Almost Plain English

This hasn't been an easy post to write; I started with the working title Very Plain English, but on reading it over I decided to drop all of the dysphemisms. I still find the result pretty repugnant. I don't think that can be blamed entirely on the subject matter either; my treatment of it may well be at fault.

Andrew Fraser turned up on page three of the Age this morning, bitching about the way his article Rethinking the White Australia Policy got pulled from the Deakin University Law Review. He's been getting a fair bit of press today.

The Deakin decision hasn't prevented the article from getting out into the public domain; as a service to free speech, Jon Ray has published Andrew Fraser's article on his web site. Of course that lacks the imprimatur of publication in a refereed journal, but it's publication nonetheless, leaving little substance to any complaint that Fraser's freedom of speech has been seriously infringed.

I'm a bit of a free speech buff myself so I've decided to take a shot at matching Jon Ray's altruistic gesture. However, at around 7000 words, Fraser's article is something of a long read. And there's a fair bit of academic jargon in it, which at times obscures Fraser's central argument. So I've decided to present a plain English summary of the article instead. I think I've done a reasonable job of capturing the spirit of the thing - whether this is of any value in the debate over this kerfuffle you can decide for yourselves.

Introduction

Over the past thirty years, the very foundations of the Australian nation have been dismantled by an insidious cabal of Communists, Christian churches, ethnic lobbies and other pressure groups. Using the power of corporations and government, they have worked at cementing their political dominance by replacing the white population with more tractable asians and blacks.

This cabal 's campaign to remake the Australian population to suit its political agenda has been based on two lies; the lie of equality and the lie of universal human rights. Australia's founding fathers were too realistic to believe in these lies; they had the good sense to regard racial differences as a fact of life. They realised that the best way to preserve the Australian nation was to keep it white; a white nation is a strong nation.

After forty years of stuffing around by various Governments, advances in various sciences have revealed that the founding fathers got it right: whites really are different to asians and blacks. Faced with these facts, the ruling cabal responds by making outcasts of people like me, using the law to repress us and sometimes resorting to physical coercion. But the truth about race will not be silenced forever and it's sad that two other recent writers on the White Australia Policy - Keith Windschuttle, author of The White Australia Policy and Gwenda Tavan, author of The Long, Slow Death of White Australia don't recognise this.

Was the White Australia Policy "Racist"?

Not according to Keith Windschuttle in The White Australia Policy. But he gets it wrong because he's bought into the ruling cabal's lie of human equality.

Racial Egalitarianism: Revolution from Above?

In The Long, Slow Death of White Australia, Gwenda Tavan mounts an unconvincing argument that, when the ruling cabal dismantled the White Australia Policy, it was with the tacit support of the Australian people. In fact, the Policy was dismantled by stealth - in the 1990s there was a brief, shining moment when the patriotic instincts of white Australians found their voice through the One Nation Party but the ruling cabal was quick to silence this voice of populist protest.

Racial Realism Redux?

You might argue about how much of it is due to genetics, but there's no doubt that whites, asians and blacks are different when it comes to intelligence, temperament, criminality and athletic ability. Science has proved this. Genetic tests can give you a very precise idea of how much a human individual has been touched with the old tar-brush. But when it comes to dogs, well, geneticists have trouble distinguishing a cocker spaniel from a wolf.

Race exists and it matters to public policy - especially immigration policy. Even culture and cultural values - like Australian individualism and racial tolerance - might be determined by biological differences between races. Western "cultural traits" can be explained as an evolutionary adaptation to life in cold climates where natural selection favoured individuals who preferred to shag outside their immediate family.

In the long run, this innate individualism led to the development of English common law and the emergence of business corporations. This is an example of what Richard Dawkins calls an "extended phenotype" like a beaver dam or a spiders web. Being English, or descended from the English is very special - we have the best "extended phenotype" in the world.

Peoples descended from the English - Americans, English Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders are the best people in the world at doing civic nationhood. That's because they're genetically predisposed to be individualistic and racially tolerant so English style "civic nationhood" is really "ethnic nationhood". That's something that lesser thinkers than me don't recognise. And over the past couple of centuries, the ideal of the nation has lost its purity - it's been corrupted into the global corporate welfare state where the ruling cabal can reshape national identities to suit its own sinister purposes.

The Downside of Diversity

Other races have produced different "extended phenotypes"; these don't always work well with the racial interests of Anglo-American societies. Black africans got into America 400 years ago and the buggers still haven't integrated into the white culture. You have to worry about whether other races can be absorbed into the white English speaking nations any better. Look at the Chinese - they don't integrate well in Australia because they've evolved to be most comfortable in conformist, authoritarian political regimes.

Many Australians remain blissfully unaware of the threat the Chinese and other immigrants pose to the big extended family that is the Australian nation. These people breed; for every immigrant child born, there's one less place for a white child. In the long run, massive immigration of asians and blacks means that the white population of this country will be outbred and replaced.

And that's not the end of it. A lot of these asians are too bloody clever by half and they're going to end up taking all the plum jobs in the economy. Give them twenty years or so and they'll be running the country, like the Jews in Russia, the Chinese in South-East Asia or the Indians in Africa.

As for the blacks, you'd have to be a fool to think that they'll fit in with the white population. They're too stupid and too randy. I wouldn't go so far as to say they're natural criminals - that would be blatantly racist. It's just that they're more likely to do things that are regarded as crimes in most societies.

Seriously, this is all very dangerous. As for Keith bloody Windschuttle, he's no better than the race traitors who dismantled the White Australia Policy in the first place.

Managerial Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is basically a plot by the ruling cabal of the globalised welfare state to keep national populations divided, the better to conquer and rule over them. Its purpose is to undermine the white, Christian, masculine and bourgeois values and institutions "that remain the principal constraints on managerial reach and power".

Conclusion

It's time for white Australians to wake up to the threat to their homeland. Don't be fooled by Keith Windschuttle. This country needs a new, responsible ruling class, that respects the wisdom of Die Volk. And one day, when the entire rotting edifice of the global economy has collapsed, it will be possible for
this new ruling class to take its rightful place in steering the nation's destiny. All together now:

The sun on the meadow is summery warm.
The stag in the forest runs free.
But gather together to greet the storm.
Tomorrow belongs to me.

- *** -

As I said in the introduction, it's pretty repugnant. It's easy to see why the editor of the Deakin Law Review had a bit of trouble finding referees who considered it fit for publication.