This study explores conceptual inconsistencies of Australian current immigration policy, as such that is being designed to correspond to the dogma of multiculturalism, rather then to a common sense. In it, we explain reasons why allowing ethnic immigrants to land in Australia cannot be thought of beneficial to the well-being of this nation. Study also outlines the principles, upon which Australian new immigration policy should be based in the future.
The issue of immigration continues to stir public controversies in Australia on ever-increasing scale, due to the fact that governmental officials, put in charge of designing immigration policies, view their task within a context of insuring Australia’s image of multicultural society, rather then as something that is closely related to the issue of protecting Australia’s national integrity. Most Australians are well aware of pros and cons of allowing people from other countries to immigrate to the “green continent”, however, only very few citizens posses a comprehensive understanding of the full spectrum of social, political and cultural effects, associated with Australia becoming increasingly multicultural. Australian mainstream Medias encourage citizens to think of this issue as being strictly limited to public discussion of how to manage human resources in most efficient manner, while striving to conceal the fact that newly arrived immigrants’ racial and cultural affiliation defines their existential mode and therefore, corresponds to their ability to integrate into Australian society. The focus of public attention, concerning immigration policies, is being artificially shifted towards discussion of violations of people’s civil rights, the conceptual inconsistency of Australian legal system (Australia is only the Western democracy, without the “bill of rights” incorporated in its Constitution), and the general unfairness of keeping illegal behind bars. The countless “human rights experts” go as far as suggesting that legal foundation, upon which Australian society is based, is “euro-centric” and therefore – “fascist”. For example, in her article “Defining Strangers: Human Rights, Immigrants and the Foundations for a Just Society”, Mary Crock suggests that allowing people from Third World countries to settle in Australia is only the way for the White citizens to effectively deal with “historical guilt”, on their part: “Institutional understandings of citizenship in Australia still rely to a certain extent on assumptions and shared understandings about the physical characteristics of the archetypal Australian. The catastrophic consequences of the errors made in those cases underscore why it is important that Australia adopt laws that are respectful of basic human rights and the dignity of persons irrespective of actual or imputed citizenship” (Crock, 2007). In other words, author implies that it is new immigrants’ “ethnic uniqueness”, which should be considered by authorities as their solemn qualification to be allowed to come here in the first place. In fact, it is Australian neo-Liberal politicians’ utopical thinking that created preconditions for creation of societies within a society in this country, on the part of “culturally diverse” immigrants, who are being preoccupied with “celebration of diversity”, while relying on welfare checks as the only source of their income. Therefore, it is the matter of foremost importance to dispel the myth that allowing immigrants to come here is beneficial to this country in apriori, regardless of these immigrants’ place of origin.
In this work, we will aim at exploring conceptual fallacies of Australian current immigration laws, as such that often do not correspond to the objective properties of the process of social interaction between people from different ethnic backgrounds. In its turn, this will allow us to gain a comprehensible understanding of what should be done, in order for the authorities to begin exercising control over demographical trends in Australia, because such their ability is crucial, within a context of protecting this nation’s existential identity. We believe that the issue of immigration cannot be discussed strictly within a context of establishing a social fairness, as it is being often done by “progressive” sociologists. We also believe that, in order for the conclusions of our study to have an objective value, we cannot limit ourselves to exploring the subject matter as locally limited socio-political phenomenon. It is important to understand that Australia is not only the country that has its national integrity being threatened by politicians’ inability to think of the issue of immigration in thoroughly scientific manner, without being affected by emotional considerations, on their part. In its turn, this has to do with the fact that designing social policies in Western countries became strongly associated with promoters’ of Liberal agenda desire to impose their point of view, in regards to immigration, upon the rest of citizens. Nowadays, it is practically impossible for individual to gain social prominence, without his or her willingness to accept the dogma of people’s metaphysical equality, despite the fact that this dogma is utterly unscientific, in its very essence. It is only when we adopt a scientific outlook on the issue that we will be able to recognise the full range of implications, related to people’s ability to emigrate from other countries to Australia. Therefore, during the course of this research project, we will also resort to the review of literature that investigates the relation of people’s racial affiliation to their existential mode, as we believe that this will provide us with the insight on that represents the core of problematics, related to immigration. For example, it is a commonly assumed fact that Chinese immigrants have a hard time integrating into Australian society, which is usually being explained by the existence of various prejudices, in regards to ethnically diverse immigrants, on the part of White Australians. However, if we happen to refer to scientific literature, in order to explain the slow rate of Chinese immigrants’ integration, we will be able to recognise this phenomenon as such that has purely objective subtleties. In his article “Cultures of Reason”, Bruce Bower makes it very clear that, people of Asian ethnic background do not think as White people do: “In a variety of reasoning tasks, Asians take a “holistic” approach. They make little use of categories and formal logic and instead focus on relations among objects and the context in which they interact. In short, they direct their attention into a complex, conflict-strewn environment… White people, on the other hand, adopt an “analytic” perspective. They look for the traits of objects while largely ignoring their context” (Bower, 2000). Therefore, only very naïve or ignorant person can deny the fact that there are many objective preconditions for the concept of “multicultural utopia”, which is now being popularized in Australia and in other Western countries, to never realize itself in practice. In this work, we will aim at substantiating this point of view, by referring to the analysis of relevant literature, as we strongly believe that if current approach to immigration, on the part of majority of Australian politicians, continues to affect country’s socio-political policies, it will only be the matter of time, before Australia will turn into the Third World country itself. Thus, the main thesis of this study can be defined as – whereas allowing industrious and educated White people to immigrate to Australia is crucial, as important element of insuring this country’s well-being, utilization of immigration as the tool of pushing neo-Liberal agenda, is absolutely inappropriate.
During the course of this research, we will rely on qualitative method of analysis, supplemented by quantitative data, due to the nature of this work. Only qualitative approach will allow us to understand the driving force behind immigrants’ willingness to come to Australia, since such willingness often appears to be irrational, in its essence. In their book “Qualitative interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data”, Herbert Rubin and Riene Rubin imply that qualatitive approach to empirical study is more appropriate when the subject of research lacks static properties: “Qualitative research methods emphasize the depth of understanding associated with idiographic concerns. They attempt to tap the deeper meanings of particular human experiences and are intended to generate theoretically richer observations that are not easily reduced to numbers” (Rubin, Rubin, 1995). We cannot deny the fact that Australia has always been the country of immigrants.
However, since Australian immigration policy ceased to provide quotas for non-White immigrants, we can no longer discuss these immigrants as such that posses distinctive behavioural traits. This is why official statistics, in regards to the number of people that immigrate to this country on annual basis, do not provide us with better understanding of the issues, about which Australian citizens seem to be concerned the most, when it comes to discussion of immigration. The fact that governmental officials can now be accused of “racial profiling”, deprives statistical data, in regards to immigrants, of any objective value. It is assumed that immigrants should only be allowed to Australia for as long as they are capable of benefiting this country. Therefore, revealing the information which indicates the fact that crime rate, associated with non-White immigrants, relates to European immigrants’ crime rate in proportion 60 to 1, might cause ordinary citizens to begin questioning whether people in charge of designing Australian immigration policy should be allowed to hold governmental offices, instead of being locked up in mental asylums. The editorial “Africans Rioting in Melbourne, Adelaide, and France (again)”, available on the web site of Australian Protectionist Party, suggests that even many Australian Liberal politicians beginning to understand that their support of multiculturalism might eventually cost them their offices, since majority of White voters in this country do not take a particular pleasure in being gang-raped and murdered by newly arrived immigrants from Third World countries, who often do not even bother to learn English: “The “serious problems” of African immigration were recognised by the previous federal government when it halved immigration from Africa citing “poor integration” as the reason. Australia has witnessed a disproportionate level of crime from black African immigrants; this does not mean that all Africans are criminals, but it is true to say that studies have shown a disproportionate number of ethnic black Africans engage in violent crimes” (APP, 2007). The article does not contain any referrals to the actual studies, since it is doubtful that such studies have ever been conducted in the first place, due to the fact that researching the link between immigrants’ racial affiliation and their tendency to engage in anti-social behaviour has become a public taboo long ago. In his research study “Ethnicity and Crime: An Australian Research Study”, Satyanshu Mukherjee points out at informational inconsistency of statistical data, in regards to crime, on the part of governmental institutions, since such data is being intentionally deprived of possible association between perpetrators of crime and their ethnical affiliation: “Most research and official statistics and documents on the issue of ethnicity and crime have rarely examined/described the concept ‘ethnicity’” (Mukherjee, 1999). This is despite the fact that statistics, regarding White Australians’ tendency to commit “hate crimes”, is easily accessible. Therefore, we cannot adopt a quantitative approach, during the course of our study, simply because the actual data, regarding the “benefits” of multicultural immigration to Australia, is being largely withheld from the public. This, however, will not deprive our study of its empirical value, as our intention to prove that Australian citizens’ unwillingness to see their country being turned into the Third World slump, will be backed up by our understanding of social processes as such that correlate with laws of thermo-dynamics and with Darwinian theory of evolution. Therefore, it is not only the recent Australian publications, concerning the issue of immigration, which we will analyse in this study, but also the classical works of famous sociologists, historians and political scientists, as issues related to immigration policies in Western countries have much wider implications, then it is being generally assumed.
Given the strategic nature of this research, we will need to utilize the principle of inductive inquiry. In his article “The Case for Inductive Theory Building”, Edwin Locke makes a very good point, while suggesting that the application of method of inductive inquiry is most suitable when researchers strive to analyze socio-political phenomenon of global magnitude (issue of immigration definitely falls into this category), because the results of empirical studies that exploit inductive method, have universal value, as they appear to be more “time-resistant”: “This method (inductive) makes for quick and often short-lived theories; in contrast, true inductive theorizing takes many years, even decades, and, I believe is far more likely to withstand the test of time” (Locke, 2007). If we had limited the scope of this study to the analysis of pros and cons of immigration to Australia, as ordinary people perceive it, our conclusions, in regards to the subject matter, could have been easily disputed. As we have mentioned earlier, even if we were given a full access to statistical information, concerning various effects of new immigrants arriving to this country, we would still not be able to fully substantiate study’s conclusions, because of non-static essence of this data. This is the reason why we need to largely rely upon the method of inductive inquiry, while researching the subject, because by doing this, we will be able to predict the practical consequences of immigration laws being revised and adjusted, even before this process takes place.
When Britons started to arrive to Australia in big numbers, at the end of 18th century, they had found this vast continent being sparsely populated by savages, who were not able to evolve beyond the Stone Age. Even though that originally, Australia was only being considered fitting for the role of British penal colony, it did not take too long for Europeans to realize the attractiveness of this huge island as the place to live. Given the fact that by the end of 19th century, Australian population only accounted for only 800.000, including aboriginees, British colonial authorities strived to encourage White people from all over the world to immigrate to Australia, as they were perfectly aware that only arrival of these people can insure that the spread of civilization over the continent would proceed uninterrupted. Just as it was the case with Europeans immigrating to America, Canada, and Rhodesia, their arrival signified the beginning of unexplored and mostly uninhibited land being turned into the paradise on Earth, within a matter of very short time. The physical remoteness from authorities, associated with political and religious oppression in “old Europe”, allowed White people’s creative genius to realize its full potential – the railroads were laid, houses, hospitals, schools erected, and trees planted. By the beginning of 20th century, Australia became strongly associated with Western civilization, as we know it. It was particularly this fact that encouraged more and more people from Europe to consider immigrating to the “green continent”, even though that they were fully aware that only their hard work in the new land would enable them to gain a social prominence and to enjoy quality living. We can say that it was exactly the challenges of settling down in strange land that attracted industrious White people the most.
Given the fact that in early 20th century, Australian politicians were not affected by the spiritual poison of political-correctness, associated with the rise of neo-Liberalism in the second half of 20th century, it was only natural, on their part, to conclude that, in order for Australia to remain a civilized country, only physically and mentally healthy White people should be allowed to immigrate there. It is their realization of this simple fact that laid precondition for passing a so-called “Immigration Restriction Act” by Federal Parliament in 1901. While not specifying the preferable racial affiliation of potential immigrants, this Act provided implicit provisions for only the people of European descend to be allowed to land in Australia: “Provided that in the case of an immigrant of European race or descent no penalty shall be imposed under this section on any master owner or charterer who proves to the satisfaction of the Court that he had no knowledge of the immigrant being landed contrary to this Act” (Immigration Restriction Act, 1901, Paragraph 9). This Act also referred to physically and mentally inadequate people as “idiots and insane persons”, instead of “people with special needs”, as it would have been the case now. Thus, it is not only that passing the Restriction Act was intended to protect the racial homogeneity of Australian society, but it was also meant to insure the biological adequacy of Australians.
In his article “Australia Fights Back”, which is available on the web site of National Alliance, Shaun Walker makes a very good point, while referring to Restriction Act as such that enabled Australia to become one of the wealthiest countries in the world: “That was a very good law which enabled Australia to become a high-tech, First World, White nation, with one of the highest standards of living in the world. This is on a dry, geographically isolated area of the world, without a great deal of natural resources. This was possible only because of the racial composition of the population. If you put White people in an arid dessert, they will make it paradise. If you take that paradise and put Africans or Lebanese people in that exact White paradise, they will, in short order, turn it into Hell and the Whites will flee. This is the same in every region of the world, throughout time, every single time it happens” (Walker, 2005). Despite the fact that Walker’s argument sounds somewhat unscientific, we can only agree with the point he is making, as there is no single example in the history of native people starting to fare better, after being freed of “White oppression”, just as there is no single example of natives being able to advance culturally, socially or scientifically, without the assistance of White “oppressors”. There is a scientific explanation to this fact, which we will bring up later in this study. For now, let us just say that, despite the fact that the concept of “White Australia” is now being referred to as “evil” by people not overburdened with intelligence, it nevertheless enabled White Australians, who even today account for 85% of country’s population, to remain masters of their destiny, without being afraid to go out on the street in their own neighborhoods, after it gets dark, as it is often the case now.
Australia’s entrance in WW2 has strengthened racialist sentiment among citizens even further. We can think of Australia being one of Allied powers as historical irony, because the ideal of “racial equality” was the last thing Australians were willing to fight for. It is only the fact that Australia was being threatened by the possibility of Japanese invasion, which prompted it to remain loyal to Allied cause, throughout the war. After the end of war, White Australians began to quickly accumulate wealth, which in its turn, was gradually corrupting them mentally, while creating preconditions for Liberal ideas to gain popularity. Christian ministers were adding their part to Australians becoming more “opened minded”, just as was the case in Rhodesia, where White Rhodesians’ obsession with reading “good book” eventually caused them to commit an act of collective suicide, by allowing Blacks to participate in political elections. The practical consequences of it are now well-known throughout the world: people sawn in half, babies set on fire, women gang-raped – this is the logical result of “celebration of diversity”, African style. However, before such “celebration” could take place in Australia, the social preconditions needed to be created first. In other words – Australian society needed to become multicultural, with the percentage of White citizens being artificially reduced to as low as possible. This is why in sixties, Australian Medias, 80% of which happened to be owned by representatives of “chosen people”, began promoting the concept of “multicultural Australia”. The concept of “White Australia” has been transformed by Medias from something that made the most logical sense, into something that White citizens needed to be ashamed of, because it would make them more willing to open up their wallets, while being approached by those who demand financial reparations for all kinds of “historical injustices”. The promotion of multiculturalism in Australia, as such that is closely related to the issue of immigration, was undertaken by Zionist-owned Medias with utter devotion, despite the fact that in Israel, such concept is being publicly ridiculed. The fact that Israel remains only the country in the world that pursues the policy of racial apartheid, does not prevent “chosen people” from promoting “pluralism” and “tolerance” in countries where they represent a tiny minority. Jeremy Jones’ article “Confronting Reality: Anti-Semitism in Australia Today”, which is available on the web site of Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, contains a clue as to whom the majority of White Australians have to thank, for being required to praise multiculturalism: “The condition of contemporary Australian Jewry reflects its ability to thrive in culturally diverse, religiously pluralist Australia. Australia’s stances on international matters of direct interest to the Jewish community are evidence of the community’s political role in Australia and its success in advocacy” (Jones, 2004).
In 1957, non-Whites who lived in Australia for longer then fifteen years were allowed to become citizens. In 1964, this requirement was being dropped. In 1975, Parliament had passed Racial Discrimination Act, which explicitly forbade governmental institutions to rely on common sense, while managing social dynamics in Australia. The Act had an immediate affect on Australian immigration policy. Even though it does not contain provisions for the members of any ethnic group to be preferred, as potential immigrants, passing this Act resulted in Australian immigration officers being unofficially required to come up with positive decisions, when the cases of non-White immigrants were concerned, since building a multicultural Australia was proclaimed as governmental official doctrine. In its turn, it resulted in people from South-Asia beginning to arrive to Australia in swarms, while resorting to mostly illegal means of making their way here.
Once in Australia, they would fraudulently marry their brethrens of opposite sex, thus becoming automatically qualified for the residence. The Medias could not be happier with Australian society becoming more “diverse”. However, unlike European immigrants, non-Whites never held any idealistic illusions about trying to benefit their adopted country, as the way to express their gratitude for being allowed to come here in the first place, because they subconsciously felt that they do not belong in Australia, for as long as they remain a minority in this country. In his article “A Freespirit’s Observations On Taiwanese/Oriental Life/Mentality”, Winston Wu allows us to look at particularities of Asian mentality through the eyes of person of Chinese ethnic background: “They (Chinese) view Whites as a foreign species to maintain a good “face” to – bowing and smiling gently to feign fake politeness” (Wu, 2007). The situation with non-White immigration to Australia is very similar to the one that can be observed in rest of Western countries – at first, a few immigrants establish themselves socially in a particular town, while insuring native residents that they are willing to “make their way up from the bottom’, in social context of this word. These immigrants take non-prestigious jobs, such as movers, street cleaners, or “pizza delivery boys”. This wins them admiration as “hard workers”, on the part of Whites. However, after having settled, these immigrants begin to invite their countless relatives to “visit” them, with these “visits” turning into permanent stay in 99% of all cases. This eventually leads to creation of “society within a society” in this particular town, with the political weight of immigrants’ ethnic community growing rapidly. As time goes by, members of ethnic community are beginning to realize that nothing prevents them from taking advantage of the fact that they do not feel bounded by the rules of social conduct, associated with White people’s existential mode. In its turn, this leads to the emergence of “ethnic gangs”, which police have a hard time dealing with, as members of these gangs do not provide cops with informational leaks, while utilizing the principle of racial solidarity, of which Whites have been deprived long ago, to the full extent. Eventually, native residents come to conclusion that, in order for them to continue to enjoy more or less safe living, they need to move to the part of the town where non-White immigrants tend to show up the least. This leads to creation of so-called “white suburbia”, which now exists in almost every large city. Given the fact that White population in Western continues to age rapidly, with White families rarely having more then one child, “chinatowns” undergo rapid territorial growth. Eventually non-White immigrants become a majority and this is when they come to realization that they are in position to dictate their rules to the rest of citizens. The representatives of ethnic minorities get to be elected to municipal body, then to Provincial Government and eventually to Federal Government, where they work hard to pass legislations that would allow even more of their countrymen to come to Australia, so that they could also begin exploring their “ethnic uniqueness”, at the expense of taxpayers. Of course, they do it in time free from providing a legal cover to a particular ethnic mafia, which finance their election campaigns.
The fact that non-White immigrants can hardly be associated with benefiting Australian society has a scientific explanation. In order for us to get a better understanding why “multicultural” immigration to Australia poses clear and immediate danger to this country’s well-being, we will need to look at Australian society as open thermo-dynamical system. The stability of such system relates to the number and quality of its elements; to how these elements interact with each other and to how system interacts with surrounding environment, as whole. In his book “An Introduction to Cybernetics”, William Ashby had formulated a so-called “Law of Requisite Variety”, which describes the effects of social environments coming in contact with each other. The law states – “Only variety can destroy variety”. The particularities of inner dynamics, within a social system, correspond to how system’s complexity interacts with the complexity of surrounding environment. In other words, in order for the social system to maintain its stability, system’s complexity cannot be lower then the complexity of the environment. For example, when we play chess, in order for us to win, for every move of our opponent, we need to keep in mind several possible responses, because it will increase our complexity, as chess players. When society’s complexity is higher then the one of environment, it begins to export its complexity into the environment. The reason why Europeans were able to become undisputed masters of the world by the beginning of 20th century was because European societies, at the time, were much more complex then those of indigenous people. However, it is not only White people that were able to benefit from colonising new lands, but also natives, since their interaction with Whites increased their existential complexity – they were becoming “civilized”. However, when the complexity of environment is higher then the system’s one, then this system needs to whether become more complex or to simply integrate into the environment. Within a context of today’s socio-political reality, there can be no doubt as to the fact that Australian White society is less complex then non-White societies in the area of South-Pacific. This is because Whites are being slowly deprived of their existential vitality, which corresponds to their low birth rate and to the fact that more and more White Australians are becoming “atomized” – that is, they no longer associate their individuality with their race or their nation, as it used to be the case, even as recent as thirty years ago.
According to the Law of Requisite Variety, the complexity and quality of elements of the system, does not necessarily correspond to system’s complexity, as whole. Let us illustrate this thesis with the example of how wheat field interacts with natural environment. If farmer had stopped tending a crop, it would be the matter of time, before various weeds begin to grow in that field. Moreover, the quality of wheat grains would be reduced from generation to generation, as wheat cannot grow properly, while being surrounded by weeds. This is because wheat field’s “variety” is lesser that the “variety” of the surrounding environment. If the field was to be left unattended for a year or two, the new environmental balance would be reached – with weeds being spread evenly throughout the field and with some wheat beginning to grow in areas adjacent to the field. However, only an utterly retarded person can suggest that weeds are more valuable then the wheat, as plants. Once we stop tenting the wheat crops, the Darwinian laws will reduce this plant to its “natural” status, in the world of fauna.
This example helps us to explain the process the take place within White society, once it allows non-White immigration. When a coloured person lands in Australia, he is being forced to adjust his behaviour to White man’s laws for as long he feels that his complexity is lower then the complexity of host society. However, once the number of non-White immigrants increases, they begin striving to adapt the surrounding environment to their own needs. It is important to understand that non-Whites can be described as “specialized specie”, because their ability to gain social prominence directly corresponds to their ability to immigrate into one of Western countries. Everything non-Whites do has only one purpose – lowering the quality of Whites, because only this allow them to establish themselves socially and to take advantage of the fact that they are not burdened by conventional morality, associated with Western civilization.
The Law of Requisite Variety affects objective reality, regardless of whether its subjects understand law’s essence or not, as we have illustrated with the example of wheat field. It is very doubtful of whether non-White immigrants have ever heard of this law. Nevertheless, they follow it, because just as any specialised specie, non-Whites’ behaviour is defined by their animalistic instincts – they are being programmed to act in a certain way. Whites, on the other hand, as people that continuously evolve, in evolutionary context of this word, are not being “programmed”, they actually write their own “programs”, which are being adjusted to correspond to new challenges, as time goes by. Software designers are well aware that, for as long as particular computer program functions properly, it is better not to try to improve it. In Australia, White people had created a social system, which despite its numerous drawbacks, was allowing citizens to enjoy quality living. The fact that this system is now being deprived of its complexity does not bother them a lot, for as long as they can satisfy their buying needs. Within a context of evolutionary evolvement, Whites can choose in favor of different strategies and tactics – non-Whites can only choose tactics. This is why, in time when White people are physically and mentally healthy, non-Whites are simply in no position of opposing them, whatsoever. However, it time when Whites are being deprived of their existential vitality, as it is the case nowadays, the behavioral programs, installed into non-Whites’ mind by the process of evolution, become truly effective.
As we have mentioned earlier, there is no single example of non-Whites being able to maintain civilizational standards in countries that used to be European colonies, after the end of White rule. This is because non-Whites could only progress culturally for as long as they were able to adapt to “White environment”, associated with higher complexity. In other words, non-Whites’ social status directly corresponds to their “proximity” to Whites.
There are two scenarios of social interactions between Whites and non-Whites: 1) Small number of White people surrounded by non-Whites (South Africa, Rhodesia), 2) Small number of non-Whites, surrounded by Whites (Australia). In first case scenario, Whites always act as the element of organization. During colonial times in Africa, for example, those Blacks who maintained social contacts with White settlers enjoyed considerably higher social status, comparing to their brethrens. The second case scenario is much more interesting, as it directly relates to the subject of this study. As we have mentioned earlier, the proponents of making Australian immigration laws more lenient, never get tired of pointing out at non-White immigrants’ hard-working qualities, their existential toughness, and even their “ancient culture”. For most of naïve White Australians, such arguments do make sense, because they can see with their own eyes that non-White immigrants are quite capable of advancing themselves socially, after having arrived to this country. There are many examples of non-White immigrants, who could only dream of filling up their stomachs with decent food in their native countries, becoming upstanding citizens, within a matter of few years, after their landing in Australia. They buy houses, expensive cars and can well afford snorting cocaine and having sex with White prostitutes. How can they do it? If they are so industrious, intelligent, and hard-working, then how come their native countries are so poor? Why is it that in their countries these people often live like animals, while being able to do very well in Australia and to even teach White Australians how to live their lives? But there are no miracles. If non-White immigrant was unable to earn a lot of money in country of his origin, while becoming a prosperous individual in Australia, then it would only be logical, on our part, to conclude that such individual’s ability to prosper here corresponds to his ability to exploit a social system, created by Whites for Whites – he makes his money on us. And the most disgusting about the whole situation is that White Australians often help such immigrants, by willing to defend their “human rights” and by shedding crocodile tears over “unfair treatment of immigrants”, without realizing that by doing it, their bring closer their own demise.
While the number of non-White immigrants remains comparatively small, the society does not experience any problems – medically speaking, social illness is being in the stage of incubation, which is why its effects can hardly be recognized. However, when this number attains a critical mass, the illness enters its next stage, when more and more White citizens beginning to realize that non-White immigrants pose a social threat. But at this stage, only a surgical intrusion can bring about relief. Given the fact that Whites do not posses a systematic racially-biological worldview, performing a social surgery, for the purpose of removing society’s cancerous cells, on their part, becomes problematic. As a result, White citizens beginning to actually adapt to non-Whites, because there is absolutely no way they can get rid of them. This is why non-Whites are being given special privileges, such as “affirmative action”, this is why law enforcement agencies try not to notice immigrants’ violations of law, and this is why non-Whites begin to demand compensations for “historical injustice”, with non-Whites’ strategic goal becoming obvious to more and more citizens – they simply want to be fully exempted from the law and not to be required to work. In other words, Whites’ complexity is being lowered at the expense of non-Whites’ complexity being artificially increased.
This is how the whole situation appears to be, from thermo-dynamical point of view: non-White countries are interested in getting rid of social entropy, while needing energy. By creating social preconditions that prompt their citizens to immigrate into traditionally White countries, they “kill two rabbits in one shot” – they relieve themselves of demographical burden, while gaining access to the additional sources of energy, as immigrants, after having established themselves in White countries, periodically come home to spend their money. Non-White social entropy cannot be thrown into the space. This is why it is being thrown into White countries. In other words, non-Whites strive to solve their socio-political problems at our expense – they organize their own countries by the mean of disorganizing our. And, as always, White Liberals strive to do their best to speed up the process of Australia being deprived of its national integrity.
Tom Dusevic’s article “Slim Pickings: Should Australia Embrace Guest Workers From the South Pacific Islands?” illustrates the validity of this statement, as author does not seem to think that there is anything wrong with suggesting that the reason why Australia need to allow guest workers is to actually help these workers’ countries: “In the miserable shanty’ burbs of Honiara, there are no jobs for school leavers. Even those few who have pursued higher learning are stuck. The new mainstay of the economy, the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, is not recruiting people whose paltry work skills consist of helping out in the family garden or running a betel-nut stall. Boredom and mischief await those who come to the capital from distant provinces… Free-market hardliners argue that by admitting guest workers, Australia would take the pressure off Pacific leaders to reform their economies and improve their governance. Certainly, Australia’s development (and security) ideal must be to help create stable and self-sustaining neighbours” (Dusevic, p. 8). As lawyers say in situations like this – we rest our case.
The reason why non-White immigrants cannot succeed in their own countries is because there are nobody to exploit. In countries of Third World, citizens simply do not have channels that would allow them to get rid of their existential entropy. This is why these countries are associated with absence of cultural and scientific progress. Third World is the organism that does not tolerate its own social parasites – weeds can never attain a rapid growth in the area densely populated by other weeds. However, when being allowed to take roots in wheat field, weeds begin to grow very fast, while sucking the life-force out of wheat. Non-White immigrants are the entropy, thrown out of Third World countries into Australia. They are the part of our own energy that is being taken away from us and forced to work against us.
The process of Australia becoming “africanized” and “asianized” continues to gain momentum, as we speak. Unfortunately, there are only very few responsible politicians in Australia, who are able to rely on their sense of logic, while discussing the issue of immigration. Their honesty often cost them their offices, because in today’s Australia, citizens’ patriotism is now being referred to as indication of their “close mindedness”, which in its turn, is considered as violation against the dogma of political correctness.
The inductive conclusion, we came to in previous part of this study, suggest that there should an extensive evidence, which points out at non-Whites’ inability to fully integrate into Australian society. Such evidence does exist. However, in order to be able to discover it, we will need to fully utilise an analytical approach to reviewing printed and online materials, in regards to the issue of immigration. This is because the information, regarding non-White immigrants’ anti-social behaviour in
Australia, is being unofficially censored, before it becomes available to the public. For example, during the course of Sydney’s racial riots in 2005, Australian mainstream Medias were only briefly mentioning the fact that at this time, it was very dangerous for Sydney’s White residents to even leave their houses, because they would be facing the prospect of being dragged out of their cars and beaten up by the gangs of non-Whites, with police being given order to try not to interfere, in order not to provoke even more violence. If we stuck to the official version of what instigated these riots, it will appear that it is only “neo-Nazis” that should be blamed for turning Sydney into the battleground. According to controlled Medias, hard-working immigrants were being attacked without a provocation, on their part, for simply trying to “explore their ethnic uniqueness”, by pushing drugs on the street, by killing and skinning cats and serving them in ethnic restaurants, and by gang-raping Australian White women. Here is how Bernard O’Riordan describes what happened in his article “Race Riots Turn Sydney’s Suburbs into Battleground”: “Draped in Australian flags and singing Waltzing Matilda, the alcohol-fuelled crowd attacked people of Middle Eastern appearance whom they blamed for an assault on their lifestyles” (O’Riordan, 2005). Author does mention the fact that 90% of “people of Middle Eastern appearance” are actually illegal immigrants, who should not be here in the first place. The fact that they are nevertheless here, being preoccupied with raping White women indicates authorities’ unwillingness or inability to effectively address the issue. When elected officials, who are supposed to work on behalf of ordinary citizens, fail to execute their duties, then it is up to citizens to take the matter of insuring justice in their own hands, as it always used to be the case, throughout the history.
In his article “The Untold Story Behind the Riots in Australia” Sharon Lapkin provides us with information as to what instigated these riots: “In Australia this week amidst anger over an Islamic man’s rape conviction and the bashing of two Aussie life savers, working-class locals erupted in a rampage of anger and brawling in some of the worst racial riots in decades. But there is more to the story than is being repeated in the American mainstream media. Four days after he set foot in Australia, the rape spree began. And during his sexual assault trial in a New South Wales courtroom, the Pakistani man began to berate one of his tearful 14-year-old victims because she had the temerity to shake her head at his testimony” (Lapkin, 2005).
What is the reason for non-White immigrants to tend to indulge in violence on a progressive scale in recent years? It is a fact that their number has been drastically increased. In its turn, this proves the validity of our earlier conclusion as to the fact that ethnic immigrants are only concerned about pursuing their secular agenda, instead of trying to integrate into Australian society. Why is it that Australian authorities choose in favour of appeasing strategy, when it comes to dealing with sub-humans who begin committing horrendous crimes, in few days after they arrive to Australia? This is because their “variety” is lower then the “variety” of non-White immigrants. This is because society that it is based on hierarchical principles (vertical links), cannot compete with the society, whose members relate to each other horizontally (horizontal links). The hierarchical structure of Australian society tolerates White people’s inner entropy (“assisted living facilities”), whereas “ethnic gangs” do not tolerate existential inadequateness, on the part of their members. This is why uneducated illegals, who often do not speak English, have an upper hand, when dealing with Australian law enforcement agencies.
Let us explain this thesis with the example of Jews. These people are being spread throughout the world and despite the fact that there is no publicly recognized “centre of Jewish power”, Jews always work in interest of each other, because they are united by this very interest, rather by some abstract ideal, as it is the case with Whites. The same applies to non-White immigrants – they are self efficient (within a context of exploiting the system), which is why they are capable of acting autonomously, unlike Whites, who often cannot act decisively, even when their very survival is concerned, unless being given “order” from above.
Why is it that many educated Europeans are being denied entry to Australia as immigrants, whereas ships filled with Pakistanis and Chinese continue to dump their loads in Australia, with majority of these people being able to eventually obtain legal status? This is because, thanks to “affirmative action” policy, more and more Australian immigration officers now have slanted eyes and many of them also have towels wrapped around their heads. Unlike White people, representatives of ethnic minorities in Australia are being governed by the “call of blood”, rather then by their sense of logic. This is why it is conceptually wrong to refer to “aliens” as only people without the legal status. A Pakistani individual can hold three Australian passports, but this does not make him less alien, because he will work in the interest of aliens (he is being “programmed” to do this biologically), thus undermining Australian national integrity. The element of the system cannot be properly defined by what it actually is, but by how it acts and interacts with other elements. Therefore, a non-White immigrant can actually be a good individual, but he will always subconsciously act in the interests of the ethnicity he belongs to, which in its turn, is incompatible with the idea of Australian national solidarity.
In his article “Foreigners Among Citizens”, Grant Farred makes an absolutely valid point, while suggesting that those who are in charge of designing immigration policies in Australia, must understand that possession of Australian passport, even on the part of native born non-Whites, should not prevent them from being removed from Australia, when they begin to act in socially inappropriate manner: “Lebanese Australians took over the streets of a number of “white” suburbs in the southwest of Sydney: from Cronulla to Maroubra to Brighton-le-Sands. The Lebanese transformed the White suburbs into no-go zones for the residents: the residents had nowhere to go, except stay in their homes. In this presentation, I distinguish the “foreigner,” the racialized, ethnicized Lebanese body, from the citizen, the white, Anglo-Celtic subject. The difference between the citizen and the foreigner, although Lebanese Australians are born and raised in Australia, the former is presumed to be not only native, but to have inalienable rights: the rights of the citizen. The politizen, on the other hand, is that subject of the Australian political whose rights can be suspended – or, worse – in the moment of crisis, precisely because in the event such as Cronulla the politizen is understood to have produced the crisis and so has effectively disenfranchised itself… The Lebanese “citizen” of Australia is understood as being located in the trajectory of 9/11, the “citizen” – or, the foreigner – that threatens the Western democracy from within and, in so doing, is responsible for its own tenuous right to citizenship… Even though the Lebanese are born in Australia, theirs is a precarious claim to “nativity, and not only because it is “recent”; the way the event of Cronulla denied them their “nativity” reveals the underlying presumption that they are native not to Australia but to “Lebanon,” the “Middle East.” Their “nativity” is signified as “Arab” or “Muslim” (Farred, p. 141. p. 145).
Cronulla racial riots took place because it was bound to happen. And it is not the Middle Eastern sub-humans that consider women as such that who do not even have a soul, who should be solemnly held accountable for what happened, but our own “respectable” politicians, who never get tired of praising “multiculturalism” as only appropriate ideological foundation for designing socio-political policies in this country. As saying goes – when God wants to punish a person, he deprives him of its ability to think logically. Who are the people that officials blame for the events that took place at Cronulla Beach? Are they Middle Eastern rapists and murderers?
Are they the immigration officers who allowed these people to land in Australia? No. It is imaginary “neo-Nazis”. The editorial “Neo-Nazis in Race Riots”, which can be found on the web site of Sydney Morning Herald, quotes Sydney’s Police Minister Carl Scully, who said the following: “There appears to be an element of white supremacists and they really have no place in mainstream Australian society, those sort of characters belong in Berlin 1930s. I’m horrified that amidst that large crowd were pretty much people who have pretty ugly views” (SMH, 2005). We do not deny Minister his right to refer to Australian patriots as “people who have ugly views”, but we do question his professional adequacy, since his public remarks create preconditions for the new race riots to take place in the future. It appears that in today’s Australia, in order for an individual to qualify for governmental office, he or she must be insane or at least to try to pretend being insane. Such situation, of course, cannot be referred to as normal. Therefore, we can only wish that the next victim of ethnic violence in Australia would be Minister’s wife, as only this might result in him starting to do his job, instead of coming up with statements that have nothing to do with the reality. The same applies to other Australian politicians, who prefer to live in safe white suburbia, while publicly stating their allegiance to the doctrine of “multiculturalism” – all they need is a “reality wake up call”. Then, they will be less likely to refer to citizens who raise Australian national flag, as “neo-Nazis”. Whether we want it or not, but the truth is – the majority of Australian “respectable” politicians and governmental officials are nothing but traitors, who should be held accountable for many White Australians being put through the hell of experiencing “diversity” at first hand, especially when women are concerned. In her article “Racist Rapes: Finally the Truth Comes Out”, which is also available on the web site of Sydney Morning Herald, Miranda Devine writes: “So now we know the facts, straight from the Supreme Court, that a group of Lebanese Muslim gang rapists from south-western Sydney hunted their victims on the basis of their ethnicity and subjected them to hours of degrading, dehumanising torture. The young women, and girls as young as 14, were “sluts” and “Aussie pigs”, the rapists said. So now that some of the perpetrators are in jail, will those people who cried racism and media “sensationalism” hang their heads in shame? Hardly. The journalists, academics, legal brains and politicians who tried to claim last August that the gang rapes of south-western Sydney were just a run-of-the-mill police blotter story being beaten up by racists, scaremongers and political opportunists don’t ever want to acknowledge the truth about that ugly episode in Australian history” (Devine, 2002).
It is important to understand that nobody have delegated the hawks of political correctness with the right to impose their political views upon the rest of citizens. They have as much right to promote the concept of “multiculturalism” as White Australians have the right to promote the concept of “White Australia”. It would be much easier for those Whites who believe in “celebration of diversity” to move to Indonesia, China or Pakistan, instead of waiting for Australian society to become truly multicultural. The therapeutic effects of traveling abroad in search of places freed from “fascist euro-centrism” can be illustrated with the example of African-Americans. Many of them travel to Africa, in order to explore their “ethnic uniqueness” to even further extent; however, as practice shows, upon their return back to America, most of them refuse to be referred to as African-Americans and simply want to be called Americans.
The laws of thermo-dynamics imply that “void of energy” cannot last for too long. It is not only in Australia that White people are being gradually deprived of their existential vitality. The same process is gaining momentum in U.S, Canada, France, Britain and Germany. Only Eastern European countries, such as Ukraine and Poland still manage to effectively deal with the hordes of illegals, who want to settle and to begin paraziting on the body of a host nation. At the beginning of 20th century, White people accounted for 30% of world’s total population, whereas today, they only account for 5%. Whites are the specie on the brink of extinction. Why is it that ethnic minorities in Western countries are allowed to “celebrate their uniqueness”, whereas Whites, who deserve to do it more then anybody else, are being deprived of such possibility? The answer to this question cannot be found neither in mainstream Medias nor in the Bible. Governmental officials cannot provide us with answer either, while refusing to even discuss it. However, the answer is very simple – at this historical period, Whites are being deprived of their willpower and physical strength, while only retaining their intelligence, which in its turn corresponds to so-called “theory of three generations”. Let us briefly describe the subtleties of this theory.
The history of Western civilization can be thought of as the continuous succession of generations that posses a specific psychological traits. For example, in Homer’s poems, the characters are defined almost exclusively by their sheer will-power. There is nothing else about them. Such people are usually being referred to as representatives of “first generation”. They are the fathers of nations, great military leaders and explorers. The history of their lives is read like an epic. People that belong to “second generation” have both – strength and intellect. They are the ones who build and conquer, while strengthening the foundation of earlier accomplishments. Martin Luther, Columbus, and Shakespeare, for example, are the typical representatives of “second generation”. As history progresses, people slowly loose their strength and all that there is remaining is intellect. The end of 20th century is strongly associated with emergence of people, who clearly belong to “third generation”, or as they are being commonly referred to – “generation X” and “generation Y”. They are undoubtedly intellectual, but they have neither the strength nor will-power. They even lack the courage to admit to themselves that they do not like the idea of multiculturalism, while explaining their willingness to live in “white suburbia” by the fact that such suburbia is associated with “better schools” and “safer living”. Whereas Whites that belonged to “second generation” used to conquer and colonise other countries, the “third generation” Whites allow their own countries to be colonised by hordes of non-White illegals, even though that these illegals can be rounded up, put on the boat, and shipped to where they came from in the matter of few weeks.
It is important to understand that the “theory of three generations” is only applicable to White race, as such that continuously evolves. Other races have become fully “specialized” – they can only advance for as long as they are able to establish close contacts with Whites, which fully corresponds to the essence of Darwinian theory of evolution. For example, Chinese have been living for thousands of years in the same existential mode and continue to do so even now – the Communist ideology simply corresponds to their psyche as people who “got stuck in time”. The same can be said about Arabs – they still live by the “word of Allah”, without even trying to adjust Koran to modern realities, unlike Whites, who have been continuously trying to interpret Bible so that the “holy book” would make more sense in their eyes. The spiral concept of history implies continuous “generational” evolvement. In other words, it has always been the matter of very short time, before representatives of “third generation” would be replaced by representatives of “first generation” and so on. Traditionally, such replacement has been associated with social and environmental cataclysms.
There are many indications that point out to the fact that Western civilization stands on the brink of new cataclysm (continuous process of global warming and the crush of financial markets in America). When this happens, the chances of every Western country to survive geopolitically will correspond to the sheer number of its remaining citizens, capable of reinstating civilization. It is needles to say that only Whites are capable of doing it, with the known history of humankind serving as the best proof to this statement. We all know what happened in New Orleans, when it was struck by hurricane Katrina – after having realized the absence of central authority, Blacks immediately began to loot stores and houses of White Americans and to kill each other while doing it, which is why National Guards had to be brought to the area, simply to reinstall some form of social order. Therefore, it is the matter of foremost importance to insure that White Australians remain masters of this country, even despite the fact that many of them fully deserve to be gang-raped by Blacks and Arabs, as the price for their inability to utilize their brain cells, when it comes to discussion of social and political matters. As practice shows, children of even the most decadent Whites can grow into responsible individuals, capable of carrying “White man’s burden”, for as long as they are not being subjected to Liberal brainwashing ever since their early childhood. This is why, adjusting Australian immigration policy to correspond to the notion of mental sanity is so important.
In this part of the paper, we will discuss the literature that explores the positive effects of Australian current immigration policy being adjusted to the dogma of multiculturalism, in order to expose these effects as being counter-productive, in their essence. In its turn, this will allow us to prove that adopting the method of inductive inquiry, within a context of dealing with the subject of this study, was appropriate, on our part. We have already established an inductive thesis that non-White immigration to Australia undermines this country’s national integrity. However, the only effective method of depriving opposite opinion, in this regard, of its intellectual validity, is to reveal the argumentation of those who promote Australia’s “darkening”, as lacking conceptual depth. The best way to do it is to provide readers with different perspective on examples of ethnic immigrants’ ability to integrate into Australian society.
Even a brief look at arguments of those who argue in favour of allowing newly arrived immigrants to remain loyal to their cultural traditions, as such that does not interfere with the process of their assimilation into Australian society, reveal these arguments’ methodological inconsistency. For example, in his article “We Are One, We Are Many: Portraits of Australian Bilingual Schools”, Donald Hones relates immigrants’ children ability to attend bilingual schools to their chances of becoming productive members of Australian society: “In many ways the contexts of immigrant bilingual education in Australia model those in the United States. Each nation has experienced tremendous growth through immigration over the last 200 years. Yet, despite the variety of languages spoken by immigrants at arrival, most languages have declined within a few generations faced with the overwhelming dominance of English in formal education and the media. Each nation has seen support for bilingual education grow in the 1970s, only to be replaced by disdain, or open animosity, at different levels of local, state and national governments during the ensuing decades” (Hones, 2005). If we bring author’s line of logic to its ultimate conclusion, it will appear that the public hullabaloo, associated with “immigrants’ inability to explore their cultural traditions”, should have started as early as 1945, when Australia, for the first time, saw the large influx of European immigrants from countries other then Britain. Yet, there is no even a slightest proof that European immigrants, at that time, suffered from inability to send their children to bilingual schools. In fact, it is exactly the fact that these immigrants did not want to do anything with countries of their origin, after their arrival here, which accounted for their ability to flourish on Australian soil. This is because these immigrants never felt themselves as being much different from the rest of native-born Australians, which explains the fact that it would never occur to them to utilize the issue of “civil rights” as the way of taking advantage of Australian social system. It does not take a genius to realize that providing ethnic immigrants with opportunity to send their children into bilingual schools only strengthens the preconditions for the members of ethnic minorities to choose in favor of secularized form of existence. Therefore, it is nothing but neo-Liberal nonsense to associate bilingual education with immigrant children’s ability to become real “Aussies”.
It cannot escape our attention that so-called “success stories”, on the part of non-White immigrants, cannot be discussed outside of government actually helping these people to attain social prominence. Also, these “success stories” are described in very general terms, with authors striving to provide as little details as possible, within a context of making actual point. For example, in his book “Big White Lie: Chinese Australians in White Australia”, John Fitzgerald clearly confuses Chinese immigrants’ ability to settle down in Australia and to make a good living here, with their ability to actually benefit native-born Australians with by their presence, outside of opening Chinese restaurants and Chinese laundromats. If Fitzgerald’s book was to be freed of irrelevant blabbering, which corresponds to 90% of book’s volume, then author’s point would be reduced to his realization of the fact that: “Chinese Australians survived in White Australia more robustly than earlier observers generally assumed” (Fitzgerald, 2007). As we have stated earlier, we do not argue Asians’ ability to survive in socially hostile environment; however, this can hardly be thought of as indication of their social value, just as cockroaches’ ability to survive, while being left without food for lengthy period of time, does not correspond to their actual usefulness. We fully understand the reasons why in “multicultural” Australia people like Fitzgerald are at liberty of establishing a strong connotation between words “white”, “lie” and “evil”, without being charged with “hate mongering”, as it is often the case with White Australians who rise our national flag, while confronting Third World scum out on the streets. At the same time, we believe that it is not only “chosen people” who should be allowed to take a full advantage of freedom of speech in this country, therefore, we will refer to Fitzgerald’s book as to what it truly is – a “Big Jewish Lie”.
In his article “Envying Australia Makes a Lot of Sense”, which can be found on the web site of Thought Leader, Fitzgerald’s “spiritual compatriot” David Saks, comes up with additional arguments, which are meant to substantiate ethnic immigrants’ “usefulness”. Saks’ positive impressions of Australia appear to strongly relate to the fact that this country has embraced the policy of multiculturalism: “There was the bus driver (Pakistani) who brusquely refused my offer to give him a hand in unloading our luggage, the implication being that this was his job and I should back off. And there were the relaxed and cheerful shop workers, many of them of East Asian origin, who served me with such unfeigned friendliness” (Saks, 2008). We can only wait until Saks incorporates his observations, regarding Australian multicultural reality, into some kind of book, intended to fight “white lies”.
Very often, authors who speak in favor of liberalizing Australian immigration laws, go as far as suggesting that it is not only ethnically diverse immigrants that represent an objective value as “human resources”, but also those who are being physically and mentally handicapped. For example, in her article “Don’t Leave Home Without Your Passport”, Sera Mirzabegian talks about the case of Cornelia Rau, which was being held in immigration detention centre for a while, despite the fact that she is actually an Australian citizen. Author never mentions the fact that this “Australian woman” should have never been allowed to immigrate here in the first place, as person who suffers from a severe mental disorder. Mirzabegian still considers her an “upstanding citizen”, while suggesting that Australia will benefit immensely from bringing here even more retards, sexual maniacs and alcoholics, because these people seem to be more capable of “celebrating diversity”: “Asylum seekers experiencing mental illness continue to be denied proper medical treatment while in detention and their cries for help often go unnoticed because their status as ‘illegals’ makes them invisible and forgotten. The only good thing to come out of Ms Rau’s detention and deplorable treatment is that it throws some light on the forgotten ‘illegals’, especially those with mental illness” (Mirzabegian, p. 42). Apparently, author considers the application of word “illegal”, while referring to people, as something horrible, which betrays her as another Liberal “dreamer”. There can only be so much oil, gas and food in the world, but there can never be a shortage of “human resources”, as people tend to indulge in sex on continuous basis. It is only logical for Australian immigration authorities to strive to prevent existentially inadequate individuals from landing in this country, since we have enough of our own “human waste”, representing a heavy burden to Australian taxpayers.
The fact that Australian Christian leaders are supposed to be only concerned with “divine affairs”, does not prevent them from sticking their noses into the matters that have nothing to do with their professional activity. Father Frank Brennan is a good example of such religious leader. In his numerous speeches, he encourages Australian Catholics to think of “boat people” as simply human beings, who deserve as much right to live in Australia as anybody else. It is very doubtful that Father Brennan is being driven by some malicious intent, while doing it. Nevertheless, his “political sermons” result in many Australians being spiritually disarmed, while facing the clear and immediate danger of “immigrants’ flood”. In his article “What Can We Do to Further Protect Human Rights in the Next Commonwealth Parliament?”, which can be found on the web site of Australian Catholic University, Father states the following: “Whether or not we have a national bill of rights, we need to nurture a more deeply rooted culture of respect for human rights among governors and the governed. It will be increasingly difficult for the jurisprudentially and geographically isolated Australia to strike the right balance, maintaining respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, a commitment to the rule of law, and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need” (Brennan, 2008). It appears that, while spreading “good news”, Brennan has forgotten of what the concept of intellectual integrity stands for. Even a trained monkey can operate with such sophistically sounding but meaningless concepts as “pluralism”, “egalitarianism”, “tolerance” or “social consensus”. But how does the “holy farther” propose to “strike a balance” between human dignity and the law in practice? The law clearly states – those who came to Australia illegally are the subjects of deportation, period. It is whether we abandon the law and let Australian society to exist in the state of anarchy, or we enforce this law, by applying whatever the means necessary, because only in societies ruled by the law that social, cultural and scientific progress is possible. Such words as “culture” or “science” are simply absent in the Bible, which is why Brennan’s unfamiliarity with these terms is quite explainable. What cannot be explained logically though, is the fact that this “lamb of God” is able to find audience among Australians who consider themselves as educated people.
As saying goes – those who do not learn from their own mistakes are doomed to repeat them. We have mentioned earlier of what happened to White Rhodesians, after they decided to “embrace diversity”, thanks to “holy fathers”, who were promoting the concept of “racial equality”. If White Australians prefer to have their ears closed to the voice of reason, the same will happen to them. The majority of self-proclaimed “refugee rights activists” consist of White Australians who were being spared the “pleasure” of actually interacting with “boat people” face to face. Whining about “poor deportees” constitutes the important part of their existential mode, along with drinking organic coffee at Starbucks and having their noses, lips and genitals pierced with silver rings. These Liberal “flower children” simply cannot live without being able to complain about “historical injustices”, as their full-time occupation. In his article “Palestinian Refugee Deported to Death”, which is available on the web site of Australian Green Left, Kiraz Janicke talks about potential Palestinian terrorist Akram al Masri being deported from Australia as something of which decent Australians should be ashamed. He suggests that Masri’s deportation resulted in many “refugee rights activists” finding themselves on the verge of nervous breakdown: “Sydney-based refugee rights activist Rachel Evans told Green Left Weekly that Akram’s deportation and death was a damning indictment of “Australia’s rotten refugee policies”. She said the minister’s July 29 announcement to partially dismantle the mandatory detention policy was a step in the right direction, but did not go far enough” (Janicke, 2008). Apparently, Evans does not realize that in the Middle East, the value of human life is cheap, which is why it is very likely that Masri’s mother grieved over the loss of her son to even lesser extent then his Australian “mates”. What people as Evans cannot understand is the fact that when hordes of “masris” will be released from Australian detention centers, their own comfortable lives will significantly drop in value, as well.
Thus, it appears that the proponents of relaxing Australian immigration policy, in terms of dropping mandatory detention for illegal aliens, cannot come up with rational considerations that would substantiate their opinion, in this regard. This is because they simply do not posses a clear understanding of social effects, associated with it. This comes as no surprise, given the fact that the effectiveness of Australian education system has been significantly reduced, as a result of this system being affected by neo-Liberal dogmatism. The socio-political concept of “White Australia” is now being discussed in terms of “pseudo-science”, while it is exactly the notion of “multicultural immigration” that can be described as utterly unscientific. It could not escape our attention that, despite the fact that the concept of “White Australia” is now being referred to as “evil” and “shameful”, not a single proof has been produced by neo-Liberals to justify such their view of this concept. It actually became an indication of good taste, on the part of countless “experts”, in the field of sociology, to pour dirt on this concept in their articles, even when these articles do not relate to discussion of immigration or any other important socio-political issues. For example, in his article “Report from Australia: Down Under No More”, which is dedicated to the discussion of Australian art, Richard Kalina comes with following statement: “Australia’s history as a Western country (and its mythology) is deeply tied to immigration, settlement and exploration. That history has been at times a fraught one. From the mass transportation of convicts from England and their subsequent brutalization, to the shameful “White Australia” immigration policies that persisted into the late 1960s, to the overtly genocidal treatment of Aboriginal culture, Australia has frequently stumbled trying to create a sense of what it was, is, and might one day be” (Kalina, 2005). This reminds us a situation in Soviet Union, before it collapsed – no articles were allowed to be printed in scientific journals, unless they contained the praise of Communism in the abstract. Soviet Union was the country where everybody hated Communism with passion, including the members of government, yet citizens were required to talk about Communism as the most progressive ideology, while in public. It is the same with the dogma of multiculturalism in Australia and in the rest of Western countries – people of high social standing are being unofficially required to declare their allegiance to this ideology in their public statements, under the threat of loosing their jobs.
After failing with their attempt to build Communism in Russia, the hooked-nosed proponents of “equality” turned into Liberals, Environmentalists and “refugee rights activists”, while striving to build Communism under disguise of multicultural utopia in just about every country where they happened to set their foot. We can only agree with Australian patriot Cameron McKenzie, who in his book “The Menace of Multiculturalism” exposes “lefties” as traitors: “The aim of internationalist-thinking liberals, academics, and “lefties” is – in effect – to destroy the Australian national and cultural identity. This “aim” is not the design of some well-organized conspiracy, but is rather the “logical” outcome of the thought-processes of liberal-internationalists, whose actions will cause such devastation; however, since these “trendies” are, or should be, well aware of the effects their policies will have on our national culture, their actions can only be regarded as deliberate” (McKenzie, 1997). The advocates of racial mixing utilize immigration as simply a tool of pushing their ultimate agenda of reducing Australians to the herd of speechless robots, deprived of their own opinions, regarding the issues of socio-political importance. Nevertheless, there are still many honest Australians who are not afraid of expressing their disgust with hordes of illegal aliens from Third World being allowed to stay in the country. In his article “Multiculturalism Becomes Poison for Social Capital”, which is available on the web site of The Australian Online Newspaper, Alan Wood quotes famous Australian historian John Hirst, who in 1994 was able to reveal the subtle properties of White Australians becoming aliens in their own country, by the mean of ethnic immigrants arriving here in swarms, while being assisted by the members of Australian “fifth column”: “Mainstream Australian society was reduced to an ethnic group and given an ethnic name: Anglo-Celt. Its right to primacy was denied; indeed, it became the most suspect of all ethnic groups given its atrocious past”. Wood finishes his article with absolutely valid suggestion that: “There is a substantial body of research that shows the ethnic diversity driven by immigration is destructive of social capital” (Wood, 2007).
Thus, the issue of immigration needs to be discussed in conjunction with how immigrants affect socio-political dynamics in this country. However, as we have illustrated in earlier parts of this study, immigrants’ ability to affect these dynamics positively or negatively directly correspond to their racial affiliation. To deny this is the same as denying the fact that Earth revolves around the Sun and not the other way around. The reason why White people were able to insure a continuous cultural and scientific progress in parts of the world where they used to dominate, is because of their ability of operating with highly abstract categories and their genetically predetermined idealism. Why is it that people in Third World African countries, for example, were never able to get out of extreme poverty, after being liberated from “White oppression”? This is because native Africans’ average IQ rate equals 60, with the vocabulary of Black Africans, who have never been in contact with Whites, accounting for 50-60 words. These people require food on daily basis, without knowing how to farm, how to make cars or how build computers. All they know is how to make babies. The population of Ethiopia has tripled, within the matter of last 25 years, while being constantly subjected to never-ending famine and civil wars. These people represent a demographical burden even to the countries of their origin; they are the “social entropy”, which destroys anything that it comes in touch with. Therefore, allowing people from Third World countries to immigrate to Australia can only have one result – our country being eventually reduced to the status of Second World nation, as the best case scenario.
The fact that most of White Australians belong to “third generation”, allows them to utilize highly technological applications, such as Internet with ease, while being deprived of understanding the essence of “existential basics”. Whites that belonged to “first” and “second” generations might have lacked the empirical knowledge. However, they were perfectly aware of the fact that “everything has to do with everything”. For example, they would never doubt that person’s physical appearance somehow relates to his existential mode. They knew that if a particular country saw booming births of boys, it was only the matter of very short time, before such county would declare war on its neighbors. They knew that molten gold can be easily mixed with other metals and that it would be simply impossible to rid such gold of impurities and to restore its “metallic nobility” afterwards. They knew how to define social implications of just about any physical phenomenon. Nowadays, despite the fact that White people were able to make a Moon landing, many of them tend to think of economics, politics and history as such do not interrelate with each other. This is why we get to continuously hear from “lefties” about how it is important to relax Australian immigration policy. Apparently, these people are simply incapable of utilizing their intellect – socialization with “boat people” has slowly degraded them intellectually to the level of their colored “mates”. They ceased to act as an integral part of the social system to which they originally belonged. Non-White immigration to Australia is nothing but a process of this nation being slowly succumbed to the social equivalent of cancer – body’s corrupted cells (Liberals) begin to spread cancer over the organism, while acting as agents of this deadly illness. We can only hope that coming natural and economical cataclysms, by which Australia is going to be affected just as any other Western country, will create political preconditions for the cancerous cells in Australian social organism to be removed surgically.
Ancient Romans understood one universal truth – individual’s worth corresponds to his ability to subject its animalistic instincts to his sense of rationale. After the process of racial mixing deprived Romans of their ability to remain masters of their own destiny, their civilization was destroyed by barbarians. In 1980, White Australians constituted 97% of population in this country. Today, their amount accounts for 85%, while continuing to decrease rapidly. Did it result in Australian society becoming more “tolerant”, or did this process benefit Australian economy, as it should have been the case, according to Liberal wackos?
After all – “diversity makes us stronger”. This question, of course, is rhetorical, since the answer to it is obvious – no. Thanks to the policy of “multiculturalism”, we now have areas in Sydney, where White Australians are simply not allowed to enter. We would be able to accept this fact as indication of Whites finally starting to “pay price for their crimes”, with historical justice triumphing, as a result, if we were presented with the proof that non-White immigrants that reside in these areas fare better, after being left to themselves. It is needless to say that such proof could never be produced in principle. Garbage on the streets, drug dealers openly selling cocaine, almost total unemployment – this is the normal way of life for the people who were supposed to enrich Australia culturally. This is the fact that majority of White Australians are well aware of, but only very few of them dare to speak out against their country being artificially reduced into “bangladesh” or “pakistan”. Just as we have illustrated earlier, despite the fact that Australia is considered as democratic country, an unofficial Liberal censorship prevents many citizens from openly suggesting that the objective reality does not have anything to do with wishful thinking of self-proclaimed guardians of public morality in this country. The controlled Medias apply labels of “racists” and “sexists” to citizens at will. However, it becomes harder and harder for Liberal traitors in Australia to contain the inconvenient truth. In his article “Ghetto Youth a Multiculturalist Legacy”, Keith Windschuttle expresses his concerns over destructiveness of current immigration policy in rather academic manner: “In the 1980s immigration policy switched from national interest to ethnic preference, from demographic and labour market need to family reunion. In the name of cultural diversity, the bureaucrats in charge used welfare and housing policy to promote ethnic community building”. In order to anticipate accusations of “racism”, Windschuttle adds: “It is not race that is the problem but culture” (Windschuttle, 2005). We, on the other hand, could not care less about Liberals’ labelling, while understanding perfectly well the “value” of their accusations. Therefore, we will adopt more radical view of the process of Australia’s national integrity being undermined by traitors who hold governmental offices. This view is being expressed in Shaun Walker’s article “Australia Fights Back”, from where we have already quoted earlier: “The government of Australia wants to take more money from White taxpayers and give it to non-White community centres and non-White scholarships and non-White welfare and many other social programs, designed specifically to take wealth from White people and give it to the non-Whites” (Walker, 2005). As we have stated in theoretical part of this research – our own energy is being taken from us and forced to work against us.
We do not hold illusions as to the fact that Liberal policies makers might reconsider the way to address the issue of immigration to Australia. However, we also understand that they will not be able to corrupt this country racially for much longer, as there is only so much abuse ordinary citizens can take. Therefore, we will outline principles for the immigration policy that will define foreigners’ chances to be allowed to settle in Australia in the future, after “experts on racial relations” are being removed from their offices and forced to do something useful for a change, like shovelling manure.
First of all, we cannot seriously discuss the designing of effective immigration policy, on the part of governmental officials, unless they posses a comprehensive, racially-biological worldview, which corresponds to the laws of nature. Once, the process of attaining high education in Australian universities and colleges will be freed of Liberal brainwashing, then it will only be natural for elected officials to strive to use immigration to Australia as the mean of strengthening this country, instead of destroying it, as it is the case nowadays. This, of course, does not imply that effective immigration laws should be more conservative. Quite contrary to that, we anticipate Australian immigration laws becoming more liberal, for as long as potential White immigrants are concerned. For example, nowadays, in order for individual of European ancestry to qualify for immigration to Australia, he must to whether posses a degree in nuclear physics (allegorically speaking) or to be an exceptionally wealthy person, who is willing to donate large amounts of money to Australian Government. The non-White immigrants, on the other hand, are being qualified to come here by taking advantage of “family reunion” program, within a context of Australian current immigration policy. According to this program, Australian residents are only allowed to sponsor the members of their immediate family to come to Australia. There are many cases of Europeans, for example, being denied immigration visa to Australia, simply because immigration authorities consider their long-established relatives in Australia, who are willing to sponsor these immigrants, as not being “close relatives”. This results in situation when many Europeans, who came to Australia on visitor’s visa to see their relatives, being denied landing, even despite the fact that their distant families in Australia are willing to fully take care of these people. It goes without a saying, of course, that these Europeans are fully capable of taking care of themselves, with requirement of “family sponsorship” being viewed by them as simply a legal technicality. At the same time, we have swarms of Pakistanis being allowed to immigrate to Australia, while claiming to be brothers and sisters of those who somehow managed to obtain a legal status in Australia, thanks to “refugees’ rights advocates”. The editorial “Immigration Lessons for Europe from Canada and Australia”, available on the web site of Work Permit.Com, points out as conceptual discrepancy of Australian current immigration policy: “With the Australian Citizenship Act of 1973 the system of favouring British citizens was modified, refocusing attention on ability, family links and humanitarian treatment of refugees. Today in Australia, laws on migration are highly regulated and linked to multicultural laws which promote equal rights and reciprocal understanding through the government program” (WP, 2006). Thus, the future Australian immigration policy can only begin to benefiting this country again, if it incorporates the principle of euro-centrism in its very core, as it used to be the case in comparatively recent past.
Second of all, potential immigrants to Australia will be required to undergo physical and mental examination, before being issued landing visas. Such practice is actually enacted nowadays, but it becomes more relaxed, as time goes by, as the case of Cornelia Rau indicates. Earth is becoming more overpopulated, as we speak, therefore we can actually pick individuals that we would like to see here, without giving much thought to whether we break imaginary “moral code” by doing it. In its turn, this will automatically deprive detained “refugees” of any chances to become legalised in Australia, because they will be considered as such that are more likely to indulge in anti-social behaviour, after being subjected to cruel treatment, on the part of immigration officers. In his article “Mental Illness ‘More Likely’ for Detainees”, Joseph Kerr provides us with statistical evidence, as to the fact that former detainees simply cannot be considered as psychologically adequate individuals: “Refugees on temporary visas who have been through Australia’s detention system are much more likely to suffer mental illness than those given permanent protection… More than 90 per cent of the temporary refugees suffered stress as a result of being interviewed by immigration officers” (Kerr, 2006). We have enough of our own psychopaths, to afford increasing their number in Australia, especially given the fact that, after being allowed to stay, many of former detainees begin demanding to be allowed to carry daggers in public, as a part of “exploring their ethnic uniqueness”.
Third of all, it must be considered an unlawful behaviour, on the part of religious figures, to intervene in the matters of state, when the issue of immigration is concerned. According to Australia Act of 1986, Church and State are separated in this country; therefore, the “lambs of God” should not even have a right to come up with public statements, which shed doubts on the policy of detaining “boat people” as being appropriate. If Australian Catholic leaders are so concerned about the fact that “boat people” are being treated unfairly, upon their arrival to Australia, then they should reconsider their dogma that encouraging people in Third World countries to use condoms, while having sex, is “evil”. Because it is exactly the fact that these countries are becoming overpopulated that prompts ever-increased number of illegal immigrants to try to come to Australia. When individuals like Father Brenann will be facing the prospects of prosecution, for trying to prevent immigration enforcement officers from performing their professional duties, then they will be much less likely to actively strive to cause harm to the well-being of this nation. As Patrick J. Buchanan in his book “The Death of the West” has rightly noted: “Great folly of Christian doctrine was probably never as glaringly revealed as by the insane policies the Christian churches implemented in the Third World.
The churches oppose contraception, sterilization, and abortion among their members. This results in exploding population growth which is further abetted by the medical care and food provided by the same churches. These churches, which entirely originate in the West, are raising the impoverished non‐White masses that flood our White nations” (Buchanan, 2001). At the same time, those Christian leaders, capable of speaking out against Australia’s “islamization”, should be given an official protection, because it often poses danger to their life. In their article “Christian Democrats Receive Death Threats”, available on the web site of The Australian Online, Peter Jean and Drew Cratchley talk about Christian Democratic Party’s leader Reverend Fred Nile, who was receiving death threats over the phone, because of his lack of “multicultural tolerance”: “Mr Nile, who is recontesting his upper house seat at the March 24 state election, on Saturday called for a 10-year ban on Islamic immigration. He wants the immigration department to give preference to persecuted Christians while studies on the impact of Islamic immigration are carried out during the moratorium” (Peter, Cratchley, 2007). We need to understand that, when the matter of very survival of White race in Australia is concerned, we should not limit ourselves to playing by rules, imposed by Liberal traitors. If public speeches of religious leaders promote the concept of “White Australia”, then these people will be allowed to appeal to citizens freely.
Fourth of all, non-White immigrants with Australian citizenship will be given a notice that their citizenship might be automatically revoked, once they are being caught indulging in illegal activities. They will be explained that it was a governmental mistake to allow them to settle in Australia in the first place. They will also be forbidden from marrying White citizens, as there is enough scientific evidence that points out at the practice of racial mixing as such that result in the birth of disproportional number of children affected by genetically predetermined illnesses. As practice shows, mongrelized citizens are being simply incapable of acting as responsible individuals, because their genetic makeup results in them being deprived of existential idealism. Moreover, when it comes to confrontation between representatives of ethnic minorities and Whites, such people always choose in favour of being affiliated with ethnic minorities, which is the reason why Black Americans will overwhelmingly vote for Barak Obama, as political figure who they feel will be protecting their interests, as opposed to interests of White Americans.
Fifth of all, it will become a criminal offence to promote the concept of multiculturalism, while discussing Australia’s immigration policy. No longer will the members of Parliament be able to get away with popularising degenerative socio-political doctrines. Therefore, we can only encourage such individuals as Kerry Nettle to come up with public statements that reveal their treacherous essence, as political figures – “The Greens will restore the Ministry for Multiculturalism and Ethnic Affairs, that was abolished in 1999. The Greens have a strong track record in supporting multiculturalism. We have defended multiculturalism when it has been attacked by John Howard and Morris Lemma” (NSW Greens, 2007). In not very distant future, Nettle’s public statements might serve as legal basis for his eventual indictment, as traitor of his race and his nation, because the last thing this country needs are non-White social parasites and their public defenders. We are fully aware of the fact that the usage of such words as “traitors” or “parasites” is not quite appropriate, within a context of writing an academic work. However, as saying goes – desperate times call for desperate measures. The fact that Australian society is being corrupted from within, due to current immigration policy, requires us to acknowledge this process as being artificially instigated by agents of foreign influence. We do not subscribe to the notion of political correctness, which is why we refer to people who are behind this process as to who they really are, without striving to sound overly polite. By doing it, we are simply returning a favour to Liberal politicians, who never hesitate labelling those who disagree with their opinions as “neo-Nazis”.
Despite the fact that findings of this study might appear as being ideologically affected, on the part of author, it nevertheless does not deprive them of their validity. The concept of intellectual integrity stands for person’s ability to express his views on the subject of research in clear and cohesive manner. The method of inductive inquiry, upon which we relied, throughout the study, requires researcher to have a general understanding of this subject, even prior to the actual research taking place. The fact that flood of non-White immigrants to Australia has caused and continuing to cause this nation a great deal of harm, has been recognized by majority of Australians. This is the reason why many of Australian mainstream politicians strive to utilize citizens’ discontent with multicultural insanity to their own advantage.
By making cosmetic changes to Australian immigration policy, as such that clearly prefers non-Whites over Whites, conservative politicians expect to increase their popularity among voters. In his article “Australians Debating Immigration and National Identity”, which is available on the web site of International Herald Tribune, Tim Johnston describes this process: “Australia is changing the name of its Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. But this renaming, which takes effect on Tuesday, represents a much deeper change in government policy: a shift of emphasis from celebrating the cultural diversity of its immigrant population to promoting an Australian cultural unity” (Johnston, 2007). This is the reason we strived not to dedicate too much attention to the current developments, within a context of governmental officials addressing the issue of immigration, as we consider them irrelevant, due to the fact that politicians simply do not posses scientifically substantiated understanding of why the concept of “multicultural Australia” can never work, in principle. In its turn, this can be explained by the fact that the empirical quality of Australian educational system of has been significantly reduced in last twenty years, since the time when it was being infused with pseudo-scientific notions of racial egalitarianism. The concept of Liberal ideological dictatorship, with Zionist-owned Medias playing the role of “fourth estate”, which had effectively replaced the democracy in this country, results in many citizens being actually afraid of their own “politically incorrect” thoughts, in regards to the issue of immigration. While discussing the counter-productive essence of multiculturalism, when applied to Australian socio-political realities, politicians and journalists are being afraid to admit that the reason why this degenerative doctrine can hardly be referred to as socially beneficial, is because the dogma of racial equality, instilled in these politicians, ever since their time in high school, is nothing but a myth. As George Orwell once said in his famous novel “Animal Farm” – “All animals are equal, but some of them are more equal then others”. This is why politicians, put in charge of designing immigration policy, will never be able to do a quality work, without clearly understanding that social dynamics in Western countries cannot be discussed outside of scientifically substantiated theory of biological evolution, to which people are subjected as much as animals and plants. Therefore, for Australian patriots it is the matter of little relevance whether the bunch of governmental bureaucrats, aimed at destroying Australia’s national integrity, will refer to themselves as Ministry of Multiculturalism or Ministry of Immigration. It is only when police stops arresting White Australians for raising our national flag, during the course of public rallies, that we will be able to consider the possibility of governmental policy makers’ becoming sane again.
As for today, Australians’ discontent with non-White immigration is being often referred to as purely irrational, in its essence. We are being told that the main reason why overwhelming majority of White Australians do not express much of enthusiasm about “celebrating diversity”, is because of various racial, religious and cultural prejudices, on their part. Andrew Jakubowicz’s article “Making Multicultural Australia”, which can be found on the web site of Multicultural History of Australia, provides us with the insight on the mindset of typical White Liberal, who is being convinced that it is Whites’ “existential irrationality” that that prevents them from being more open-minded, when it comes to accepting ethnically diverse immigrants as their neighbours: “The end of White Australia as a formal policy did not necessarily mean that there was universal support for non-European immigration – nor the end of discrimination, intolerance and prejudice against non-European immigrants. The debate about how “white” Australia should be was to remain a potent element in Australian political life” (Jakubowicz, 2007). Author could not be more wrong. It is not “prejudices” on the part of White Australians, which causes them to not be particularly happy, when ethnic immigrants move into White neighbourhoods, but their subconscious sense of self-preservation. For example, any sober-minded individual will refuse to jump in the lake filled with crocodiles. Is it because he is being “prejudicious” against crocs? No. This is because such individual is well aware of the fact that, after having jumped in the lake with crocodiles, he might not be able to get out. Crocodiles act in the way they were being programmed by the nature and we can hardly hold it against them. The same can be said about non-White immigrants – they are being programmed to destroy the integrity of White societies, because only this allows them to advance socially. Can we hold a grudge against these immigrants, because of this? No. We are fully aware that by doing it, they simply strive to survive physically and to propagate their kind. Can this serve as justification for Australia turning into Third World nation? No. The difference between responsible and irresponsible politicians is that first ones do “what is necessary”, whereas the second ones do “what it feels like doing”. Responsible politicians understand that the laws of nature can be referred to as “evil” or “unjust” as many times as we want, but this will not deprive these laws of their objective subtleties. In other words, laws of nature define surrounding reality, regardless of what our attitude towards such laws might be. The concept of “multicultural immigration” rests upon the dogma that all races are equal. However, the laws of thermo-dynamics point out to the fact that this cannot be possible by definition, because otherwise, human civilization would not be continuously progressing, as the state of “energetic entropy”, associated with such equality, would have prevented this process of taking place in apriori. It is impossible to “equalise” races (we can only talk about benefiting primitive races at the expense of depriving White race of part of its existential vitality), just as it is impossible to transfer warmth from colder object to warmer one. Non-White immigrants, of course, a far from trying to theoretically substantiate their right to live in Australia. All they care about is taking a practical advantage of abstract principles of social organization, created by White man’s existential idealism. Australia Act of 1986 proclaims theoretical equality of Australian subjects and contains legal provisions for citizens to be able to realize their existential potential to the full extent. This remains to be of little significance to non-Whites, because they are not satisfied with their theoretical equality, while striving to attain a practical one. However, the fact that they belong to “specialized specie” prevents them from attaining a full equality with Whites in fare competition. This is why we now have an “affirmative action” policy, which provides non-Whites with various privileges, when it comes to employment and education. In its turn, this entitles ethnic immigrants with the sensation of psychological superiority, because authorities’ continuous attempts to appease non-Whites, betray these authorities as powerless. In its turn, this allow them to come to conclusion that they can indulge in anti-social behaviour, without authorities being able to effectively put an end to it. The reality proves their conclusion, in this respect, as being absolutely valid, which is why racial riots at Cronulla Beach is not just an “ugly episode” in Australia’s history – they are the logical result of the “shameful policy of White Australia” being publicly ridiculed. These riots simply prove the validity of Pat Buchanan’s main thesis, expressed in the book from which we have already quoted: “There can be little doubt that the non‐Whites of the Third World are aware of the sentiments that denigrate White racial and cultural homogeneity. This helps pave the way towards a non‐White majority in, and eventually non‐White hegemony over Europe, North America and Australia. Even though White leftists and Christians dream of a “brotherhood of man,” non‐Whites feel they are engaged in a race war that is supposed to end with our extinction” (Buchanan, 2001).
This brings us to the discussion of how likely it is for Australian immigration policy to be adapted to realities of “post-industrial living” in the future and to whether the damage, caused by officials’ current approach to dealing with “boat people” is irreversible, in demographical sense of this word.
As we have proven earlier, it is the fact that White Australians are being slowly deprived of spiritual qualities, which allowed their forefathers to turn this vast continent into civilized country, which corresponds more then anything else to their current inability to effectively protect their interests, when it comes to confronting legal and illegal aliens. In its turn, this relates to the process of representatives of “third generation” acquiring a social prominence. This process has global significance, because it is not only Australia, which became the subject of close attention, on the part of potential non-White immigrants. In France, hardly a day goes by, without non-White immigrants and their “naturalized” children setting up cars on fire, looting stores and gang-raping White women. However, we cannot come up with even a single example of White French citizens being able to even try opposing the “multicultural reality” in corporate manner. The same applies to Germany – when a handful of German nationalists show up on the streets to protest against their country being invaded by Turks and Blacks, they usually end up being arrested by police en masse. Thus, we can conclude that it is not just a hypothetical willingness of Australian politicians to bring our immigration policy back to sanity, which will result in White Australians being able to leave their houses without the fear of coming in close touch with “multicultural reality”, but also global changes on the arena of international politics. It cannot escape our attention that there is very little factual difference between Australian governmental bureaucracy and the governmental bureaucracy in other Western countries – the same grey suits, the same unmemorable faces, the same politically correct rhetoric and the same ability to lie to voters in most convincing manner. In his article “The Club”, which is available on the web site of Nationalist Coalition, Dr. William Pierce provides us with insight on why the majority of “respectable” politicians in Western countries are being so preoccupied with shoving “multiculturalism” up citizens’ throats: “To have a major policy role in the government of any major White country, you’re supposed to be a member of what amounts to a private club — the Club — in which you have been carefully checked out and determined to be “safe”: which is to say, determined to be willing to take orders from the secret bosses of the New World Order. You can be a “conservative,” á la Ronald Reagan or George Bush, and be admitted to membership in the Club, so long as the Club’s bosses are sure you will do what you’re told to do, or you can be a flaming leftist, á la Bill Clinton or Al Gore. The one requirement is that you be corrupt, that you be a traitor to your people, that you sell your soul in return for the privilege of Club membership and the concomitant possibility of wealth and status and at least the semblance of power” (Pierce, 2000). In fact, we can talk of Australia as country that is being deprived of large portion of its national sovereignty, due to Globalization. This why when Kevin Rudd or John Howard talk about making Australian immigration laws stricter, it is nothing but a populist move, on their part. Australian politicians simply strive not to allow citizens’ popular discontent with multicultural insanity to be spilled onto the streets, as it happened in 2005, during the course of Cronulla Beach riots, because during the time of civil unrest, politicians who created socio-political preconditions for the acts of civil disobedience to take place, become very vulnerable. This is why Ministry of Multiculturalism had to be renamed back into the Ministry of Citizenship, with majority of bureaucrats retaining their offices.
Nevertheless, the fact that during Cronulla Beach riots, ordinary White Australians were able to show Middle Eastern scum where it belongs, allows us to look into the future with certain optimism. It is exactly because in 2005 White Australians proved themselves capable of taking the matter of insuring justice in their own hands, which caused Liberal politicians to realize that they have been pushing little too hard with promotion of multiculturalism. However, this does not mean that the events of Cronulla Beach had brightened “lefties” up. They were well aware of eventual consequences of them poisoning Australians ideologically, even before these consequences became obvious to just about anyone. Therefore, only the most short-sighted “lefties”, as Kerry Nettle, are going to continue to praise the multiculturalism, without realizing that by doing it, they strengthen anti-immigrant sentiment among Australians, which is why, it is only the matter of time, before they will be disposed of, in political sense of this word, as New World Order bosses do not tolerate stupidity, on the part of those who try to please them little too hard.
Thus, we predict that public debate on the issue of immigration will assume more subtle forms. Citizens are going to be told that certain mistakes were being done in the past (without exposing perpetrators of these mistakes), which is why it is now up to “experts” to design principles, upon which Australian new immigration policy will be based. The issue of adjusting Australian immigration to sanity will be bogged down in never-ending “committee hearings”, so that as many people as possible forget of what happened at Cronulla Beach in 2005. Then, the new “progressive” immigration policy will be eventually coined up, which will not differentiate much from the old one, in close comparison.
We also expect Australian politicians beginning to encourage ordinary citizens to take part in discussion of the issue of immigration, as it will allow transforming people’s discontent with Australia’s “darkening” into the form that does not represent any danger to the political establishment in this country. We anticipate more and more Australians beginning to express their opinions, in regards to immigration, in various Internet forums and discussion groups. In its turn, this will reduce the levels of social tension in Australian society.
However, as popular saying goes – fish begins to rot from the head. Only very naïve people can expect politicians, who had proven their professional incompetence in the past, to start working on behalf of their voters, rather then pursuing their personal agenda. Therefore, only a complete overhaul of Australian political system can result in the issue of immigration being addressed by politicians in the way it deserves to be addressed.
As we have mentioned in previous parts of this study, such overhaul will only be possible when Australia becomes affected by socio-political and environmental cataclysms that are about to take place in not too distant future. When this happens, Liberal notions of “tolerance”, “multiculturalism” and “cultural diversity” will cease to represent intellectual value, just as in time when the notion of “gentleman’s courteousness” ceased to affect men’s behavior on sinking “Titanic”.
As the part of Western civilization, Australia can be compared to Roman Empire in time of its decline. Back then, Romans were growing increasingly reluctant to act in socially productive mode, as result of their preoccupation with accumulating material riches. They were hiring barbarians to serve in Roman army, in exchange for gold; they were indulging in racial mixing, and they were building walls along Empire’s borders, while naively expecting that these walls would prevent hordes of “illegal” barbarians from coming in. We all know how Roman Empire ended up – it was being sacked by German barbarians, who took full advantage of Roman’s spiritual corruption. The fact that these barbarians belonged to White race, allowed them to partially restore Rome’s former glory, in form of “Holy Roman Empire of German nation”. Today’s Australia will not be quite as lucky. With population of 20 million and with the highest standards of living in the area of South-Pacific, it is being looked upon by slanted-eyed barbarians as the natural objective for their geopolitical expansion. Thanks to the policy of “multicultural immigration”, they were able to establish their “fifth column” in Australia. By 2030, population in China will reach 1.5 billion. There are also a lot of Indonesians, Vietnamese, Indians, Shri-Lankians and Blacks, who continue to multiply in ever-bigger numbers and who look down at White Australians as race of degenerates, because only degenerates can allow their house being infested with poisonous snakes, without realizing that these snakes pose danger. It is only natural for them to consider the fact that these degenerates enjoy high standards of living, without being able to protect their lifestyle, as the matter of utter injustice. In their eyes, it does not make a lot of sense that, for example, a good half of young people in Vietnam starves on continuous basis, whereas the old people in Australian “assisted living facilities” are able to enjoy gourmet meals daily, despite being burdened by their own existence. If Australia was not surrounded by ocean, it is not only the White people in this country that would have became history, long time ago, but also cats and dogs, as non-Whites consider these pets to be a “good eating”. However, instead of taking advantage of Australia’s geographical location, which allows our military to sink boats with illegals, even before they reach Australian territorial waters, we allow “boat people” to be “processed”, after they make a landfall, thus bringing closer our own demise.
It is only when our politicians will learn how to utilize the lessons of history that we will be able to see Australian immigration policy being finally rationalized. However, it is very unlikely to happen, for as long as proponents of multiculturalism are not being deprived of their legislative power. We have no doubt that this will eventually happen; however, there is no guarantee that it will not be too late to deal with consequences of their activity, after common sense finally triumphs in Australia.
Ashby, W. 1964. Introduction to Cybernetics. Routledge Kegan & Paul,.London, UK.
“Africans Rioting in Melbourne, Adelaide, and France (again). 2007. Australian Protectionist Party. Web.
Brennan, F. 2007. “What Can We Do to Further Protect Human Rights in the Next Commonwealth Parliament?”. Australian Catholic University. Web.
Buchanan, P. 2001. The Death of the West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization. New York, Thomas Dunne Books.
Bower, B. 2000. “Cultures of Reason”. Science News, v. 157, no. 4, Pp. 56-58.
Crock, M. 2007. “Defining Strangers: Human Rights, Immigrants and the Foundations for a Just Society”. Melbourne University Law Review, v. 31, no. 3, p. 1053-71.
Dusevic, T. 2005. “Slim Pickings: Should Australia Embrace Guest Workers From the South Pacific Islands?.” Time International (South Pacific Edition), v. 44, n. 18, p. 140-145.
Devine, M. 2002. “Racist Rapes: Finally the Truth Comes Out”. Sydney Morning Herald. 2008. Web.
Farred, G. 2007. “Foreigners Among Citizens”. Cultural Critique, v. 67, p. 141-59.
Fitzgerald, J. 2007. Big White Lie: Chinese Australians in White Australia, UNSW Press, Sydney.
Hartmann,T. 2003. “When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History” Common Dreams News Center. 2008. Web.
Hay, E., et. al., Refugee Status in Australia and the Cessation Provision: QAAH of 2004 v MIMIA. Alternative Law Journal v. 31 no. 3 (2006) p. 147-52.
Hones, D. 2005. “We Are One, We Are Many: Portraits of Australian Bilingual Schools”. Multicultural Education, v. 12, no. 3, p. 14-21.
Hay, E. 2006. “Refugee Status in Australia and the Cessation Provision: QAAH of 2004 v MIMIA”. Alternative Law Journal, v. 31, no. 3, p. 147-52.
Rubin, H. and Rubin, R. 1995. “Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data”. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mukherjee, S. 1999. “Ethnicity and Crime: An Australian Research Study”. Australian Institute of Criminology. 2008. Web.
Locke, E. 2007. “The Case for Inductive Theory Building”. Journal of Management, v. 33, no. 6, p. 867-890.
Immigration Restriction Act, 1901. Making Multicultural Australia. 2008. Web.
Jones, J. 2004. “Confronting Reality: Anti-Semitism in Australia Today”. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. 2008. Web.
Joppke, C. 2005. “Are ‘Nondiscriminatory’ Immigration Policies Reversible? Evidence from the United States and Australia”. Comparative Political Studies, v. 38, no. 1, p. 3-25.
O’Riordan, B. 2005. “Race Riots Turn Sydney’s Suburbs into Battleground”. Guardian Online. 2008. Web.
Phillips, T. 2004. “Personal Orientations Towards Australian National Identity Among British-born Residents”. Ethnic and Racial Studies, v. 27, no. 5, p. 732-56.
Lawrence, C. 2004. “Mental Illness in Detained Asylum Seekers”. Lancet (North American edition), v. 364, p. 1283-4.
Lapkin, S. 2005. “The Untold Story Behind the Riots in Australia”. Free Republic. 2008. Web.
Neo-Nazis in Race Riots. 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald. 2008. Web.
Saks, D. “Envying Australia Makes a Lot of Sense”. 2008. Thought Leader. Web.
Mirzabegian, S. 2005. “Don’t Leave Home Without Your Passport”. Alternative Law Journal, v. 30, no. 1, p. 42.
McKenzie, C. 1997. The Menace of Multiculturalism. Australian Nationalism Information Database. 2008. Web.
Jean, P. and Cratchley, D. 2007. “Christian Democrats Receive Death Threats”. The Australian Online. 2008. Web.
Janicke, K. 2008. “Palestinian Refugee Deported to Death”. Green Left Online. Web.
Kalina, R. 2005. “Report from Australia: Down Under No More”. Art in America, v. 93, no. 4, p. 77-83, 85.
Immigration Lessons for Europe from Canada and Australia. 2006. Work Permit.Com. 2008. Web.
Kerr, J. 2006. “Mental Illness ‘More Likely’ for Detainees”. The Australian Online. 2008. Web.
Mughan, A. 2006. “Anti-Immigrant Sentiment, Policy Preferences and Populist Party Voting in Australia”. British Journal of Political Science. v. 36, no. pt2, p. 341-58.
Morris, M. 2007. “In Perilous Waters: Single Female Migration to Post-Penal Tasmania!”. Nineteenth-Century Contexts, v. 29, no. 2/3, p. 295-309.
Multiculturalism at the Heart of Stronger Communities: The Greens NSW Platform for Celebrating Diversity. 2007. NSW Greens.
Johnston, T. 2007. “Australians Debating Immigration and National Identity”. International Herald Tribune. Web.
Jakubowicz, A. “Making Multicultural Australia”. 2007. Multicultural History of Australia. 2008. Web.
Pierce, W. 2000. “The Club”. The Nationalist Coalition. 2008. Web.
Osborn, P. 2002. ““Betrayal of Zimbabwe”. Rhodesian. Net. 2008. Web.
Khoo, S. 2008. “Which Skilled Temporary Migrants Become Permanent Residents and Why?”. International Migration Review, v. 42, no. 1, p. 193-226.
Ley, D. 2007. “Countervailing Immigration and Domestic Migration in Gateway Cities: Australian and Canadian Variations on an American Theme”. Economic Geography, v. 83, no. 3, p. 231-54.
Steele, S. 2007. “Trafficking in People: The Australian Government’s Response”. Alternative Law Journal, v. 32, no. 1, p. 18-21.
Skulan, C. 2006. “Australia’s Mandatory Detention of ‘Unauthorized’ Asylum Seekers: History, Politics and Analysis under International Law”. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, v. 21, no. 1, p. 61-110.
Weber, L. 2007. “Policing the Virtual Border: Punitive Preemption in Australian Offshore Migration Control”. Social Justice, v. 34, no. 2, p. 77-93.
Wood, A. 2007. “Multiculturalism Becomes Poison for Social Capital”. The Australian Online. 2008. Web.
Walker, S. 2005. “Australia Fights Back”. The National Alliance. 2008. Web.
Wu, W. 2007. “A Freespirit’s Observations On Taiwanese/Oriental Life/Mentality”. Happier Abroad.Com. 2008. Web.
Windschuttle, K. 2005. “Ghetto Youth a Multiculturalist Legacy”. The Australian Online. 2008. Web.
Webster, W. 2006. “Transnational Journeys and Domestic Histories”. Journal of Social History, v. 39, no. 3, p. 651-66.