Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Something Rotten Down Under

While searching for the government immigration report mentioned in Cheerleading Genocidal Immigration I ran into a recent Australian government report.

Clear-eyed report spells out the risks | The Australian:
THE government's white paper on counter-terrorism is a landmark, a watershed, a signal moment: choose your metaphor.

What I mean to say is, it's a very important document, and for none of the reasons you have been hearing about in the past few days.

Sometimes the press gallery and the main media commentators so spectacularly miss the point that you wonder what universe they are living in.

For example, have you heard Hezbollah terror groups are operating in Australia? It's in the white paper, but not the media.

Have you heard the government has declared the level of terror threat a society faces depends on the size and composition of its Muslim minority? It's in the white paper but not the media.
The other criticism of the white paper is for using the term jihadist. If it really was Rudd who insisted on this he deserves high praise. It is crucial we tell the truth. The al-Qa'ida version of jihad, like that of the Muslim Brotherhood or of many Wahabi Muslims and of the strand of Shia represented by the Iranian government, is, terribly, a minority but longstanding tradition within Islam. To pretend otherwise is to intellectually disable ourselves.

The descriptive passages in the white paper are written in calm but straightforward language and have the virtue of telling the truth clearly and unapologetically.
One weakness, or contradiction, for the government is that the white paper rightly extols the need for tight border security, yet the government's policies have weakened border security to our north. Virtually any Middle East or South Asian Muslim who gets to Christmas Island now gets to stay in Australia permanently and ultimately gets access to family reunion. That's starting to be many thousands of people who have not been chosen under regular Australian procedures.
The white paper is online at Counter-Terrorism White Paper: Securing Australia – Protecting our Community. It is focused on al qaida and muslims. Here are several excerpts that convey the gist.
The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as the size and make-up of local Muslim populations, including their ethnic and/or migrant origins, their geographical distribution and the success or otherwise of their integration into their host society.
Future geo-political events could mean other terrorist movements with a presence or support base in Australia could become willing to engage in operational activity here. And in the future new terrorist threats could manifest themselves in Australia, either as a by-product of events overseas or as a result of a political grievance within Australia. There will always be the disaffected and disempowered, often but not always at the fringes of communities or the followers of radical ideologies, who mistakenly see advantages in the use of terrorist tactics.
The aim of Australia’s counter-terrorism strategy is to protect Australia, its people and interests from terrorism.
Australia’s counter-terrorism efforts are intelligence-led and focused on prevention.
Australia’s counter-terrorism efforts are supported by our open democratic society. There are inherent strengths in our society that make Australia resilient to the divisive worldview of al-Qa’ida and like-minded groups. However, we know from experience that the terrorist narrative may resonate with a small number of Australians. It is incumbent upon all Australians to work together to reject ideologies that promote violence, no matter from where they arise or to what purpose they aspire. We must all support and protect the values and freedoms from which all Australians benefit. By reducing disadvantage, addressing real or perceived grievances and encouraging full participation in Australia’s social and economic life, government policies can help to mitigate any marginalisation and radicalisation that may otherwise occur within the Australian community.
To be effective, Australia must pursue a principled and proportionate response that promotes and upholds the values we seek to protect.
This chapter explains how Australia will counter violent extremism by:

* building on Australia’s history of inclusion, multiculturalism and respect for cultural diversity to maintain a society that is resilient to the hate-based and divisive narratives that fuel terrorism;
Australia’s inclusive, multicultural society is one of our strengths. Australia needs to harness this strength in the face of the divisive narrative of terrorist groups. We have a key interest in not allowing messages of hate to divide our community. Maintaining a resilient society based on shared freedoms, respect and understanding of our diversity helps us achieve that.

Australia is a country that recognises, accepts and respects cultural diversity. However, Australia will not tolerate the propagation of violent extremism and hate under the cloak of that diversity. The Government is committed to promoting respect, inclusion and a sense of belonging, in ways which address issues impeding social cohesion.

Exclusion or marginalisation of any individual or group of people can affect us all. It can affect a society’s cohesiveness, economic performance and, as we have seen overseas, the security and stability of the community as a whole. There are few countries in the world where migrants have achieved the level of economic, political, social and cultural participation that they have in Australia. But we cannot afford to be complacent. We know that a small number of Australians hold extreme beliefs and some of these individuals are or may be committed to supporting or engaging in acts of terrorism.
Media, academia, and government across the West have long been cheerleading for diversity and the immigration that brings it. They have also consistently ignored, disassociated, and otherwise played down and covered up any negative consequences.

This "clear-eyed" report laying out the Australian government's counter-terrorism priorities only pays lip service to protecting Australia and its people. It actually puts "inclusion, multiculturalism and respect for cultural diversity" first. If this were not the case the report would address the hate-based and divisive pro-diversity, anti-native, anti-White narratives which have promoted and defended genocidal immigration and multicultural policies under the cloak of double-talk about inclusion. It would point out that this has created an islamic terrorism problem where none existed before - no muslim immigrants, no islamic terrorism. It would explain that the biggest threat to an Australian sense of belonging and social cohesion is the immigration of any racial or cultural aliens, and advocate a return to the White Australia policy.

Instead we get a cross-eyed report premised on a bullshit history and orwellian future in which inclusion of diversity produces cohesion.

(The image above comes from Australia Racism Protest Photo. The threat to Australians is not restricted to jihadists. Diversity is divisive. Immigration is genocide.

Labels: , ,

white

17 Comments:

Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Australia’s inclusive, multicultural society is one of our strengths.

Another society that doesn't recognize it has a unique culture and instead falls back on the multi-cult globalist agenda.

They've already lost.

2/24/2010 02:08:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Don't blame "society". There are plenty of people who recognize, even if only instinctively, that they have a unique culture and that it, and they, are being erased by immigration and multiculturalism. Most may not recognize that it is being pushed by a powerful self-interested anti-White minority at the top who cynically pathologize Whites as actual or potential "racists" and "xenophobes" even as they celebrate non-White diversity and immigration.

2/24/2010 02:37:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lawrence Auster just denounced Cesar Tort as "anti-Semitic."

2/24/2010 03:19:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

I disagree. "Society" includes all its occupants. I cant speak for Australians, but I believe most people in American society (there's a couched phrase) do not have any perception of an American culture. They are caught up in their own self image (race, creed, culture) or are slaves to the modern American consumer mentality.

Im also not going to give these so-called "victims" a free ride. They bear some of the burden regardless of whether they've been manipulated into subservience by the plutocrats - white and non-white. Ignorance and/or apathy is no defense.

2/24/2010 04:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Millirone said...

Looks like Cesar is going through the process that all of us have gone through. He is about to find out the hard truth about our Jewish "friends."

They will never be able to refute that statement by Bullard because it is true. Auster will never claim that the statement is true and call Jews to reform. Instead he will attack the messenger.

Looks like he is already staring right on cue.

2/24/2010 06:33:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

FF, in blaming "society" you are blaming mostly victims. You are spreading guilt and responsibility to people who do not deserve it. It is a form of broad scapegoating. It is not inherently difficult to identify the relatively small number of individuals fervently pushing diversity and immigration regardless of the harm it causes native Whites. It is not inherently difficult to identify the groups these individuals tend to belong to or provide reasonable explanations why they might be motivated do this. The only thing that makes these things difficult is that these individuals and the groups to which they belong are unscrupulous and powerful. They use their power to silence and punish (and exclude and marginalize) anyone who opposes them.

2/24/2010 06:38:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Tan
If you, I and our neighbors fail to take responsibility and act to confront the oppressors, we are to blame. That responsibility and action can be as simple as to educate oneself or re-educate one's children, or to write, expose and reach out, or at the other end to run for public office.

The "damnation" I extended is not simply to the "victims" but to the oppressors as well - and yes, its broad scapegoating of another western society that has fallen prey to the multi-cult globalist sirens and has not only turned its back on its own history, but is so ashamed it needs to rewrite its history. One that needs to embrace all cultures and in doing so marginalize its own.

You are quick to lash out at whites and non-whites alike who embrace the multi-cult and ant-white racism. But blame is reserved for a few - or simply the jew - and what has evolved into broad scapegoating of the jewish race.

2/24/2010 07:16:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

If your willingness to blame ourselves collectively weren't coupled with an unwillingness to blame jews collectively it might make more sense. The double-standard is too obvious to accept.

Though I don't want to share a country with non-Whites, that doesn't mean I hold them all, or only them, responsible for genociding us.

2/24/2010 11:35:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

So pointing out that collectively a society (ie, USA) has "embraced" multi-culturalism in the face of minority (White) objection and (white) indifference is a double standard because I dont support the contention jews are collectively responsible for multi-culturalism although there are numerous Jews and one-droppers who do not support it.

Do I need to point out that the actions of a "society" are not necessarily in line with that of it's individual constituents?

There are "plenty" of people - which indicates an adequate amount - and yet they have little or no voice? (Keeping in mind our past exchanges - $$$=free speech; elections, etc) Evidently the amount is inadequate or if it was they are failing to live up to their responsibility by allowing their elected representatives to screw them.

Do I need to "Austerize" everything by using phrases like "some" or "liberal" so I can couch my words and claim Im not broad scapegoating or using double standards?

2/25/2010 06:37:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I don't think reasoning about some collectives, some of the time is ok, I think reasoning about any collective any time is ok.

"Plenty" of people don't rape, rob, or murder. When someone does we need not broaden the blame to "society" or narrow and transfer it to the victim. We can blame the perpetrator.

2/25/2010 07:41:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

But when a rape, robbery or murder occurs in front of witnesses, its ok for them to look the other way, not assist the police in catching the perpetrators and piss and moan how the police arent doing anything to combat crime in their neighborhood. [This would = indifferent or in-actionable whites]

Of course others will claim its prejudice and file a civil suit against the police dept and demand diversity training and affirmative action hirings to compensate. [This would = multi-cult "anti-racists"]

Its not their fault.

On the flip, my unwillingness to include all Jewry (like someone's family members) is hypocrisy I can live with.

2/25/2010 12:51:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You are quick to lash out at whites and non-whites alike who embrace the multi-cult and ant-white racism. But blame is reserved for a few - or simply the jew - and what has evolved into broad scapegoating of the jewish race."

So often when the JQ arises, the tired old plaint recurs from jews jew-defenders and philosemites: "But jews aren't the o-o-o-o-n-ly ones....Whites did thus-and-such, too!" etc., ad nauseum

I've been a playground teacher for a number of years. When a bully-kid bonks another child and I confront him, I invariably get, "Yeah, but so-and-so was doing it too." Habitually naughty children do this in an effort to deflect attention from themselves in hopes of avoiding punishment.

My stock answer, learned the hard way, is always: "Right now, I'm talking to YOU about what YOU'VE done. I will deal with the others when I get to it."

White advocates need to adopt the same tactic. When a Jew defender starts with his litanies of "yeah buts," "White guys did thus-and-such, too-oo-oo-oo," we need to reply, "Maybe, but right now, we're discussing Jewish perfidy. Please stay on-topic." We need to tell jews, WE will deal with our own treasonous coethnics AFTER we've dealt with you, and we don't need your assistance in doing so.

2/26/2010 06:53:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Mass immigration kills Aussie culture, says demographer Bob Birrell | News.com.au.

3/25/2010 09:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Australia was founded as a monoracial nation, with all political parties explicitly committed to a White Australia Policy, but only because of strong popular pressure, in an era (at the turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries) when parties needed activists, lots of them, not just advertising budgets.

People cannot always be psyched up to insist on what they want, but elite sentiment, the lobby of businessmen who want to import all the cheap labor they can with no regard for consequences beyond the next financial statement, and other moneyed interests are tireless. Times changed, money was more important, activists counted for less, and people got complacent. More dangerously both major political parties began to collude to take race and immigration off the table, leaving those who opposed changes nobody to vote for. (That is, politicians who went contrary to the interests and will of their constituents couldn't be punished.) The White Australia Policy was abolished in 1975, Malcolm Fraser brought in Multiculturalism in 1984, and his successor Robert Hawke continued it, and later went on record that the collusion that I spoke of above was the truth, but that he had not troubled the voters with this knowledge while he was in office.

The winning team for mass immigration, multiculturalism and enforced political correctness is still there. Basically it's money (including but by no means limited to the cheap labor lobby), mass media, academia, and above all the will in the political class to hold the line, forgoing the votes to be had by challenging the bipartisan line. (Anyway, the votes to be had are less than they were, as the population changes.)

The key thing to understand is that this was orchestrated back-stage in silence, and imposed top down, at a time when politicians were way out ahead of public opinion in doing this, and it was more than your political career was worth to admit you were in on ... I don't know what to call it but a conspiracy, though a conspiracy of the consciously high-minded.

If you could restore the law as it once was today, and also the popular will that forced it to be implemented, the same coalition would start to unravel everything the day after.

It's because of this that I don't see any sense in getting masochistic about how we Australians were the authors of our own ruin. No we weren't, except for those of us with vast influence on politicians and the money and will to organized them quietly to lie to the public and cover each other across party lines while implementing an agenda contrary to the public will and a central policy accepted by the nation's founders.

- Daybreaker

4/25/2010 02:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Another thing: Australia's White Australia Policy and America's 1924 law used to be taken as an insult by the Japanese, at a time when they were aggressive toward us and leaning toward the attitudes and policies that finally led to Pearl Harbor.

After the Japanese defeat, they were no longer aggressive toward us, and I don't know of any great diplomatic issue with Japan about our pro-White immigration policies, though America's remained solid to 1965 and ours to 1975.

We haven't attacked the Japanese diplomatically over their policy to stay Japanese either, because we are not aggressive toward them.

This isn't the only test of friendliness or hostility, but I think it's a good one: your friends aren't offended by a restrictive immigration policy, because they like you fine how you are. Any foreign country or ethnicity that insists on you opening yourself up to mass immigration has to be suspected of being aggressive toward you.

- Daybreaker

4/25/2010 03:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you trace Multiculturalism to its root in Australia, you don't find a Jew but a Catholic: Jerzy Zubrzycki.

Catholic News: May 25, 2009

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=13944

Polish-born Australian sociologist and friend of the late Pope John Paul II, Jerzy Zubrzycki, also known as the "Father of Australian Multiculturalism", has died in Canberra aged 89.

Zubrzycki was the founding professor of sociology at the Australian National University and is also widely recognised as a founding member of the Pontificial Academy of Social Sciences, a Vatican research institute, Christian Today reports.

He played a leading role in the development of multiculturalism policy during the 1970s and was an adviser to the Whitlam, Fraser and Howard governments, Christian Today says.

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser described him as a man of "remarkable foresight".

"He recognised the problems associated with a narrow, Anglo-Saxon society which Australia had been - up to, if you like, the Second World War," Mr Fraser was quoted by The Australian.

"He believed passionately that people should be treated as equal, and that being a good Australian didn't require people to give up their country of origin."

So Jerzy Zubrzycki, good Catholic boy, decided that Australians of Anglo-Saxon stock and culture should be problematized if not pathologized, and set out to solve them by means of multiculturalism (which would mean people didn't assimilate like previous waves of White migrants), with the support of one Anglo-Saxon Prime Minister after another.

He had great success.

In The Australian, "Death of a leader of cultural revolution Jerzy Zubrzycki":

Mr Fraser said the fact that multiculturalism now enjoyed bipartisan support was in part due to Professor Zubrzycki's work.

"John Howard didn't like the word multiculturalism," Mr Fraser said. "He talked a different sort of language. But you've only got to walk down any street in Melbourne and Sydney to know that it's already too late - we are, in fact, a multicultural society."

That's true. The language changed expediently, but the policies brought consistent, irreversible alterations - presumably good ones, in the eyes of someone who thought Anglo-Saxons were a problem that government needed to solve?

We don't have to guess. Jerzy Zubrzycki lived to see the result of his work, and he had the opportunity to change his mind and say sorry, if he wanted to. But...

Sydney Morning Herald, "Time to confront failures, not ignore them":

In an interview on Radio National this week with Emeritus Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki, credited with being the architect of Australian multiculturalism, Adams said: "It reminds one of the apocalyptic threats, predictions of Enoch Powell [a British Conservative politician noted for a controversial 1968 speech that immigration threatened national unity].

"At the time we all decried him, we howled him down, as we should have, but at least some of those predictions are coming true."

So: uniform academic "holing down" and decrying of a rare, brave truth-teller - and of course that was the right thing to do, even in retrospect.

This is the sort of career that if a Jew had had it would confirm everyone's worst fears about Jews.

So Lesson 1 is: history isn't that neat. Humanity isn't that neat. It is important to praise or condemn individuals for what they personally did, regardless of their race or religion.

(Alternately, those who say that the Catholic Church in its modern form is a problem have some more facts to support them.)

Lesson 2 is: if you thought there was an anti-Anglo-Saxon conspiracy in Australia, as we now know there was one in the UK, you were right.

It may be contrary to our culture to be paranoid about racial and cultural enemies, but there are those who are really out to get us.

- Daybreaker

4/25/2010 07:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What we have here is a fight to the death between religous fanatics and those who have no religon only science, technology and the pursuit of wealth (not happiness). There will be no winners, this will end in the complete destruction of both societies.

6/22/2010 04:33:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home