The transmutation of America

From Australia.To News:

Transmutation of America into a tense multicultural bouquet: Can it happen to Australia?

By Frosty Wooldridge

An odd thing happened to the United States in the 21st century as it tripped into quicksand over its guilt-ridden past of discrimination toward minorities such as Native Americans, Asians, Blacks and Latinos.

What happened?

After all, the fact remains that European settlers trespassed, ravaged, and slaughtered 522 Indian tribes—their languages, cultures and ways of life. Anyone reading Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee or The Sand Creek Massacre cannot help but cry at the brutality committed against the aborigines of North America in the 1800s.

To see the Indian reservations today, one weeps at rampant alcoholism, domestic abuse and utter hopelessness of cultures unable to operate in the white man’s world—but totally cut away from their own traditions. It’s sad beyond belief.

Their situation may be much like present day Palestine and Israel. The Jews of Israel commandeered the Muslims’ lands around Gaza, but unlike the docile American Indians, the Muslims responded with rockets, bombs and modern weaponry. An uneasy tension and outright hatred percolates throughout the region.

Back in the USA, without a doubt, African-Americans still suffer from being ripped out of their countries in Africa while forced into slavery. They lost their languages, cultures and ways of life. Traders shredded family members at will and with malice. The white man tore them from their agrarian lives into the mechanized age.

In the case of impoverished Mexico, Latinos crossed into the USA willingly to work the fields while enduring racism on every level. Of course, they hated the ‘gringo’ equally, feeling that he stole their lands.

But in 1965, thanks to U.S. Senator Teddy Kennedy, the United States commenced changing its ethnic makeup by importing millions upon millions of immigrants from all over the third world. Under the guise of ‘multiculturalism’ and ‘diversity’, the citizens of the United States watch(ed) indolently as their own culture, language and way of life vanished(s) into the hands of a peaceful, methodical and invading armada of humanity. Within the past 20 years, over nine million Middle Eastern Muslims now make the United States their home. They expect to grow to 20 million in a few decades.

Unlike the American Indians that maintained small populations, Latinos, by 2042 will become the new majority within the United States—totally displacing the white man’s culture and language within a 60 year period. As an ethnic group, they do not tolerate blacks or whites, and it will be interesting to see how they abide with Muslims.

America immigrated itself out of its identity and into a multicultural and diversity predicament. As President Teddy Roosevelt said, “The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, or preventing it from continuing as a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.”

All the while, everything in America changes beyond its own understanding—much like what happened to the American Indians. Upon his final capture, Warrior Chief Geronimo said, “I think we have lost our way of life forever.”

America spirals into the same dilemma on a gargantuan scale. In the past 40 years, the United States revoked its laws, its culture, its language and its Constitution in order to accommodate outcries from minorities, dispossessed and foreign religions.

In the 60s, Lyndon Baines Johnson offered billions to bring the poor into the Great Society. Tax dollars paid for college tuition for minorities. Every child passed to the next grade whether they accomplished the work or not. As a teacher, I saw ‘affirmative action grading’ allow children who wouldn’t do their work—passed to the next grade. Later, ‘affirmative action jobs’ and ‘quotas’ based on color rather than standards became the norm for workers and students.

But today, Black Americans suffer terrific unemployment, illiteracy and broken families. Millions of kids grow up with a single parent. Violence, ghettos, obesity and hopelessness prevail. In California, Latino gangs dominate Los Angeles neighborhoods as schools ‘house’ students before ‘graduating’ them to the streets, unable to read or write. Millions of unwed teens bring babies into the world with no hope of supporting them other than taxpayer welfare. In Detroit, Michigan, according to NBC anchor Brian Williams, high school dropout rates last year hit 76 percent.

Result: a horrific 32.2 million Americans subsist on food stamps! You must work to get your hands around that number! In America? How? Why?

Today, the same U.S. Congress that perpetrated our massive transmutation into a multicultural society, ponders the appointment of Latino Judge Sonia Sotomayor. By her own admission, she represents ‘affirmative action quotas’ into law school and appointments. She most likely will become an ‘affirmative action’ Supreme Court judge. Yet, when minorities scream at anyone making even the slightest racist statement, she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male that hasn’t lived that life.”

Americans will find themselves in new conditions as this new legal, multicultural experiment manifests in the coming years. However, it does not portend well for anyone no matter what their race. In a speech in Washington DC, former Colorado Governor Lamm said, “If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let’s destroy America. It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall, and that, “An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.”

“Here is how they destroyed their countries,” Lamm said. “First, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bi-cultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar Seymour Lipset put it this way, “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, Lebanon, Holland, Great Britain—all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons and Corsicans.”

Finally, with America adding 70 million more immigrants within the next 26 years, I see ramifications that explode beyond our current predicament best summed up by Dr. Otis Graham, “Most Western elites continue urging the wealthy West not to stem the migrant tide, but to absorb our global brothers and sisters until their horrid ordeal has been endured and shared by all--ten billion humans packed onto an ecologically devastated planet.”

Like a chemistry experiment where unknowing students pour a bouquet of chemicals into a beaker, no one knows what kind of an explosion will occur, but they ‘feel’ something regrettable happening.

At this moment, the British, Dutch and French that will become minorities in their own countries by mid century, may be asking themselves why they did the same things as America.

And the American people, unlike the American Indians, did it to themselves. America will never be the same; never get better. Payback, as they say, is a *itch!

Frosty Wooldridge, math/science teacher, has bicycled across six continents – from the Arctic to the South Pole – as well as six times across the USA, coast to coast and border to border. In 2005, he bicycled from the Arctic Circle, Norway to Athens, Greece. He presents “The Coming Population Crisis in America: and what you can do about it” to civic clubs, church groups, high schools and colleges. He works to bring about sensible world population balance at www.frostywooldridge.com

Original article

"Can it happen to Australia?"

It already is.

"Fate Keeps On Happening": Australia, Boat People, And The Repressed Immigration Issue

From VDARE.com:

“Fate Keeps On Happening”: Australia, Boat People, And The Repressed Immigration Issue

By R. J. Stove
May 27, 2009

Australia’s leftish Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has displayed a fairly formidable range of literary awareness, running the gamut from free market economist F. A. Hayek (whom he resents) to theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer (whom he reveres). This daunting curriculum, though, appears never to have included Gentlemen Prefer Blondes.

A pity. Because Rudd’s current political plight calls to mind the maxim of that novel’s intrepid but pragmatic heroine Lorelei Lee: "Fate Keeps On Happening".

The "fate" in question is the 2001 national election, which should have been a disaster for conservative John Howard, head of Australia’s government since 1996. Opinion polls for most of 2001 had Howard well behind.

Then two things happened to save Howard’s career. Most spectacularly, 9/11 helped frighten the electorate into having doubts about the advisability of changing horses in mid-stream. But even before that, in August 2001, there was the MV Tampa affair.

The MV Tampa was a Norwegian cargo ship carrying more than 430 (exact numbers are variously given) Third World asylum seekers, mostly Afghans. Howard—fearful of an anti-immigration backlash led by Pauline Hanson, then at the height of her fame—refused to permit the Tampa to enter Australian waters.

This decision, of course, inspired profuse moaning from the commentariat, international as well as local, about Howard’s "xenophobia”. Such moaning increased in its intensity when he proclaimed: "We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances in which they come."

On Election Day, the opposition didn’t have a prayer. Howard returned to office with an increased majority, the first of his country’s Prime Ministers to manage this feat since Harold Holt in 1966.

No adult Australian, least of all in Rudd’s Labor Party, has forgotten the humiliation of this defeat. It has burnt its way into Labor’s collective soul, in a way that other, still more severe Labor losses (such as Gough Whitlam’s landslide routs in 1975 and 1977) failed to do.

Consequently immigration hardly figured in the 2004 election campaign. Labor’s leader that year, Mark Latham, was spectacularly erratic in many respects. But on a few themes he possessed a certain native horse sense. He compelled his party to accept a policy of increased penalties for people-smugglers and for those who overstayed temporary visas. No way was Latham about to tolerate accusations by Howard of being soft on illegals.

Suitably impressed by the resultant bipartisan front against illegals getting special privileges, most people-smugglers ceased attempting to ply their noisome trade in Australia’s vicinity.

Until now.

In 2009, an exclamation by the late Heather O’Rourke in Poltergeist II is newly appropriate to describe the advance of boat people: "They’re baaack!"

On April 16, a fishing boat containing Afghan illegals caught fire, killing five people—not three, as originally reported—and injuring 40 more, many of whom were taken to Royal Perth Hospital. (For footage of the fire, see here.)

In the aftermath of this tragedy, the Rudd Government has been left looking much more rattled than at any time since it stormed to victory at the 2007 election. (At that election, it had deprived Howard not only of the Prime Ministry but of his own parliamentary seat in Sydney. Not coincidentally, Howard had not raised the immigration issue again.

The post-Howard "conservative" Liberal Party opposition, led by Malcolm Turnbull—a prize instance of the pseudo-Catholic pro-abort pol with whom Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, and John Kerry have made Americans depressingly familiar—has the scent of blood in its nostrils, for the first time since 2007. Turnbull is accusing Rudd and his cabinet ministers of covering up information about the explosion and its aftermath.

"They know full well what’s happened", Turnbull insists. "They’ve known for some time. They should tell the truth. That’s all we’re asking them to do." [Rudd Braces For More Boat People, By David McLennan, The Canberra Times, April 21, 2009]

Turnbull’s critique is purely technical, however. He has specifically repudiated the Howard era’s border protection policies, which alone, if re-established, might have some chance of restoring the situation to the 2001-2007 status quo. In essence, he is emulating John McCain’s shunning of the issue that hurt McCain so badly with the Republican base.

This is a problem, because while no-one in authority will confirm as yet whether the explosion occurred deliberately or accidentally, what remains indisputable is Prime Minister Rudd’s personal anger at people-smugglers.

Such anger makes a conspicuous contrast with his usual public persona (periodically likened to Harry Potter) of cherubic blandness. But he recently called people-smugglers "the vilest form of human life" and hoped that they would "rot in hell".

Whereas in 2001 it was Labor which found itself trapped in a "damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t" vise apropos illegals, now this unenviable victim status is firmly maintained by Turnbull’s Liberal-National coalition. Turnbull’s natural aggression means that he cannot be seen to agree with Rudd’s policies regarding the illegals, or anything else. This aggression has made him publicly hated without being even remotely respected, a fatal combination in politics, as Machiavelli long ago explained.

Meanwhile, opinion polls (carried out, admittedly, before April 16) had Rudd coasting along on a 74 per cent popularity rating. Those who preferred to see Turnbull take over from Rudd as Prime Minister constituted a grand total of 24 per cent.

The same polls found that the usual mid-term blues had simply failed to occur. Rudd’s own party has been not just unscathed but, rather, strengthened. Labor led the Liberal-National coalition by 58 per cent to 42 per cent. That was actually six points better than the result with which it won office two years ago. (A subsequent poll, reported on May 4, showed a slight decline in Rudd’s popularity. Still, 64 per cent of respondents continued to prefer Rudd over Turnbull.)

So on present trends, Rudd is unlikely to lose the next election, due no later than 2010. Besides, incumbency gives a much greater advantage to first-term Australian Prime Ministers than it does to first-term American Presidents.

To find an Australian national leader who lost office after a single term, à la Jimmy Carter or George H. W. Bush, we must go back to the hapless James Scullin, flung out of the Prime Ministry in 1931, during the Great Depression’s depths. (For newsreel footage of Scullin, see here.) Even Whitlam, chaotic administrator though he was, secured for himself a second term, in 1974.

If the boat people issue continues for long enough to do Rudd serious damage, Australia’s conservatives might have a chance at winning power. Or, who knows, they might even raise the issue of legal immigration, effectively kept out of politics by the usual bipartisan consensus since Hanson’s implosion.

But probably, like the GOP in the U.S., they will opt to play the political game in the approved way—and lose.

R. J. Stove lives in Melbourne, Australia.

Original article

Although it may have criticised the Rudd Government for its soft stance on illegal immigration, it is highly unlikely that the Coalition would ever risk raising the ire of its corporate sponsors in the pro-open borders business community by coming out in favour of lower levels of legal immigration.

The only thing that could possibly force the Coalition to re-assess its blind committment to mass immigration would be the realisation that immigrants, especially those of the non-European variety, overwhelmingly vote for the ALP. As this article points out, John Howard lost his own seat at the last federal election largely due to Bennelong's large Asian immigrant population. The role of the ethnic vote in toppling Howard in Bennelong should have sent a wake-up call to the Coalition that demography is destiny in politics. As Australia's ethnic makeup changes due to immigration, and the non-European minority population soars, the Coalition may find its share of the vote, like the European share of the population, in irrevocable decline.

The Howard Legacy

For those who haven't heard of this book yet, I recommend picking up a copy of The Howard Legacy: Displacement of Traditional Australia from the Professional and Managerial Classes by Dr. Peter Wilkinson (you can read a review here).

Below is an extract from the book:

In 1994 the acerbic Lee Kuan Yew, then Prime Minister of Singapore, forecast that Australians were destined to be the poor white trash of Asia. Today one can say that white Australians are destined to be the poor trash of Australia.

What is the enduring contribution that Prime Minister John Howard’s regime has made to the future of Australia?

The scope and nature of taxation, industrial relations and so on can be changed, all in the space of a few years. There is one change that can not be reversed in less than many generations. That is demographic change.

This book is about the impact of the Coalition’s selective immigration policies. In selecting skilled immigrants, those who have done a degree in Australia receive bonus points in the criteria for acceptance for residency. In effect the policy selects those Asians who have higher cognitive ability, predominantly ethnic Chinese. In the ‘knowledge economy’ of today a premium is paid for qualifications and cognitive ability. They and their children (who will inherit their higher intelligence) will fill the professional and managerial ranks in Australia. They will dominate the cognitive class and hence have disproportionate influence in the country. This has important ramifications for both internal and external policies as ethnic demographic change continues.

The Chinese have been described as the Jews of Asia, but they are more than that. Throughout SE Asia and Oceania they are overwhelmingly dominant in the commercial and financial fields, less successful in the professional fields, because there is often discrimination to offset their superior performance in examinations. They form the ‘market dominant minority’, a term used by Amy Chua (Chapter 7). In this book the term ‘economy dominant minority’ is used to describe the equivalent in advanced knowledge economies. In such nations, and in underdeveloped ones where they have the opportunity, the Chinese have moved smoothly into the professions.

Affluent established nations over the centuries have allowed in unskilled manual workers at the expense of the host countries’ own cohort of people who have least economic advantage in terms of skill and/or IQ. Aggressive reaction can occur. In many underdeveloped countries where immigrants, who have above average commercial and cognitive ability, have been introduced, usually by a colonial/commercial power, violent reaction has occurred frequently and continues to do so.

Under John Howard Australia has become the first ethnic European nation to openly invite in distinct ethnic groups to provide the skills required in today’s knowledge economy. The need arises because governments have not been prepared to provide the necessary finance and motivation to sufficiently educate our own children. They have allowed ideologues in the education system to persuade parents and children that achieving certain skill levels does not matter. Recent arrivals are not fooled, they exploit existing Australian human and physical capital at the expense of the long standing Australian families in our schools and universities. The intergenerational transfer which has been an integral part of our society has been denied to many long established families without them realising it.

How has this come about when Prime Minister Howard has been stigmatised as ‘racist’ by the multicultural/left lobbies? There are no reports of groups participating in a ‘grand plan’1 to introduce a dominant ethnic minority. It seems to have happened through the combination of a number of Government policies, at both the Federal and State levels. Maybe the need for Howard to hold on to his own seat is a contributing factor. Significant changes in selective immigration policies happened over the period when Philip Ruddock, another hate figure of the Left over immigration matters, was the Minister responsible for immigration (1996 to 2003). Ruddock consistently opposed having a population plan. It is difficult to believe that Ruddock and the highest levels of DIMA were not aware of the implications described in this book.

Political correctness has meant that these topics are rarely raised2. Silence on the issue occurs because key players such as the universities, and increasingly the schools, are financially locked in. Few staff raise the question because they will be censured or sacked, since cries of discrmination/xenophobia/racism will be raised, leading to the fear that foreign enrolments will fall creating financial disaster for their institution.

After only five years of the selective immigration policies the results are apparent. In the 18 selective schools in NSW, 12 have more than 50% non-English speaking background, one over 90%. At the UNSW, students who are recent arrivals, Asian or Chinese, are 52%, 44% and 35% respectively. With recently announced increasing immigration and higher skilled quotas this disproportionately high over-representation will accelerate throughout the entire education system. It is true that signs of a significant number of Chinese were moving into the cognitive class before the Coalition took office, largely as a result of the Hawke decisions to allow students to stay after the Tiananmen massacre. But now it is a flood.

Australian politics has a set of largely unspoken bipartisan beliefs and policy directions whereby:

• We believe that our own citizens do not have sufficient innate ability to make Australia a prosperous knowledge economy, so we need immigrants of high cognitive ability.

• We can skimp on educating our own children and compensate by bringing in immigrants with the advanced education which is necessary for the knowledge economy.

• Even better, they must pay for that education in Australia, so that the government can cut grants to the universities for educating Australians.

• We are comfortable with letting the children of recently arrived immigrants have unfettered access to our premium schools and universities, displacing children of long standing Australians from the prestige universities and the lucrative professions.

• We are not concerned that universities discriminate against Australian students by lowering the standard for overseas students, who can then apply for a visa on the basis of the conceded pass.

• We are comfortable with introducing an economy dominant ethnic minority at the expense of long established families.

• We are not concerned that the combination of the economy dominant Chinese and increasing trade pressures will place Australia under the influence of super-power China rather than the USA.

The ALP has a policy to further discriminate against Australians. They would not allow them to enter fee-paying courses leading to prestige and lucrative courses, while overseas students would be free to do so and then apply for residency.

These are issues which need to be discussed prior to the election. We are already at a stage where the Chinese community is influencing immigration policy. In the seats of Bennelong (Prime Minister John Howard) and Watson (Shadow Minister for Immigration, Tony Burke) nearly one-fifth claim Chinese ancestry. Indeed, with less than one-third of his constituents speaking English at home, Burke is better styled the ALP Shadow Minister for Immigrants.

The crucial hold that the ethnic Chinese have over Howard in Bennelong means that the Coalition is unlikely to proclaim any changes. Indeed Howard has promised his Chinese constituents more of the same (see Chapter 12). Burke has no option but to remain silent, in keeping with the ALP strategy of bipartisan-ship on major issues leading up to the election. Kevin Rudd spent time in China, is a noted Sinophile, Mandarin speaker. Is Rudd the Manchurian candidate3 to lead us under the Chinese sphere of influence?


The Abandonment Of Intergenerational Transfer And Displacement Of The Traditional Australia.

"If ever there was a migrant success story, the life of 19 year old Tianhong Wu must be it."

So starts an article by education writer Chee Chee Leung in The Age 13 December 2006.

Tianhong Wu had just scored a perfect ENTER and had applied to Monash University to do medicine. As she had just received citizenship, she would be eligible for HECS. She came to Australia from China five years ago and attended Glen Waverley Secondary College (which is a de facto selective high school). Her English was poor on arrival, and her mother is less fluent. There is no mention of the father in the article, but the mother, a computer science teacher in China, works part time in a fashion house and has applied to do a laboratory skills TAFE course next year. She is applying for citizenship. The tone of the article is that by applying language skills tests to prospective migrants we would be denying Australia the benefits of having Tianhong Wu.

Let us look at her story from another perspective.

Taxpayer subsidized places at medical schools are Government limited. Somebody missed out. Since nobody can specifically claim to have missed out, let us construct a picture of a candidate who just missed out.

Jenny Smith is member of a family long established in Australia. Jenny lived in an outer suburb, one where the school facilities are run down, freely admitted by the Victorian Government. Students in schools in these suburbs are disadvantaged in following academic pathways as shown by declining success of such schools in university enrolments4.

The top matriculation teachers had transferred to de facto selective schools like Glen Waverley. Jenny’s parents did not have a tertiary qualification and did not realise the necessity to shift to another school zone. Besides, they had other kids and relocating costs are considerable. At Monash University, at equal ENTER, students from ordinary public schools perform better than those from selective schools (see Chapter 3), so Jenny was innately superior to some of those who made it, but she didn’t get a chance to prove it.

Jenny’s parents (maybe grandparents, and even further back) have dutifully paid their taxes for many decades, funding the considerable capital, human and financial, that has gone into building up the first class institutions such as Glen Waverley and Monash University. Tianhong’s mother has contributed virtually nothing to this during her short stay. Furthermore the medical course, and the TAFE course for her mother, will be part paid for by Jenny’s parents. Tianhong Wu will study medicine at a Group of 8 university, which guarantees her a very comfortable income for life. Her mother will build up very little super and so will be eligible for a pension.

If Tianhong Wu had never come to Australia, her position would have gone to Jenny. Maybe Jenny is committed to the health professions; then she can apply for the lower status, less well paid profession of nursing.

In effect the traditional Australia is being displaced. Their birthright is being handed to the overseas born on a platter. Not one letter published in The Age made this point in response to Leung’s article.

Tibet, Australia and mass immigration

From The Social Contract:

Om Mane Padme Hum: Tibet and the Final Solution

By Denis McCormack
Volume 3, Number 4 (Summer 1993)

Through the years, generations of scholarly orientalists have variously translated and interpreted the well-known mantra, om mane padme hum. Commonly associated with Tibet, in short it means "the jewel in the lotus." In extenso, it means "upon physical release from this world, may your spirit join the cosmos in like manner to an individual dew drop rolling from the cradle of a lotus leaf into the universality of the pond." World events would suggest that most peoples, including the Tibetans, prefer the company of their own kind prior to the post-mortem pond.

Over forty years of worldwide handwringing by all manner of governments, organizations and high-profile individuals has sought Tibet's salvation in the face of the Han Chinese juggernaut. As I write, news bulletins carry reports of the latest unrest in Lhasha. Mass immigration has now created a Tibet of over seven million Chinese and six million Tibetans. Roughly the same demographic ratio applies in Xin Jiang province (the name of which, ironically, means 'new border' in Chinese) against the local Turkic Central Asian people to the northwest of Tibet. There, the mass movements of Chinese into the region have taken place for many of the same reasons, and at about the same time.

In 1989, the dalai lama of Tibet was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In his acceptance speech, he said:

"The issue of most urgent concern at this time is the massive influx of Chinese settlers into Tibet... this development, which threatens the very survival of the Tibetan nation, its culture and spiritual heritage, can still be stopped and reversed. But this must be done now before it is too late."

These sentiments were echoed by actor Richard Gere who politicized his portion of the recent Academy Award presentations with his thoughts on Tibet. He subsequently expanded on them in this way:

"Now Beijing is facilitating a huge Chinese population influx into the area. Tibetans call it the "final solution". ... If there is no stop to the population transfer of Chinese, the destruction of Tibet and its ancient civilization will be complete."

Gere went on to castigate U.S. administrations of the last forty years for their complicity in Tibet's demise. He has testified on Tibet before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It is a pity he cannot also recognize the same immigration dynamic in the context of the United States, where the firmament is clearly lacking star performers who are willing to speak out on behalf of its culture.

On May 13th of this year, the dalai lama was in London seeking diplomatic support from British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd for a "one country-two systems" Hong Kong-style of government, as he now concedes that full independence is no longer a realistic prospect. He sees the "two systems" approach as an avenue toward respect for Tibet's cultural, geographic, linguistic and racial uniqueness. The Foreign Secretary has agreed to take an assertive line with Beijing over such issues as human rights and the mass movement of Chinese into Tibet. But, few observers will be holding their breath in the hope of any change in Chinese policy. Many believe that irreversible demographic and cultural damage has already been done.

Australia's educated and political elite have long supported the dalai lama's cause. It is curious, therefore, that this same respectably veneered class is the mainstay of the push for Australia to be "integrated" with Asia. Mass immigration and its Trojan horse, "multiculturalism," are the openly preferred policy tools toward this outcome. It is beyond dispute that the "Asianization" of their country is highly unpopular with the vast majority of Australians.

Given that the irreversible cultural shifts being brought about by sustained mass immigration are no more sanctioned by the majority of Australians, Canadians, or Americans than they are by the Tibetans, what does this tell us about the legitimacy of the two-party, representational, democratic political systems we all rely on? If who we are, and what we look like, along with our language and cultural biases can be so vulnerable to radical change, are these not the most serious and urgent grounds for reshaping the machinery of government? It matters little whether mass immigration policy is forced at the point of a bayonet from without, or through gradualist, undemocratic, long-term bipartisanship from within - both paths lead eventually to the "pond."

A particularly blatant Australian example of suppressive bipartisanship came to light recently. Ex-Prime Minister Hawke has been a life-long, self-confessed "high-immigration" man. During the sixties and seventies he rose to power through his presidency of the Australia Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), the peak representative body of organized labor. By the late eighties, his personal and political esteem had sunk so low in the eyes of the public that he was deservedly jettisoned from the premiership of his own party.

Hawke spoke at a recent government-funded immigration/multicultural talkfest titled "The Politics of Immigration". He told the conference that he could not deny the contention that the major parties had reached an implicit pact to keep immigration off the political agenda. He said that, for most of the post-war period, the parties had maintained bipartisan support for immigration in the face of public opposition. He also stated that "There are no other issues on which the major political parties have been prepared to act in this way, with the common cement of ACTU support, to advance the national interest ahead of where they believed the electorate to be."

Throughout history, mass immigration has been the ultimate weapon of political, ethnic, racial and cultural destruction. It remains so today. We cannot undo history, but we can learn from it. What motivates modern "democratic" governments to feign ignorance of these lessons, so clearly documented from ancient times down to the present day?

In 1970, another Nobel laureate, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, said in his acceptance speech:

"The disappearance of nations would impoverish us no less than if all peoples were made alike, with one character, one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, they are its generalized personalities the smallest of them has its own particular colors and embodies a particular facet of God's design."

Amazingly, neither Solzhenitsyn nor the dalai lama has ever been called a "racist pig" by the one-world/international brotherhood brigade. Who would have guessed the dalai lama to be an immigration reformer? Unfettered by a big business growth lobby, a well-funded minority multicultural lobby, or a gaggle of ecumenical do-gooders, he tells it like it is and lays claim to large acreage on the world's highest moral ground. However, in his case, being morally right does not ensure the ascendancy of his ideas against the overwhelming arithmetic of immigration. Regardless of his capacity to solve it, at least the dalai lama knows what Tibet's major problem is: it isn't the economy, stupid - it's immigration!

Denis McCormack of North Fitzroy, Victoria, is the Australia correspondent for The Social Contract. Long interested in the situation in Tibet, Mr. McCormack speaks Chinese and taught in rural China.

Original article

"Hidden" immigration changing Australia's ethnic makeup

From The Australian:

'Hidden' migrants drive ethnic change

Ean Higgins
May 16, 2008

AUSTRALIA is undergoing an unparalleled movement of people and ethnic change through "hidden immigration", but lacks a comprehensive policy to deal with it, according to an eminent demographer.

Monash University professor Andrew Markus said raw immigration numbers masked the magnitude of a demographic revolution that had produced a population where one in four residents was born overseas.

At 24 per cent, the overseas-born proportion of the population is twice that of the US at 12 per cent, and three times that of England and Wales at 8 per cent, where racial tensions have flared again.

"Opinion polls in England in July 2007 and March 2008 indicated that immigration and race issues are the main concern of electors," Professor Markus said.

He said that while Australians had been tolerant and migrants committed to their new home, strong political leadership was required to convince the nation of the benefits to all of high immigration to avoid a backlash.

Professor Markus presented his analysis at this week's Australian Davos Connection Future Summit.

"The elements of a policy to promote social cohesion within communities characterised by diversity of language and culture are well known - and difficult to implement," he said. "At present, Australia lacks full clarity of vision, coherence and consistency - while the largest movement of people in the country's history is under way."

Speaking to The Australian yesterday, Professor Markus said that although many Australians regarded the rate of immigration as high, they probably had little idea that the transformation was far bigger than they imagined. The usually quoted "headline" number of permanent arrivals - people successfully applying each year for permanent residency from overseas - rose 67 per cent between 1999 and last year, from 84,000 to 140,000. But Professor Markus said this figure failed to include on-shore "conversions" from foreigners on student or temporary work visas to permanent residence.

That number rose from 15,000 in 1999 to 52,000 last year. Taking those figures into account, the annual increase in new permanent residents nearly doubled over the past nine years, from 99,000 to 192,000.

The number of permanent departures - Australians leaving the country without any immediate intention of return -- doubled from 35,000 in 1999 to 72,000 last year.

Many of those departing were taking highly sought skills to more highly paid jobs overseas, Professor Markus said.

Added to an ageing population, future economic growth would require filling Australia's skills shortage largely from overseas. But the result would accelerate the pace of ethnic change, and because immigration had been skewed towards "magnet" destinations, in some areas the transition would be extraordinary, he said.

"With the uneven distribution of the overseas born, this translates to 34.5 per cent of Sydney's population, 31 per cent of Melbourne's, and over 70 per cent in some urban localities," Professor Markus said.

He proposed several measures towards a national policy to make immigration work.

These included challenging disadvantage in education and employment, tackling institutional discrimination, and a "consistent set of policies to be implemented at the community level to promote inter-cultural understanding, bridge building and participation".

Source

Australia importing a new overclass

From VDARE.com:

Enter the Dragon: Australia Imports a New Elite

By R. J. Stove
November 26, 2007

As you have probably heard by now, Australia’s general election of November 24 swept from power Liberal Party Prime Minister John Howard, who had held the office since 1996. It proved a triumph for his opponent, the Australian Labor Party’s new and largely untested leader Kevin Rudd, who has a 27-seat majority in the federal parliament.

Among the election’s issues: Iraq (to a very limited extent), the economy, tax cuts, national security, climate change, and quasi-generational change (Rudd is a youthful-looking 50 years old, Howard an increasingly tired-looking 68). Almost everything, in fact—except mass immigration, on which both candidates were locked in a bipartisan embrace.

Sound familiar?

Don’t expect the average Australian newspaper editor to notice, let alone to challenge, this state of affairs. There is a reason why VDARE.COM has a disproportionately high number of Australian readers.

But, happily, one Australian noticed it—and not only noticed it but published a whole book devoted to it before the election campaign started.

Peter Wilkinson, editor of the quarterly Independent Australian, brought out The Howard Legacy: Displacement of Traditional Australia from the Professional and Managerial Classes (Independent Australian Publications, Post Office Box 8, Essendon 3040, Victoria, Australia, 2007, 170 pp). A past president of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute , Dr. Wilkinson comprehensively knows whereof he speaks.

The Howard Legacy is entirely unmarred by the crank-pamphlet Gestalt. Its author has concentrated severely upon number-crunching (Steve Sailer will enjoy reading this study). It bears no personal rancor towards the Chinese immigrants whose invasion he chronicles. When a government is foolish enough and short-sighted enough to roll out the welcome mat regardless of the possibilities for long-term assimilation, then, as Dr. Wilkinson says, "Who can blame people for taking advantage of these policies if they can?"

In table after table, diagram after diagram, Dr. Wilkinson explains the trends. Once John Howard first obtained office in 1996, he immediately cut back on immigration from all sources. In the 1995-96 fiscal year 99,139 immigrants were admitted; the annual total fell to 85,732 in 1996-97 and then to 77,327 in 1997-98.

But then it crept up after Howard’s narrow victory in the 1998 election to a postwar peak of 107,366 in 2000-01. Another cutback followed this peak—the totals for 2001-02 and 2002-03 were respectively 88,900 and 93,914 immigrants. But by 2003-04 the total was ballooning again: in 2005-06 we had another postwar peak of 131,593. (A much more detailed statistical breakdown of immigrants’ arrival patterns over the last decade can be found here. [Settler arrivals 1996-97 to 2006-07 Australia States and territories (PDF)])

To give Howard credit, he remained tough on illegal immigration, ever since his deeds in 2001. It was legal immigration that he encouraged and increased to record levels. But his 2001 success meant that his opponent declared his own opposition to illegal immigration, too. [Rudd to turn back boatpeople, By Paul Kelly and Dennis Shanahan, The Australian, November 23, 2007]

Australia is famously "girt by sea," and is a luckier country than the US with no shallow, fordable Rio Grande River for immigrants to cross. Illegal immigrants are thus a minor element in Australian demographics. The real problem will always be those immigrants the Government allows and encourages to immigrate.

Whence come these immigrants?

One thing for which we can be (slightly) grateful: in Australia, the U.S.-style family-reunification racket is no longer the juggernaut it was. Skilled migration has become much more prominent. There are even, mirabile dictu, attempts made to demand from skilled-migration candidates a certain proficiency in English. So far, so good.

But note how theory breaks down against the seemingly irresistible onrush of open-borders practice. Theoretically, as Dr. Wilkinson explains, overseas applicants for university study in Australia need to have passed Band 6 of the International English Language Test System (IELTS), which declares them to be "competent" in the tongue. But if a migrant is already here and wants the so-called Subclass 880 skilled-migrant visa, he need only pass IELTS Band 5. Two-thirds of those migrants who qualify for Subclass 880 are, in fact, stuck at the Band 5 stage. How very reassuring if you are forced to depend on them for preparing your tax return, or removing your brain tumor.

And yes, naturellement, however far behind the eight-ball the ethnic lobbyists might be at actually writing or uttering grammatical English, there is one word which they have perfectly mastered the art of pronouncing, to good careerist effect. That word is, of course, "racist".

Dr. Wilkinson takes us on a guided tour of the giggle-house now euphemistically known in Australia as "university education", with its zeal for handing out degrees to even the most inept foreign students. He quotes the surreptitious—and, necessarily, anonymous—confessions of the academics faced with such students: such as "I give them 51% to get them out of my hair", and "An audit demonstrated that it was almost exclusively international students who appealed against penalties."

The little darlings are impressively gifted in plagiarism also. Encouraged, no doubt, by the plagiarism-mania already flourishing locally at the highest levels, thanks to the likes of David Robinson, former boss of Melbourne’s Monash University, who resigned after the third time he was caught committing plagiarism.

On and on it goes, with a particularly valuable rogues’ gallery of modern Chinese-Australian legislators, few of whom could be trusted on any topic more controversial than tomorrow’s sunrise. Most of them have nuisance value rather than anything more sinister. Some are downright amusing, such as one Peter Wong. Mr. Wong served in New South Wales’ parliament (from the 1999 state election to the 2007 state election) as representative for an anti-Pauline-Hanson operation, only to fall out with the party’s Jewish executive director by denouncing Israel.

The sole gallery member to make a national name for himself has been Melbourne’s mayor John So, subject of a reverential rap ditty called "John So He’s My Bro."

Mr. So’s more or less total inability to speak English, despite having lived in Australia since 1964, is the stuff of Internet legend. It briefly threatened to derail his chances of obtaining the mayoralty, when that office was thrown open to popular election for the first time.

An opposing candidate, Peter Shepperd, bravely raised the matter of Mr. So’s difficulties with the English language. Then, in Dr. Wilkinson’s words, "The dreaded cry of ‘racism’ was raised and Shepperd withdrew from the contest."

Clearly, no one has dared tell Mr. So about Tom Lehrer’s deathless epigram: "If a person can’t communicate, the very least he can do is shut up."

VDARE.COM readers will already have encountered the saga of Australian law professor Andrew Fraser, suspended from Sydney’s Macquarie University after he dared to question the prevailing utopian dreams of multiracialism. These ludicrous proceedings The Howard Legacy discusses at some length.

Dr. Wilkinson makes it clear—without actually saying outright—that the single most tragic element in modern Australian society is not the "racist" culture in which we are supposedly marinated, but rather, our complete lack of a First Amendment or anything like it. The anti-Fraser campaign was, after all, doing nothing more obscure than imitating the success of the lynching bee that 20 years earlier had forced the eminent historian Geoffrey Blainey out of his job.

Dr. Wilkinson’s interests are not confined to the Australian scene. One book to which he repeatedly refers is Amy Chua’s World On Fire, with its first-hand accounts of successful but locally detested Chinese in the Philippines, and its surveys of economically dominant but politically hounded market minorities (whether Chinese or other) elsewhere.

Malaysia has famously addressed the problems resulting from its own Chinese market minority by two methods:

1. mass murder, such as Kuala Lumpur’s May 1969 anti-Chinese rioting, which remains off-limits for public discussion in Malaysia;

2. a racial quota system, which Prime Minister Abdul Razak formulated in 1971 to give preference to Malays in education and bureaucratic employment.

Dr. Wilkinson is not, need one say, advocating such anti-Chinese maneuvers by Australian rulers. But one does wonder how far Australian administrative Caucasophobia has to continue before alienated and marginalized whites start pining for a Malaysian-type solution.

Thus far, The Howard Legacy has been totally ignored by Australia’s predominantly dopey Mainstream Media. Meanwhile, said media are happy enough to report with slavering enthusiasm such fatuous schemes as former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie’s demand that the country’s population be raised from 20 million to 50 million. And no, this is not an official bulletin from the Lyndon LaRouche brigade. This is reality, or what passes in Australia for same. ['We need 50 million Aussies', The Courier-Mail, September 04, 2007]

As for the November 24 election, its outcome combines with Dr. Wilkinson’s text to inspire the hope that the Liberal Party will be euthanized altogether. (Already the Liberal Party has proved unable to control any state or territorial legislature since 2001.)

A good precedent exists for this collapse: the annihilation during the 1940s of the United Australia Party. Since this movement was little more than a shill for Big Business at its stupidest—and had forced from office Sir Robert Menzies, its one leader of stature—there was no point in trying to revive it after it had been clobbered at the 1943 general election .

Instead, Menzies had the insight (even before that election) to start a genuine conservative movement from scratch. The movement which he envisaged—and which, after 1943, he very largely effected—would avoid the UAP’s dim-witted class warfare, and would focus on those whom Menzies himself called "The Forgotten People." In this respect, Pauline Hanson may prove to have been a harbinger.

Merely to read Menzies’ remarks is to realize anew how unthinkable they would be, from any large Australian political organization’s head, today. To find out exactly why they are unthinkable, we need look no further than Dr. Wilkinson’s painstakingly assembled statistics.

R. J. Stove lives in Melbourne and is a Contributing Editor of The American Conservative. The views he expresses are his own.

Source

Australia's population fastest growing in the developed world

From The Australian:

Migrants, births fuel rise in numbers

David Uren, Economics correspondent | June 25, 2008

A FLOOD of migrants and a continuing rise in the birth rate gave Australia its fastest population growth in almost two decades last year.

Queensland is leading the population boom, attracting migrants from overseas and across the border in NSW.

The number of Queenslanders rose by just under 100,000 last year, almost a third of the national population increase of 331,000.

The 1.6 per cent increase in the population lifted the national total to 21.2 million.

Australian National University demographer Peter McDonald said the rise made Australia the fastest-growing nation in the developed world.

"The United States has a slightly higher fertility rate but our migration rate is much higher," he said.

The population was boosted by an extraordinary influx of 410,900 migrants and long-term visitors from overseas, far in excess of the 226,400 long-term visitors returning and Australian residents leaving the country.

Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia were thebig magnets for overseas migrants.

Western Australia lifted its migrant intake by 24.6per cent last year to 28,880 people, while Queensland attracted 35,800, an increase of 19.1 per cent.

Professor McDonald said NSW was the big loser, as a result of efforts by former premier Bob Carr to close the state to migration.

"Over the last seven years, NSW's share of international migration has dropped from 42per cent to 29 per cent," Professor McDonald said.

NSW still accounted for 42 per cent of the people leaving the country, he said.

Western Australia was the biggest destination for British migrants, while Queensland attracted the most New Zealanders.

Victoria and NSW appealed more to Chinese and Indian migrants.

"South Australia has also achieved a remarkable increase in its migrant intake from 2000 five years ago to 13,000 in the last year," Professor McDonald said.

With about 24,000 people leaving NSW, mostly for Queensland last year, NSW had lower population growth than Queensland and Victoria.

Despite the resources boom, Western Australia failed to attract a significant flow of migrants from the eastern states, with only 3775 people making the trek across the Nullarbor last year. Queensland lured 25,650 people.

The fertility rate continued to climb, reaching 1.85 births per woman, up from a level of 1.72 four years ago.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics said this number might have been exaggerated by the new requirement that births be registered before parents can claim the baby bonus.

However, Professor McDonald said even accounting for that change, the fertility rate was above 1.8 births per woman.

The death rate also declined, from 6.6 deaths per 1000 people in 2002-3 to 5.9, the lowest on record, last year.

Natural population increase added 147,400 people last year, an 11.3 per cent increase from 2006, while migration added 184,400, a 16.2 per cent increase.

Source

Melburnians on the move

From the Herald Sun:

Almost a million Melburnians have upped stakes

John Masanauskas
June 27, 2008 12:00am

MELBURNIANS are moving house in huge numbers - with up to one-third shifting to other parts of the city and regional Victoria in the past five years, according to census data.

More than 900,000 city dwellers changed address between 2001 and 2006, as pressure from overseas migration pushed many locals towards the fringes.

About 500,000 people moved outside their local government area, while some 400,000 shifted to nearby homes.

The biggest single transfer saw 10,125 residents leave western suburbs such as Sunshine and St Albans for booming Melton.

There was a similar exodus from the Dandenong region to the southeast housing estates of Narre Warren and Berwick.

Dandenong has seen a major transformation, with the arrival of refugees and other immigrants, in recent years.

Daniel Willis, 22, said he and his partner, Rebecca Parry, moved from Dandenong to Narre Warren to escape rising crime and cultural change.

"We are going to have a family soon," he said.

"We didn't want to bring up a family in that sort of area."

City of Greater Dandenong councillor Jim Memeti said the area's cultural diversity was an asset and people moved because housing was cheaper further out.

Other areas with large outflows included neighbouring Clayton, which also has high immigrant settlement, and suburbs such as Box Hill, Pascoe Vale and Coburg.

Some areas with high outflows also recorded big intakes.

Boroondara lost 25,806 residents, but gained 23,237 from other areas.

Record high immigration and a rising birth rate saw the population rise across all council areas.

The data, prepared for the Herald Sun by the state Department of Planning and Community Development, revealed city fringe areas had the most internal movement.

More than 30,000 residents in the City of Casey, which includes Narre Warren and Berwick, moved within the area in the five-year period.

Other suburbs with high internal migration included Roxburgh Park, Sunbury, Frankston, Belgrave and Lilydale.

Planning department senior demographer Jeremy Reynolds said the trend to move small distances was common.

"The comparatively low numbers of moves across the Yarra in Melbourne, the harbour in Sydney or the Thames in London are indicative of this sectoral bias in migration," he said.

Head of Monash University's Centre for Population and Urban Research, Dr Bob Birrell, said poorer immigrants tended to settle in outer suburbia.

"Local residents in areas like Dandenong and Sunshine are tending to move out if they can afford to," he said.

Source