce competitors with our own people.   Essentially, our young people are being pushed into competition with elements of an elite group selected from a quarter of the world's population.

It is not as if we were not getting along as a nation. Our traditional immigration policy had helped maintain Australia as a country of rare civic peacefulness, of relative equality, of prosperity and continued economic growth.   Moreover, we were a self-governing society, whose elite was drawn from families across this great continent and who identified with the Australian people. The Australia of the 1950s gratuitously mocked by Donald Home in his misnamed book, The Lucky Country, was a work in progress.  Our ancestors had carved a magnificent infrastructure out of a wilderness, and their grandchildren were poised to take their place in that new society. Home and so many other multiculturalists have mocked us for not having reached Paris or London or New York standards by 1950. They recommended racial change as a way of breaking down the philistine Australian spirit.  But what has become of these great centres of culture, which embraced racial change? They are in the process of displacing their own peoples! Official projections indicate that Britain will be minority white by the end of this century¹⁹; America's ethnic revolution will come much earlier, by 2060.²⁰

Why is rapid ethnic change of Australia's elite bad for Australia? The next generation of Australians will have a minority race making up a disproportionate number of their elites. This puts White Australians in the position of the minorities who have complained so long about under-representation in leading positions. Well, now Fraser and Hawke have inflicted the same circumstance on their own people.  Why? What did we do wrong that we deserved such punishment from our leaders?  What is to become of our young people who are being pushed out of the careers that are legitimately theirs?

Why is the infrastructure of schools and universities and the professions they supply with graduates, an infrastructure built up over generations of hard work by White Australians, why is this being handed from their own children and grandchildren to the children of different peoples?

It is never healthy when a minority rules a majority. This is especially the case when the racial minority is inward looking, endogamous, and has a long history of ethnic chauvinism. The contempt felt by many Chinese-Australians for Australians of European descent is well documented, in such books as The Year the Dragon Came (1996)²¹. And this new elite will come to power just is China makes it presence felt in Australia's region with our pro-Asia policy settings, acting as a magnet to its 50 million overseas Chinese, let alone the overcrowded mainland Chinese cities. Multiculturalism and the ethnic change it promotes are an unfolding disaster for the Australian people of today and spell doom for their children and grand children.

(5) Some ideas on Australian ethnic interests

So, what of the rights of the Australian people? We may be a majority, for the time being, within Australia's borders.  But remember that we are a tiny minority in the region of South East Asia and, further afield, East and Southern Asia. The combined population of India, China, and Indonesia alone is about 3,000 million.  In that sense we share an interest with countries of similar size, with Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and Burma. It is certainly not in their interests to allow large-scale immigration of other nationalities, including White Australians. Would we be terribly offended if another country refused to allow hundreds of thousands of Australians to enter as immigrants, and gave as one of their reasons a love of their identity and homogeneity? How insensitive that would be of us! How rude!  How aggressive! We have our own country, isn't that good enough?

Every ethnic group has an interest in maintaining itself, in retaining a territory whose borders it controls and which it calls home. In a just world every ethnic group would have the right to its own country.  This is the cry of Zionism, of Jews who long for the dignity and freedom to live among their own people, to be a secure majority in at least one place in the world.   Australia is our Israel, in more ways than one.  We have come to appreciate the lot of the Aboriginal people. But how can any honest person feel sympathy for one people alienated from their land and not understand the wish of White Australians not to lose their country?  Why are the Australian people held in such contempt by the multiculturalists?

(6) On the Jewish assault on One Nation

I have long been criticised by Jewish commentators for my low immigration and anti-multiculturalism stance.   What is noteworthy is that these critics refer to their ethnicity as a reason for rejecting One Nation policies, in particular our identification with Australia as a predominantly European nation and the policies on immigration and multiculturalism that flow logically from that sentiment.  The self-proclaimed Jewish identification of some of our most vociferous critics is puzzling. For one thing, I am not convinced that these critics represent the average Jewish Australian.  Yet they say that because they are Jewish they oppose us, and say so in the most unambiguous terms.

What is puzzling about this?

These critics are, in effect, criticizing themselves, or rather a broader and more tolerant version of their own frame of mind. For those who love Australia, for those whose only homeland is Australia, this continent is our promised land.   It escapes me how anyone who loves his or her people cannot feel sympathy for others who feel likewise about their people.  It's like someone who loves his or her children and who puts them first, failing to accord other parents the right to treat their children with special affection.  Some of our Jewish critics have very different feelings about Israel. Isi Leibler, Chairman of the World Jewish Congress, has explicitly stated that while Israel is for the Jews, Australians must have multiculturalism.²²  What sort of insensitivity - what sort of hypocrisy - is this?

Is the charge of hypocrisy too strong? Consider the facts.   These critics are Jewish activists who belong to organized Jewish groups. They are similar to One Nation in the strength of their commitment to their people.  They are Jewish patriots, just as we are Australian patriots.   The main difference is the object of loyalty.   They care passionately about Jewish interests and much of their politics is predicated on that understandable ethnic loyalty.  We make no bones about our ethnic identification. We say that Australia is populated mainly by people of European descent, but that identity encompasses Gentile and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Old and New Australians.  While we extend equal respect to Australians of non-European descent, the fact is that Australia is predominantly European and since Australia is a democratic country, our ethnic interest is a European one.  This is accepted and indeed welcomed by many minority groups who accept that the status quo is more tolerant than any of the conceivable options.

December 2001

1.     Mark Lopez, 2000, The Origins of multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945-1975, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, p. 259.  Fraser had been converted to multiculturalism in 1973 when he visited two Greek Australian activists, one a Marxist.  The public had no idea of this conversion.  Fraser remarked two decades later, without remorse, "Anglo-Saxon Australia is dead. This isn't the kind of society we are" (quoted by Lopez 2000, p. 440).        2.     K. Betts, 2000, "Immigration: Public opinion and opinions about opinion." People and Place: pp. 60-67.  Vol 8 No 3.        3.    Melbourne Herald Sun, 25 May 1993, "Hawke Reveals Political Pact".  See also "The Social Contract" Vol 3 No4 Summer 1993 (www.thesocialcontract.com) "Om Mane Padme Hum" by Denis McCormack.         4.    Betts, 2000.         5.        Lopez, Origins of multiculturalism, p. 337.         6.             The late Walter Lippmann, the Melbourne Jewish leader, who Lopez considers to have been the most influential agitator for multiculturalism in Australia "did not regard Grassby as indispensable, but perceived Whitlam's position as crucial" (Lopez, Origins of Multiculturalism, p. 336).         7.        Lopez, Origins of Multiculturalism, p. 339.  "Whitlam ... regarded the senior officers of the Department as the custodians of the White Australia policy, which he had abolished." Also: "No other minister wanted the position after they had seen how Grassby and his family had suffered due to the racist hate campaign.  If the functions of the Department of Immigration were shared among other departments, the racist groups could no longer target one minister." Needless to say, these "racists" included many ordinary Australians who would never attack a minister's family but voiced legitimate opposition to Grassby and the undemocratic reversal of Australia's traditional immigration policy through the ballot box.        8.    Quoted in R. Birrell, 1995, A Nation of Our Own.  Citizenship and Nation-Building in Federation Australia, Longman, Melbourne, p. p. 252, originally from Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 12 September 1901, p. 4806.        9.    A. Alesina, R. Baqir, W. Easterly, 1999, "Public goods and ethnic divisions", Quarterly Review of economics, 114(Nov.), pp. 1243-84). See also "Putting the Good in Good Government" by Richard Morin, Washington Post, 1 Nov 1998.         10.    A. Alesina and E. Spolaore, 1997, "On the number and size of nations", The Quarterly Review of economics, 112(Nov.), pp. 1027-56.        11.         Alesina and Spolaore, 1997.         12.    Dr Kalim Siddiquie (b. 1931, d. 1996) well known Islamic intellectual and Director of the Muslim Institute, England.        13    Quoted in Paul Sheehan, 1998, Among the Barbarians: The Dividing of Australia, Random House, Milsons Point, p.141.         15.    Sheehan, 1998, p. 200.         16.    Sheehan, 1998, p. 201.         16.    Charles Price, 1997, "The Asian element in Australia: 1996", People and Place, 5(4), p. 35.         17.    Charles Price, quoted in Sheehan 1998, Among the Barbarians, p. 126.         18.    Charles Price, quoted in the Australian, 7 January 2000, "More ingredients stirred into melting pot", by John Kerin.        19.    Melbourne, The Age, 4 September 2000, "UK whites will be a minority by 2100" by Simon.        20.    See for example P. Brimelow, 1995, Alien Nation.  Common Sense about America's Immigration Disaster, Random House, New York.  Also see President Clinton's Portland (or) State University Speech, 13 June 1998, "In a little more than 50 years there will be no majority race in the United States.  Today, largely because of immigration there is no majority race in Hawai, or Houston or New York city."         21.    Sang Ye, 1996.   Also " The Grand Plan, Asianisation of Australia, Race Place and Power by Denis McCormack, A paper presented at the 20th Anniversary conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia.  Latrobe University 10 July 1996, Hansard 22 October 1996.        22.   Melbourne Herald Sun, 27 September 2000, "Multiculturalism not for Israel - Leibler" by John Masanauskas.

Graeme Campbell,  December 2001