Is Asianisation white genocide by Darrin Hodges

Is Asianisation White genocide?

Darrin Hodges exposes the traitors from both sides of politics who have effectively overridden the will of the people and have given Australia over to the Asians.

The issue of Asianisation may no longer be an issue of immigration. Even if we stopped Asian immigration tomorrow, we could still become Asianised – it would just take a little longer. Asianisation is a story of white genocide, it's a story that people have forgotten about since Pauline Hanson uttered those immortal worlds “I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians”¹ and what howls of protest that statement did generate throughout the world and here at home amongst the multicultural elites and their empty-headed useful idiots like those who brought down the White Australia Policy.

Our forefathers were very wise when they decided to implement ideas like the White Australia Policy. It was designed to protect the fledgling Australian society, Australian jobs and the Australian way of life. It was the faceless bureaucrats who decided to weaken the policy in the 1950s and 1960s, always fearful of the old chestnut that other countries would think badly of Australia, as if Asian countries in particular have some sort of high moral ground to stand against us on.

What the establishment are doing is basically replacing white Australians with Asians. Both sides of government have been doing this for decades under an unwritten agreement that unless Australia becomes significantly Asian, Australia will be unable to engage with Asia economically. Business has also been urging strong engagement with Asia, as they like to have an endless supply of cheap labour and an ever growing consumer base – it's all about the numbers. Neither government nor big business see Australia as a nation, to them Australia is merely an economic entity for them to exploit for their own profits.

One of the lines that pro-Asianists like to trot out is the one about Australia being part of Asia. Australia is not a part of Asia and if the multicultural apologists had been paying attention in geography classes at school, they would have learnt that Australia is actually a part of the region called Oceania. Oceania is the geographic region between Asia and the West coast of America. It consists of four sub-regions comprising of Micronesia, Melanesia, Polynesia, and Australasia. Australia and New Zealand form the basis of Australasia. I've never heard these people, who insist that Australia is part of Asia, call Australian Aborigines 'Asians'.

The Australia we have today is a legacy of the white Europeans who discovered, colonised, built and developed Australia into a great nation. From the earliest days of Australian history, the Europeans have always been wary of the surrounding Asian hordes. Not all early Australians were so concerned to preserve their race or heritage; capitalists looking for easy exploitation were more than happy to import Asians as cheap labour, they were prepared to give away our future for a cheap bag of sugar.

Our forefathers had a strong sense of Australian identity, of who they were, and their confidence in this allowed them to think about how they could go about preserving that identity for future generations. The most obvious way was via the exclusion of non-Europeans from Australia. Our forefathers knew that to preserve liberty and democracy in Australia, they had to find a way to preserve racial homogeneity; they knew liberty and democracy could not be upheld or carried long-term by a miscegenated rabble. In January 1888, the Attorney General of Tasmania wrote to the British secretary for the colonies in response to a British protest on the exclusion of Chinese. In part he said:

[ it ] would create a combined political and industrial division of society upon the basis of a racial distinction. This would inevitably produce in the majority of the remainder of the population a degraded estimate of manual labour similar to that which has always existed in those communities where African slavery has been permitted, and thereby call into existence a class similar in habit and character to the “mean whites” of the Southern States of the American Union before the Civil War. Societies so divided produce particular vices in exaggerated proportions, and are doomed to certain deterioration.²

The Australians had seen the carnage and chaos of the American civil war brought on because of the American slave practice. They had seen a white underclass formed because industrialists and growers preferred the use of cheap coloured labour instead of using white labour. The Australian colonies did not want to see the formation of a white underclass or a civil war and therefore it is a testament to their wisdom and foresight that the Australian colonies were Federated in 1901 without a single drop of blood being spilt.

One of other favourite lines the multiculturalists like to reel out is the one about how “Australia was built on immigration, we are a nation of immigrants”, as if such a statement could suddenly make the multicultural lie work. It's true that Australia was built upon a foundation of immigration, whether it was by transportation or free British immigration; however, those early immigrants developed a nation of people who came to see themselves as Australians with a fierce understanding of that identity whilst still acknowledging their heritage.

Thus, while the flow of British immigrants was important, Australians resented the imposition of criminal transportation by the British government, as it was seen as an affront to the new colonies' social progress. Indeed, in 1849, what was to become known as ' The great protest meeting' took place in Circular Quay, attended by some 8,000 persons, (a large number in those days) in response to the arrival of the convict ship Hashemy.³

So what sort of immigrants were required? Sir Henry Parkes tells us in a speech he gave in March 1881, where he sought to have his immigration legislation debated; in part he said:

“I am an advocate of immigration. But why? Because without the element of population we cannot build up a nation in this new country. I want men and women—free men and women—of our own stock to assist us in laying the broad foundations of an empire“⁴

Sir Edmund Barton, our first Prime Minister was also acutely racially conscious, according to Brian Carroll's book “Australia's Prime Ministers”:

In moving the second reading of the Immigration Restriction Act, Barton was emphatic about its importance. He was pleased, he said, to turn from 'mere machinery bills' to a measure of definite and high policy. Although he quoted copiously from Pearson's “National Life and Character” as to the terrible results of racial contamination, Barton knew that Australia would be in trouble with Britain if it based its immigration polices on race alone. Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain had told him that disqualification on the grounds of race and colour was not only offensive to a friendly power, but contrary to the general conceptions of equality which have ever been the guiding principle of British rule throughout the Empire.⁵

Well, we have seen how those 'guiding principles' have worked out for the British in the last few years haven't we? The British people are actually coping both barrels of immigration, they are now being colonised by Asian Muslims.

The early Australian Labor party and the unions were also in full support of White Australia. The Labor movement played a key role in anti-Chinese agitation in the nineteenth century. It opposed the employment of non-Europeans on racial as well as cultural grounds. The Australian Workers Union denied membership to non-Europeans, especially Chinese. In 1900 the newly-established Labor Party gave its commitment to white Australia as calling for “the total exclusion of coloured and undesirable races”; and, at the 1921 Federal Labor conference, the Labor party's commitment to white Australia was re-iterated⁶.

There was also strong public support for the White Australia Policy. In April 1943 a Gallup poll was commissioned, and demonstrated that nine out of ten people favoured the resumption of white immigration after the war. Fifty one percent opposed any change whatsoever to the White Australia Policy⁷. So what went wrong? In the face of such public and institutional support how could the White Australia Policy be dismantled without the Australian people rioting in the streets? Faceless bureaucrats, internationalists and assorted traitors, thats how. These individuals took it upon themselves to subvert democracy and the will of the people in order to embark on an insane social experiment.

The two most prominent in this long list of traitors were Peter Heydon and Hubert Opperman. Peter Heydon was appointed to the position of Secretary of the Immigration Department in 1961. Heydon was a career public servant who spent most of his time swanning around the world in various government posts at taxpayers’ expense. Heydon was appointed, not elected, to the role as Secretary, but took on the role with the idea that he would, without public knowledge and without a mandate to do so, start to dismantle the White Australia Policy.

Heydon, it seems, held somewhat contradictory views on the makeup of Australia. On one hand he confessed to being an 'assimilationist' while at the same time saying that he believed in the racial and social homogeneity of Australia. As time passed however, he dropped his racial views and promoted the concept of the 'civic patriot' and misled people, and even the government, by saying that he was a full believer in 'social homogeneity', a fig leaf to cover his true deceit; he described himself as a 'progressive conservative'⁸.

Heydon was more concerned with earning praise for his so called 'progressive' views on immigration from non-Europeans than he was about preserving Australia’s racial identity. On more then one occasion he discussed his secret plan to 'liberalise' the White Australia Policy with non-Europeans, in one particular case with the editor of the African American Magazine 'Ebony', Era Thompson⁹. 'Ebony' magazine? I wonder what would happen if we started a magazine called 'Ivory'? It is recorded that Heydon noted 'with pleasure' Thompson's surprise on learning about the number of non-Europeans that Heydon had allowed to build up in Australia. Heydon was more interested in personal self-gratification than he was in the thoughts and opinions of ordinary Australians who did not want their country flooded with sewerage from the Third World.

At a meeting in 1962 when the Australian Institute of International Affairs Group on Australia and Asia criticised the 75% rule (that being a person had to be at least 75% racially European) Heydon responded by telling them that the 75% rule actually referred to the alien as having lived 75% as a European, rather than being 75% of European descent¹⁰. In 1963 Heydon met with IRG (Immigration Reform Group) and assured them that 'considerable liberalisation' of the White Australia Policy had taken place quietly over the years and there was more to come – all of course without the knowledge or permission of the Australian public.

The other person in this conspiracy to override the public was an elected member of parliament. Hubert Opperman entered parliament in 1949 via the Victorian seat of Corin and I am fairly certain he didn't run on a platform of 'destroying white Australia'; no doubt, he was just another deceitful politician who promised one thing but did another. He became the Minister for Immigration in the Menzies government in 1963 and, like Heydon, had it in mind to dismantle the White Australia Policy at the earliest opportunity. Whilst Heydon could only influence and was still limited by the Policy; it was the new minister for Immigration, Hubert Opperman, who was able to bring about legislative changes from within the government itself.

Opperman was apparently motivated by 'humanitarian concerns', but those concerns didn't seem to extend to future generations of white Australians. Opperman even encouraged his secretary to prepare a submission arguing for a change of rules in favour of letting more 'mixed bloods' and non-Europeans into Australia.

Like Heydon, Opperman seemed more concerned about what non-Europeans thought of the White Australia Policy than the opinion of White Australians on the subject. Opperman worked extensively with pro-immigration pressure groups and with Heydon to build support amongst the intelligentsia for the dismantling of White Australia.

This culminated in the first overt attempt at change in 1964, when Opperman and Heydon met with immigration officers and senior bureaucrats with the express intention of allowing more Asians into the country, Heydon noted the objectives of their proposed changes in his dairy:

“The intention is not to alter our traditional idea of a socially homogeneous Australia, but it will give the Minister authority to admit non-Europeans on a selective basis, replacing the present system where we are obliged to admit a number of Asians, particularly Chinese, without any really selective process. In other words, it will probably mean the admission of a small if steadily increasing number of Asians....”¹¹

However, Menzies was dead against any such changes and in May 1964 the amendments put forward by Opperman were partly knocked back. Opperman complained to Menzies about the unfair discrimination of the 'five year rule', to which he replied - “Good thing too – right sort of discrimination¹²”. The Prime Minister’s office also vetoed a proposed change to the 15 year citizenship rule. Despite these setbacks, Opperman, with the support of other coalition ministers, sought to present the submissions to the Liberal Party cabinet anyway. In the meantime, Heydon was encouraged by the ever-increasing support of the elites he'd been cultivating. It was also around this time that white ants infesting the Labor Party had successfully sought to drop the White Australia Policy from their platform¹³, paving the way for the rise of Gough Whitlam and Al Grassby.

Opperman presented his amendments to the Liberal Party cabinet on the 1^st of September 1964 in two separate submissions. The aim of the first was to allow more 'mixed race' people into Australia, on the grounds it was too hard to apply the 75% rule. The second part of the submission was to revise the overall rules affecting non-European immigration, that non-Europeans should have the same rules applied to them as European immigrants all under the guise of 'social homogeneity', they appeared hell-bent on destroying White Australia.

In the end Opperman and Heydon failed to sway the government, even though some in the ministry supported the changes, Harold Holt being one of them. However, they were not willing to stand up to Menzies on the issue, as noted by Heydon in his diary:

“One senior Minister, whose department has been talking very big about increasing the number of Asians in Australia sixfold, gave no evidence of this attitude at all. The permanent head of the department has widely reproved me for not getting the Minister to recommend more than he did... I gather from our Minister that many of the younger Ministers supported our propositions but were pretty abruptly overborne by senior Ministers. One Minister, who seems to have direct interest from the point of view of his portfolio in the reforms going through, said practically nothing....”¹⁴

Opperman was, however, successful in the changing the 75% rule and from 1964 the number of mixed-race migrants would spiral steadily upwards. Heydon even went on to reflect in his diary “I am quite convinced that in this matter the government is out of touch with public opinion”¹⁵. This reveals Heydon's deceit in this matter, since he tried very hard to keep the extent of the changes hidden from the public, because he knew then that what he was doing was actually against public opinion, as did Menzies. What he was really saying was that the government was out of touch with his own cosmopolitan ideology. In the face of their failure to convince the Liberal Party Cabinet, Opperman and Heydon vowed to continue the reforms in a gradual and unobtrusive manner, and therefore continue to subvert Australian democracy.

The very minor 1964 changes were the ominous precursor to the criminal act committed against the Australian public in 1966. A series immigration cases given much publicity by the media, hard luck stories opportunistically used by journalists, gave momentum to the Heydon/Opperman campaign for dismantling White Australia and stealing our future. The opportunity came in January 1966 when Menzies announced his retirement; while his replacement was being decided upon, Opperman warned at a meeting with various unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats (including Heydon) about carrying out a continuing gradualist approach on immigration reform so as not to give the impression that they had been only waiting for the 'old man to go'¹⁶ – some might call that a conspiracy.

Harold Holt replaced Menzies as Prime Minister and actively pursued changes to the Policy. On the 14^th of February 1966, Holt rang Heydon to ask about having the 15 year rule revision prepared for resubmission to the cabinet. Holt also later rang Heydon offering ideas on how the changes should be presented, Holt also wanted to announce the reforms in parliament, but Heydon was against the idea, fearing that Holt would exaggerate the scope of the changes and cause a public backlash¹⁷ – which once again demonstrated that they knew that what they were doing was against the people's will.

Opperman resubmitted to the Liberal Party cabinet what was basically the same proposal as presented in 1964; and these parliamentary cowards, who were supposed to be representing the people, accepted Opperman's assurances of wanting to maintain “social homogeneity”, a phrase designed to disguise from any stupid cabinet ministers and also the public, the true intention of the changes.

Holt, as Prime Minister, agreed with the new proposal, apparently in a bid to differentiate himself from Menzies, as well as trying to appear more “progressive”,and to appease the yellow hordes eyeing off our land. This criminal filth was only really interested in self-aggrandizement and could not move fast enough to announce to all and sundry his intention to fatally wound the White Australia Policy. The fact that he agreed with the 1966 proposals, which were really only a resubmission of the 1964 proposals that he rejected as a Minister, reveals his lack of character , in that he didn't have the spine to stand against Menzies over the 1964 proposals, he didn't have the moral courage to stand by his own principles.

Holt was interested in increasing Asian immigration, as indicated by an announcement he made to the parliament in March 1966, much to the chagrin of Heydon:

“Australia's increasing involvement in Asian developments, the rapid growth of our trade with Asian countries, our participation on a larger scale in an increasing number of aid projects in the area, the considerable number of Asian students – now well over 12,000 – receiving education in Australia, the expansion of our military effort, the scale of diplomatic contact, and the growth of tourism to and from the countries of Asia”.¹⁸

It's important to bear in mind that Holt was a member of the Australian Liberal Party during the period we are looking at; that is, it was not just the Labor party involved in Asianisation.

In any event, Opperman presented the changes to parliament and they were duly debated on the 24^th and 29^th of March in a bi-partisan manner – in other words, the Australian people, who elected these criminals to parliament, were having their country pulled right out from beneath their feet, not just by the incumbent government, but by both sides of politics! It should be no surprise, I suppose, since Heydon and Opperman had been cultivating support amongst the elites, various pressure groups, the ALP and Liberal Ministers. Malcolm Fraser, then minister for defense, welcomed Opperman's parliamentary speech, saying it was a “cautious but significant speech on immigration policy .... which didn't ram it down peoples throats but was effectively telling people who were aware that the White Australia policy was dead”¹⁹. In other words, Opperman's speech was deliberately crafted to fly over the heads of the people and only communicate to the elites and the waiting Asian hordes that Australia had, in effect, kicked the front door wide open.

Holt, as most of us know, disappeared whilst swimming at the seaside in December 1967, thus ending his otherwise unremarkable life. As for Heydon, he died in 1971; putting an end to his white-anting, but not before significant structural damage had been done. In 1967 Heydon revealed in a letter with chilling clarity his treason against the Australian people:

“Frankly, I think that the policy as decided by the Government in March last year is substantially different because for the first time it says positively that Asians can be admitted in a straightforward way and not merely as carefully defined exceptions in very limited areas .... Roughly what I am saying is that .... we are now running a controlled experiment”²⁰.

Heydon pondered about how future historians would view his work. That’s simple, from where I stand, he was a traitor who swindled our children out of their rightful inheritance. After the deaths of those two scumbags, Heydon and Holt, the Liberal Party elected John Gorton as leader and thus Prime Minister. John Gorton's time in parliament was dogged by controversy and incompetence, however, he was yet another traitor in a long line of Liberal Party traitors and in 1971 he was quoted as saying:

"I think if we build up gradually inside Australia a proportion of people without white skins, then there will be a complete lack of consciousness that it is being built up ... and that we will arrive at a state where we will have a multi-racial country without racial tensions - and perhaps the first in the world"²¹

Not only does that sum up the “boiling frog syndrome”, its basically the recipe for the United Nations’ “brown man”; that is how they want to eradicate racism, not just as a social taboo, but to actually destroy the existence of all of the human races. It probably won't surprise you that Malcolm Fraser was a strong supporter of Gorton, given Fraser's own treachery against the Australian people when he became Prime Minister.

Gorton, after losing a confidence vote, was replaced with McMahon, and Gorton became his deputy. After this, Gorton appears to have gone completely feral and ended up being dumped from the Liberal Party in 1972, and in May of that year, when Liberal minister Don Chipp declared that he'd like to see Australia become a multiracial society, Gorton publicly supported his comments. By 1975 Gorton had abandoned the Liberal Party and even advised voters to vote for Labor. Gorton stood as an independent, but failed, and went on to champion such causes as the decriminalisation of marijuana and the provision of heroin to junkies²².

In 1972 the Whitlam government was elected to office and immediately began to dismantle White Australia by way of a false mandate. I say false mandate because it has become fashionable amongst the latte sippers to infer that because the electorate voted for the Whitlam government, it therefore gave the Whitlam government the mandate to dismantle White Australia. Even after Grassby lost his seat of Riverina and the Whitlam government was reduced to a small majority, leftist apologists still claim Whitlam and Grassby had the people’s confidence when destroying White Australia.

In August 1973 Grassby gave a speech at the Cairnmillar Institute in which he said in part:

“My vision of our society in the year 2000 foreshadows a greatly increasing social complexity, in which the diverse ethnic components will be producing new national initiatives, stimulating new artistic endeavours, and ensuring greater strength in diversity”²³

The Whitlam government was an abject failure; aside from committing treason against the people, inflation and unemployment rates both went up dramatically under Whitlam; then there was that laughable loan scheme involving some dodgy Pakistani businessman. Interestingly though, it has been revealed that Whitlam said of the Vietnamese refugees that he “was not having hundreds of f**king Vietnamese Balts coming into this country with their religious and political hatred against us”²⁴ - apparently he was more concerned about upsetting Hanoi by assisting anti-communists to flee Vietnam rather then being moved by any 'progressive' humanitarianism. Anyway, the importation of the Asian hordes was left largely to the Liberal Party’s Malcolm Fraser, who became the next prime minister.

The Fraser government, under the guise of 'humanitarianism', brought into Australia not only hordes of East Asians, but hordes of West Asians, who – amongst other things – went on to form the Muslim enclave of Lakemba in Sydney. Many people seem not to realise that the Middle East is actually part a of Asia (West Asia) and must be taken into account when considering Asian immigration. It was Malcolm Fraser’s Liberal government who was ultimately responsible for the Lebanese problems that later occurred: the gang rapes, bashings and the problems at Cronulla. Fraser brought the Asians in to help the Liberals exploit ethnic voting blocks; they had seen Labor successfully exploit ethnic voting blocks during their time in government, and wanted some of the action too²⁵. It's basically a form of vertical marketing, and exposes the cowardly self-interest of the Liberal-Labor parliamentary whores – they are only interested in keeping their snouts in the feed trough that is funded by our tax dollars.

The best example of this racist politicking occurred a few years ago when Simon Crean was on the verge of losing his Labor preselection²⁶. All the action centered around Hotham, in Victoria. Hong Lim, the local ALP “warlord”, had decided it was time to do away with Crean and stacked the branch with Asians in order to achieve the desired result. Lim had been stacking the branch for years with Cambodian immigrants, he controlled the branch via racially based politics. Not only is it an example of the corruption within the major political parties, it also reinforces something Professor Andrew Fraser said about ethnic interests. In his letter to the Parramatta Sun that caused all the controversy, he said - in essence - that people will naturally promote or employ others along their own ethnic lines:

“Australia is creating a new heavily Asian managerial-professional, ruling class that will feel no hesitation … in promoting the narrow interests of their co-ethnics at the expense of white Australians²⁷.

Not only was this demonstrated by Hong Lim and his ethnic Asian branch stacking, it was also demonstrated by the Tri-Star corporation's behaviour a little while ago. For those of you who don't recall, Tri-Star is a company that manufacture car parts for what’s left of the Australian car industry and had decided to move their manufacturing base into Asia. In doing so and in trying to avoid paying mass redundancy, Tri-Star tried to force long-term employees onto new contracts that would effectively annul their long service entitlements; they were exploiting some loop-hole in the new industrial relations laws. As it happens, Tri-Star is owned by a larger company called ArrowCrest, whose CEO is Cheng Hong²⁸; no doubt he was moving manufacturing to Asia because it was cheaper, but you can be sure that the people managing those factories are likely to be Chinese.

So, where are we heading with Asianisation? I guess the best place to start is with the numbers. Following on from the end of WWII, it was the Labor Party which began the mass immigration programs based on Caldwell's 'populate or perish' principle; from 1949, when the Liberal Party came into power, they continued with the same policy of mass immigration.

Asian immigration had been kept pretty low; from 1959 to 1965 Asian immigration was between 2.5% and 4%; however, these statistics are by country of birth, which included Europeans who were born in Asian countries, so the actual Asian component was somewhat lower . Harold Holt (a Liberal Party Prime Minister) changed the immigration rules in 1966 to allow an increase in Asian immigration, thus pushing it from 4% to 11%. Under Gough Whitlam's Labor government, Asian immigration went from 11% to 21%. It was under Malcolm Fraser's Liberal government, however, that we saw a real boost of Asian immigration, kept at a steady rate of between 26% and 35%. The Hawke and Keating Labor governments really booted the door open, with Asian immigration being at least 39%, but at times hitting 55%²⁹. Asian immigration (based on country of birth) has gone from 32,585 per annum in 1994/95 to 54,763 per annum in 2004/05³⁰. Given that John Howard's Liberal government didn't take office until March 1996, it shows that the Liberals have been letting in more Asians than the previous Labor governments.

Those numbers don't look too bad until you start adding up the intervening years. Such a calculation produces a figure of over 450,000 Asians that have been brought into this country under Howard. And that is just the Asian figures, it doesn't take into account other non-European immigration. If you look at the reports produced by the Federal immigration department, they count Middle East immigration separately from Asian and then even subdivide Asia between various regions to minimize the visual impact of the large-looking numbers. It should be no surprise then to learn that the majority of non-Europeans in the Federal seat of Bennelong, Prime Minister John Howard’s electorate, are Asians³¹.

As a contrast, in the period between 1979 and 1990, Japan accepted 6,957 refugees or an intake equivalent to 0.006% of their 1990 population, whereas between 1975 and 1989, Australia took in 173,823 refugees or 1% of our population at that time. Our intake was 166 times that of Japan's, whose population was 6.4 times our population. It is little wonder then that today Japan's population is 98.5% ethnically Japanese, with the remaining 1.5 % being other ethnic Asians, while in Australia we surrender entire suburbs to the Asiatic hordes, we would do well to take a leaf out of Japan's immigration policy book³².

Presently, we are looking down the barrel of another federal Labor government whose leader is an acknowledged Sinophile. A Sinophile is someone who has an affection for all things Chinese, in Rudd's case, a decidedly unhealthy interest in all things Chinese.³³ He gave his daughter away in marriage to an Asian³⁴, he has Asian nephews³⁵, and he fluently speaks an Asian language³⁶. If he doesn’t care about the Asianisation of his own family, what do you think he's prepared do to your family and nation via Asianisation? If some of the things Rudd has said are any indicator, I would say that a vote for Labor is a vote for Asianisation and he has already started populating his front bench with Asians³⁷. However, I'm not endorsing John Howard’s Liberal Party government either, as not only has the Howard government brought in about half a million Asians, it has also brought in tens of thousands of Africans, who along with the Asians, have no place in this country.

According to Kevin Rudd, our forefathers were not explorers, discoverers and scientists, they were rapacious destroyers and invaders. At a meeting with Aboriginal groups, Rudd said “a Labor government would say sorry for past atrocities committed by European invaders”³⁸. This is how the left de-legitimatise our Australian heritage, by denying our past, Rudd is a denier. Once the past is forgotten, Asianisation will easily fill the void as demonstrated recently in a TodayTonight segment on Asianisation where they interviewed two Asians who did not know who Don Bradman was, did not know what Pavlova is and did not know what Waltzing Matilda is, yet they were supposed to be Australian citizens. They also had retained their Chinese citizenship and when asked if Australia should have an Asian prime minister, they said “that would be good” and believed that Australia will become just another Asian country³⁹.

Rudd is fluent in Mandarin and he expects our kids to be Asian language speakers as well. In a speech he gave this year he said:

My plan is to help foster a generation of Asia-literate Australians increasingly comfortable with the languages and cultures of our region....I announce that Labor will re-establish an Asian languages and studies strategy for Australian schools. This will cost $65 million dollars over four years and will be done in partnership with the states and territories⁴⁰.

The ALP does have a plan for us, mostly involving importing hordes of Asians as cheap labor and to provide fodder for greedy big business by enlarging the consumer base. However, it runs deeper than that; the Establishment appear to have an agenda to replace White European Australians with Third Worlders, or at least reduce them to the point that traditional white Australians will no longer have an identity or the majority in their own country. At that point, Australia will cease to be part of Western Civilisation and will become just another Asian country. Isn't it amazing how a party that staunchly supported the Australian worker in the old days, could - in the space of one generation - do a complete about face?

It's not just the Australian establishment we have to be concerned about, it's also the Chinese establishment. The Chinese government has started a new initiative called the 'Confucius Institute'⁴¹. It is touted as a program for the advancement of Chinese culture and language for the benefit and support of the Chinese diaspora as well as teaching the locals about all things Chinese. The Confucius Institute is setup within universities worldwide and is used by the Chinese government to reinforce the cultural and ethnic ties of the Chinese diaspora with the motherland. It is non-political in nature so even those Chinese who have fled China to escape political or religious persecution can join in the program on a cultural/ethnic level.

There is a Confucius Institute in most countries, including in Kenya and Nigeria. The spectacle of Africans talking in Mandarin must truly be a sight to behold. One has to wonder why Africans would have any interest in Chinese culture and language at all, but China does have some large mineral and oil exploration projects currently operating in Africa. This represents Sino hegemony at its finest. Few people have heard of the Confucius Institute, but could you imagine the uproar if there were projects like the 'Mohammad Institute' having the same aims of the Confucius Institute? This is one of the great dangers of Asianisation; Asians just go about their business, they don't run about in packs gang-raping white girls, they don't go on inter-urban Jihads, and therefore they are not the subject of media scrutiny or public attention. They just quietly breed like flies with the result being the ethnic cleansing of white Australians by demographic colonisation.

And that demographic colonisation is becoming obvious, particularly in Sydney suburbs such as Hurstville, Burwood and Cabramatta, but also in the city of Sydney itself. Recently I took the kids in to see the U.S.S. Kittyhawke, and there were Asians everywhere. We went into the NSW State library, and it was like being in an ants' nest, it was full of Asians. Asians are not like us, they have a different view on life, they are different both culturally and socially. For example, in Australia and the West generally we treat dogs and cats as companion animals and have some affection for dolphins but in Asian countries they are merely a source of food.

What are the results of this Asianisation and mass immigration? It brings with it diseases that have been eradicated for decades back into Australia, such as polio and turbiculosis (TB) ⁴²and, in the case of Africans, diseases that have never been seen in Australia before⁴³. Australians are also put at risk by low food handling standards prevalent in Asia and then replicated by Asian immigrants here in Australia. There has been cases of consumer alerts after a food worker at a sushi shop was found to have had hepatitis⁴⁴. Health authorities in NSW and Victoria have been fining, in some cases repeatedly, Asian food business for poor hygiene standards; in fact, a list released by a NSW council consisted almost entirely of Asian businesses who had been fined for poor food handling standards⁴⁵. A major sushi supplier in Sydney was also fined repeatedly, as it was found to have rats and pigeons in the food storage areas and yet was permitted to operate for a further six months before any serious action was taken⁴⁶. The importation of foodstuffs from Asia should be of concern to all Australians, as who knows what chemicals are being used on those cheap fruit and vegetables you can find at Coles or Woolworths? Does anybody have any idea where some of the frozen fish is sourced from? Just what fish are you getting when you buy your “fish 'n' chips”? Well, it comes from the toilet bowl of Asia, the Mekong River, which is highly contaminated with human sewerage, industrial pollution and run-off from agricultural pesticides⁴⁷.

fish farms in the Mekong river, the toilet bowl of Asia.

Extensive immigration puts a strain on our infrastructure and our natural resources (particularly water), it pushes the price of housing up, and it puts upward pressure on rents, all of which feed inflation. Immigration also results in downwards pressure on wages, due to the oversupply of labour which is exacerbated by abuse of the 457 visa system,.

Australia cannot become the receptacle for Asia's unwanted, nor for Africa's unwanted – we cannot become a dumping ground for the Third World's population overflow. It will not help us and it will not help them. We cannot become a safety valve for their population problems. Indiscriminate immigration will ultimately lead, as demonstrated by Cronulla in 2005⁴⁸, to violence and social discontent. Such discontent gives rise to extremist groups such as the Klu Klux Klan⁴⁹, as people look around in increasing desperation for somebody who will stand up for them against the Establishment. In fact, the attempted coup of May 2000 in Fiji by George Speight is a stark example of the violence that can occur from Asianisation. Fijian Indians, who are largely the descendants of the Indian coolie labour used by the British during the 19^th century, represent 37% of the population. The catalyst for the coup came about after Prime Minister Chaudhry, an ethnic Indian try to ban Speight from any government-appointed positions. Speight had wide support from native Fijians who were fed-up with their own short-sighted ethnic leaders and tired of being dominated politically by ethnic Indians – they wanted Fiji for the Fijians⁵⁰. In a similar vein, politico-ethnic oppression was the catalyst for the events of December 2005 in Cronulla. Our politicians still have not made any significant inroads into addressing the causes, instead they continue to flood Australia with Asian, Arabs and Africans.

So what can we do? It’s well enough to bring these things to your attention, but we need solutions. As individuals, we can do small things like writing letters to the editor, writing or calling your local Member of Parliament, refusing to shop at Asian-owned business', or refusing to buy goods imported from Asia. That last option may be difficult, since nearly everything we used to manufacture ourselves is now made in Asia or in some Third World country. The other thing we can do as individuals is to come together to form a political bloc. One person writing to the local MP may have some small effect, but a million people marching in the streets will certainly have an effect, as something that large will attract the attention of our politicians, but even better would be to have a political party that is attractive to, and representative of, ordinary Australians that would be able to break into the current two party system that passes for democracy in this country.

What would such a political party set out to achieve if it had power or influence in this country? The most obvious action is the termination of all Asian immigration; in fact, I would go a step further and end all non-European immigration into Australia; such immigration should return to being a very rare exception, rather than the rule. We should also deport all non-European non-citizens who are major criminals (for example murder, rape) from our gaols at the end of their sentence, and convicted major criminals who are citizens should have their citizenship revoked and be deported. All illegal immigrants should be immediately deported. All Muslim immigration should be stopped straight away. The Australian government should only be paying the baby bonus where the parents are both of European descent; how stupid do you have to be to pay Arabs, Asians, and Africans to out-breed us? We should also consider the idea of providing financial incentives to non-Europeans to return to their country of origin or to a country that is compatible with their racial and cultural background – whilst they can be legally “Australian citizens” , they are not Australians ,and they can never be Australians.

I'm sure there are a lot of other ideas we can discuss, but the time for action is getting short. I think we have less than ten years for white Australians to form some type of movement or political party that can have an influence on the future direction of this country. Remember that by 2020, Australia will be at least 30% Asian or higher and by then, it will be too late, the country will be lost, and our descendants will have no future as Australians. It's time for us to unify now, if not for our own sake, then for our children's sake, and ultimately for the sake of our nation.

The Liberal Double-Talk & its Lexical and Legal Consequences

by Tomislav (Tom) Sunic

Language is a potent weapon for legitimizing any political system. In many instances the language in the liberal West is reminiscent of the communist language of the old Soviet Union, although liberal media and politicians use words and phrases that are less abrasive and less value loaded than words used by the old communist officials and their state-run media. In Western academe, media, and public places, a level of communication has been reached which avoids confrontational discourse and which resorts to words devoid of substantive meaning. Generally speaking, the liberal system shuns negative hyperbolas and skirts around heavy-headed qualifiers that the state-run media of the Soviet Union once used in fostering its brand of conformity and its version of political correctness. By contrast, the media in the liberal system, very much in line with its ideology of historical optimism and progress, are enamored with the overkill of morally uplifting adjectives and adverbs, often displaying words and expressions such as "free speech," "human rights," "tolerance," and "diversity." There is a wide spread assumption among modern citizens of the West that the concepts behind these flowery words must be taken as something self-evident.

There appears to be a contradiction. If free speech is something "self- evident" in liberal democracies, then the word "self-evidence" does not need to be repeated all the time; it can be uttered only once, or twice at the most. The very adjective "self-evident," so frequent in the parlance of liberal politicians may in fact hide some uncertainties and even some self-doubt on the part of those who employ it. With constant hammering of these words and expressions, particularly words such as "human rights," and "tolerance", the liberal system may be hiding something; hiding, probably, the absence of genuine free speech. To illustrate this point more clearly it may be advisable for an average citizen living in the liberal system to look at the examples of the communist rhetoric which was once saturated with similar freedom-loving terms while, in reality, there was little of freedom and even less free-speech.

Verbal Mendacity

The postmodern liberal discourse has its own arsenal of words that one can dub with the adjective "Orwellian", or better yet "double-talk", or simply call it verbal mendacity. The French use the word "wooden language" (la langue de bois) and the German "cement" or "concrete" language (Betonsprache) for depicting an arcane bureaucratic and academic lingo that never reflects political reality and whose main purpose is to lead masses to flawed conceptualisation of political reality. Modern authors, however, tend to avoid the pejorative term "liberal double-talk,” preferring instead the arcane label of "the non-cognitive language which is used for manipulative or predictive analyses." (1) Despite its softer and non abrasive version, liberal double-talk, very similar to the communist "wooden language," has a very poor conceptual universe. Similar to the communist vernacular, it is marked by pathos and attempts to avoid the concrete. On the one hand, it tends to be aggressive and judgemental towards its critics yet, on the other, it is full of eulogies, especially regarding its multiracial experiments. It resorts to metaphors which are seldom based on real historical analogies and are often taken out of historical context, notably when depicting its opponents with generic “shut-up” words such as "racists", "anti-Semites", or "fascists".

The choice of grammatical embellishers is consistent with the all-prevailing, liberal free market which, as a rule, must employ superlative adjectives for the free commerce of its goods and services. Ironically, there was some advantage of living under the communist linguistic umbrella. Behind the communist semiotics in Eastern Europe, there always loomed popular doubt which greatly helped ordinary citizens to decipher the political lie, and distinguish between friend and foe. The communist meta-language could best be described as a reflection of a make-belief system in which citizens never really believed and of which everybody, including communist party dignitaries, made fun of in private. Eventually, verbal mendacity spelled the death of communism both in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

By contrast, in the liberal system, politicians and scholars, let alone the masses, still believe in every written word of the democratic discourse. (2) There seem to be far less heretics, or for that matter dissidents who dare critically examine the syntax and semantics of the liberal double-talk. Official communication in the West perfectly matches the rule of law and can, therefore, rarely trigger a violent or a negative response among citizens. Surely, the liberal system allows mass protests and public demonstrations; it allows its critics to openly voice their disapproval of some flawed foreign policy decision. Different political and infra-political groups, hostile to the liberal system, often attempt to publicly drum-up public support on behalf or against some issue - be it against American military involvement in the Middle East, or against the fraudulent behavior of a local political representative. But, as an unwritten rule, seldom can one see rallies or mass demonstrations in Australia, America, or in Europe that would challenge the substance of parliamentary democracy and liberalism, let alone discard the ceremonial language of the liberal ruling class. Staging open protests with banners "Down with liberal democracy!, or "Parliamentary democracy sucks"!, would hardly be tolerated by the system. These verbal icons represent a “no entry zone” in liberalism.

The shining examples of the double-talk in liberalism are expressions such as "political correctness", "hate speech," "diversity," "market democracy," "ethnic sensitivity training" among many, many others. It is often forgotten, though, that the coinage of these expressions is relatively recent and that their etymology remains of dubious origin. These expressions appeared in the modern liberal dictionary in the late 70s and early 80s and their architects are widely ignored. Seldom has a question been raised as to who had coined those words and given them their actual meaning. What strikes the eyes is the abstract nature of these expressions. The expression "political correctness" first appeared in the American language and had no explicit political meaning; it was, rather, a fun- related, derogatory expression designed for somebody who was not trendy, such as a person smoking cigarettes or having views considered not to be "in" or "cool." Gradually, and particularly after the fall of communism, the conceptualization of political correctness, acquired a very serious and disciplinary meaning.

Examples of political eulogy and political vilification in liberalism are often couched in sentimentalist vs. animalistic words and syllabi, respectively. When the much vaunted free press in liberalism attempts to glorify some event or some personality that fits into the canons of political rectitude, it will generally use a neutral language with sparse superlatives, with the prime intention not to subvert its readers, such as: "The democratic circles in Ukraine, who have been subject to governmental harassment, are propping up their rank and file to enable them electoral success." Such laudatory statements must be well-hidden behind neutral words. By contrast when attempting to silence critics of the system who challenge the foundation of liberal democracy, the ruling elites and their frequently bankrolled journalists will use more direct words - something in the line of old Soviet stylistics, e.g.: "With their ultranationalist agenda and hate-mongering these rowdy individuals on the street of Sydney or Quebec showed once again their parentage in the monstrosity of the Nazi legacy." Clearly, the goal is to disqualify the opponent by using an all pervasive and hyperreal word "Nazism." "A prominent American conservative author Paul Gottfried writes: "In fact, the European Left, like Canadian and Australian Left, pushes even further the trends adapted from American sources: It insists on criminalizing politically correct speech as an incitement to "fascists excess." (3)


The first conclusion one can draw is that liberalism can better fool the masses than communism. Due to torrents of meaningless idioms, such as "human rights" and "democracy" on the one hand, and "Nazism" and "fascism" on the other, the thought control and intellectual repression in liberalism functions far better. Therefore, in the liberal “soft” system, a motive for a would-be heretic to overthrow the system is virtually excluded. The liberal system is posited on historical finitude simply because there is no longer the communist competitor who could come up with its own real or surreal "freedom narrative." Thus, liberalism gives an impression of being the best system – simply because there are no other competing political narratives on the horizon.

What are the political implications of the liberal double-talk? It must be pointed out that liberal language is the reflection of the overall socio-demographic situation in the West. Over the last twenty years all Western states, including Australia, have undergone profound social and demographic changes; they have become "multicultural" systems. (multicultural being just a euphemism for a"multiracial" state). As a result of growing racial diversity the liberal elites are aware that in order to uphold social consensus and prevent the system from possible balkanization and civil war, new words and new syntax have to be invented. It was to be expected that these new words would soon find their way into modern legislations. More and more countries in the West are adopting laws that criminalize free speech and that make political communication difficult. In fact, liberalism, similar to its communist antecedents, it is an extremely fragile system. It excludes strong political beliefs by calling its critics "radicals," which, as a result, inevitably leads to political conformity and intellectual duplicity. Modern public discourse in the West is teeming with abstract and unclear Soviet-style expressions such as “ethnic sensitivity training”, "affirmative action”, "antifascism", "diversity", and “holocaust studies". In order to disqualify its critics the liberal system is resorting more and more to negative expression such as "anti-Semites", or " "neo-Nazi", etc. This is best observed in Western higher education and the media which, over the last thirty years, have transformed themselves into places of high commissariats of political correctness, having on their board diverse "committees on preventing racial perjuries", "ethnic diversity training programs", and in which foreign racial awareness courses have become mandatory for the faculty staff and employees. No longer are professors required to demonstrate extra skills in their subject matters; instead, they must parade with sentimental and self-deprecatory statements which, as a rule, must denigrate the European cultural heritage.

By constantly resorting to the generic word "Nazism" and by using the prefix "anti", the system actually shows its negative legitimacy. One can conclude that even if all anti-Semites and all fascists were to disappear, most likely the system would invent them by creating and recreating these words. These words have become symbols of absolute evil.

The third point about the liberal discourse that needs to be stressed is its constant recourse to the imagery of hyperreality. By using the referent of "diversity", diverse liberal groups and infra-political tribes prove in fact their sameness, making dispassionate observers easily bored and tired. Nowhere is this sign of verbal hyperreality more visible than in the constant verbal and visual featuring of Jewish Holocaust symbolism which, ironically, is creating the same saturation process among the audience as was once the case with communist victimhood. The rhetoric and imagery of Holocaust no longer function "as a site of annihilation but a medium of dissuasion."(4).

The Legal Trap

Other than as a simple part of daily jargon the expression "hate speech" does not exist in any European or American legislation. Once again the distinction needs to be made between the legal field and lexical field, as different penal codes of different Western countries are framed in a far more sophisticated language. For instance, criminal codes in continental Europe have all introduced laws that punish individuals uttering critical remarks against the founding myths of the liberal system. The best example is Germany, a country which often brags itself to be the most eloquent and most democratic Constitution on Earth. This is at least what the German ruling elites say about their judiciary, and which does not depart much from what Stalin himself said about the Soviet Constitution of 1936. The Constitution of Germany is truly superb, yet in order to get the whole idea of freedom of speech in Germany one needs to examine the country's Criminal Code and its numerous agencies that are in charge of its implementation. Thus, Article 5 of the German Constitution (The Basic Law) guarantees "freedom of speech." However, Germany's Criminal Code, Section 130, and Subsection 3, appear to be in stark contradiction to the German Basic Law. Under Section 130, of the German criminal code a German citizen, but also a non-German citizen, may be convicted, if found guilty, of breaching the law of "agitation of the people" (sedition laws). It is a similar case with Austria. It must be emphasized that there is no mention in the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Germany of the Holocaust or the Nazi extermination of the Jews. But based on the context of the Criminal Code this Section can arbitrarily be applied when sentencing somebody who belittles or denies National- Socialist crimes or voices critical views of the modern historiography. Moreover a critical examination of the role of the Allies during World War may also bring some ardent historian into legal troubles.

The German language is a highly inflected language as opposed to French and English which are contextual languages and do not allow deliberate tinkering with prefixes or suffixes, or the creation of arbitrary compound words. By contrast, one can always create new words in the German language, a language often awash with a mass of neologisms. Thus, the title of the Article 130 of the German Criminal Code Volksverhetzung is a bizarre neologism and very difficult compound word which is hard to translate into English, and which on top, can be conceptualized in many opposing ways. (Popular taunting, baiting, bullying of the people, public incitement etc..). Its Subsection 3, though is stern and quite explicit and reads in English as follows:

"Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act committed under the rule of National Socialism… shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine."

If by contrast the plight of German civilians after World War II is openly discussed by a German academic or simply by some free spirit, he may run the risk of being accused of trivializing the official assumption of sole German guilt during World War II. Depending on a local legislation of some federal state in Germany an academic, although not belittling National Socialist crimes may, by inversion, fall under suspicion of "downplaying" or "trivializing" Nazi crimes - and may be fined or, worse, land in prison. Any speech or article, for instance, that may be related to events surrounding World War may have a negative anticipatory value in the eyes of the liberal inquisitors, that is to say in the eyes of the all prevailing Agency for the protection of the German Constitution (Verfassungschutz). Someone's words, as in the old Soviet system, can be easily misconstrued and interpreted as an indirect belittlement of crimes committed by National-Socialists.

Germany is a half-sovereign country still legally at war with the USA, and whose Constitution was written under the auspices of the Allies. Yet unlike other countries in the European Union, Germany has something unprecedented. Both on the state and federal levels it has that special government agency in charge of the surveillance of the Constitution. i.e., and whose sole purpose is to keep track of journalists, academics and right-wing politicians and observe the purity of their parlance and prose. The famed "Office for the Protection of the Constitution" ("Verfassungschutz"), as the German legal scholar Josef Schüsselburner writes, "is basically an internal secret service with seventeen branch agencies (one on the level of the federation and sixteen others for each constituent federal state). In the last analysis, this boils down to saying that only the internal secret service is competent to declare a person an internal enemy of the state." (5)

In terms of free speech, contemporary France is not much better. In 1990 a law was passed on the initiative of the socialist deputy Laurent Fabius and the communist deputy Jean-Claude Gayssot. That law made it a criminal offence, punishable by a fine of up to 40,000 euros, or one year in prison, or both, to contest the truth of any of the "crimes against humanity" with which the German National Socialist leaders were charged by the London Agreement of 1945, and which was drafted for the Nuremberg Trials. (6) Similar to the German Criminal Code Section 130, there is no reference to the Holocaust or Jews in this portion of the French legislation. But at least the wording of the French so-called Fabius-Gayssot law is more explicit than the fluid German word "Volksverhetzung." It clearly states that any Neo-Nazi activity having as a result the belittling of Nazi crimes is a criminal offence. With France and German, being the main pillars of the European Union these laws have already given extraordinary power to local judges of EU member countries when pronouncing verdicts against anti-liberal heretics.
For fear of being called confrontational or racist, or an anti-Semite, a European politician or academic is more and more forced to exercise self-censorship. The role of intellectual elites in Europe has never been a shining one. However, with the passage of these "hate laws" into the European legislations, the cultural and academic ambiance in Europe has become sterile. Aside from a few individuals, European academics and journalists, let alone politicians, must be the masters of self-censorship and self-delusion, as well as great impresarios of their own postmodern mimicry. As seen in the case of the former communist apparatchiks in Eastern Europe, they are likely to discard their ideas as soon as these cease to be trendy, or when another political double-talk becomes fashionable.

The modern politically-correct language, or liberal double-talk, is often used for separating the ignorant grass-roots masses from the upper level classes; it is the superb path to cultural and social ascension. The censorial intellectual climate in the Western media, so similar to the old Soviet propaganda, bears witness that liberal elites, at the beginning of the third millennium, are increasingly worried about the future identity of the countries in which they rule. For sure, the liberal system doesn’t yet need truncheons or police force in order to enforce its truth. It can remove rebels, heretics, or simply academics, by using smear campaigns, or accusing them of "guilt by association," and by removing them from important places of decision - be it in academia, the political arena, or the media. Once the spirit of the age changes, the high priests of this new postmodern inquisition will likely be the first to dump their current truths and replace them with other voguish "self-evident" truths. This was the case with the communist ruling class, which after the break down of communism quickly recycled itself into fervent apostles of liberalism. This will again be the case with modern liberal elites, who will not hesitate to turn into rabid racists and anti-Semites, as soon as new "self evident" truths appear on the horizon.


DR. TOMISLAV SUNIC
……………………….

This article is based on Dr. Sunic's speech at the Sydney Forum, Sydney, Australia, August 25, 2007. Dr.Tom Sunic is a former US professor in political science and author. His latest book is: Homo americanus: Child of the Postmodern Age (2007).
http://www.amazon.com/Homo-americanus-Child-Postmodern-Age/dp/1419659847

Notes:
1. A. James Gregor, Metascience and Politics (1971 London: Transaction, 2004), p.318.

2. Alan Charles Kors, "Thought Reform: The Orwellian Implications of Today's College Orientation," in Reasononline, (March 2000). See the link: http://reason.com/0003/fe.ak.thought.shtml

3. Paul Gottfried, The Strange Death of Marxism (Columbia and London: University of Missouri Press, 2005), p.13.

4. Jean Baudrillard, The Evil Demons of Images (University of Sydney: The Power Inst. of Fine Arts, 1988), p.24.

5. Josef Schüsslburner, Demokratie-Sonderweg Bundesrepublik (Lindenblatt Media Verlag. Künzell, 2004), p. p.233

6. See Journal officiel de la République française, 14 juillet 1990 page 8333loi n° 90-615.

The Cultural Struggle

This is a special number of the FOE newsletter dedicated to the question of 'cultural struggle'. This newsletter is also being distributed by the Australian Heritage Society and other groups to advertise the European Settlement Day celebration of January 26 2003. This special event squarely addresses the question of cultural struggle.

Cultural struggle means Australians taking back the symbols of their heritage and identity from the agencies of the multi-racist/multiculturalist state. It is this state which lies about, and twists every expression of Australianism, into a celebration of its falsehoods. It is the 'Australian' state which denies both our European heritage and its local 'Australian' expression. It is this state which preaches New World Order 'no-borders' globalist culture.

Patriotic people, ordinary working Australians, should as a duty, attend family oriented events (including the grandparents to the new-born!) in order to celebrate their identity and heritage. Our children, in particular, are being denied a feeling of community and culture in modern Australia. It is a part of the nation's very survival that its youth, care about and know about, their history; without this awareness, there is no future.

The activists drawn from the various patriotic parties and groups also need to come together, to meet each other and have dialogue. Events like the Sydney Forum, which deals with the 'ideological' aspect of a broader identity-politics, shows what can be done. Non sectarian, inclusive events that breed co-operation, are efforts whose importance cannot be over-stated.

Our enemies intend to commit a type of genocide against white Australia. They have the state institutions under their control. Part of our counter-strategy must be to have all genuine patriots work together for common goals. We might never get the various nationalist and patriotic groups organised as a single party or movement, but we might achieve a united front around certain issues. All can take part in the cultural struggle. It doesn't matter what party or association (if any!) you are a member of.

The celebration of European Settlement Day on Australia Day 2003 at Botany Bay National Park, Kurnell, will be a show case for cooperation amongst several groups. It will bring members of several groups together to make it a success.

And what is being asked? Nothing earth-shaking, at least as some could understand it. It's just a matter of being at this BBQ event and not being at home in your own backyard; of being amongst other families and other people just like you! And yet, that might be the earth-shaking event! Being there, sending a small donation to get the day up and running, telling others to come (whether they're 'political' people or not), is all that's required.

Our horizon is not limited to one day, at Botany Bay National Park, one year. This should be an annual event. It could end up as a mass event. And why not? Further, there are other great days in the Australian calendar which also require special attention and not just in Sydney either, but in the other capitals and towns of our country. This celebration of Australianism could be the major breakthrough for the defence of our identity, independence and freedom that we have all desire. Once in motion, those who hate Australia might find it hard to stop! It's hard to protest against user-friendly, family and popular events.

We do not need to encourage overtly-political displays at any such events, nor will we at European Settlement Day in 2003. The presence of part of the patriotic community and leadership is itself a political statement sufficient for the purpose! Making friends and contacts also has a real purpose. Creating a united front around a matter that really counts raises our politics up out of the ballot-box politics favoured by some (you know, fighting a battle on the day of the enemy's choosing in ways dictated by him and about issues he controls!).

The Friends Of Europe newsletter has, as its role, making Australians aware of the various movements of nationalist politics in Europe. In that regard, I remind the 'politicals' reading this of the successful three-prong strategy of the French Front-National (I describe their method):

(i) the ballot box.: every ballot box (council, mayoral, regional, national and European) is used to legitimise, mobilise and develop the movement. Representatives are taught that they represent the people directly and their movement too, the latter not as a 'party machine', but as the articulator of the national identity. They fight tirelessly in the service of their people.

(ii) street/community level: at every union and association election, in every action that concerns the popular welfare - the Front National is there. Their posters and adhesives and leaflets appear in the streets and counter the lies of the marxist goons who front for the state.

At demonstrations (between the polling dates!), the nationalists show their strength and confirm their faith.

(iii) the cultural struggle: it is waged by defending and developing all the festivals of the nation and regions, by publishing, by educating the young and by developing groups that research and articulate heritage.

Success follows the application of all three parts of the strategy. This strategy adopted in the late 1970's, has produced results. No longer are they 'thin on the ground', but a mass movement and serious contenders for power in the national parliament, regional assemblies, councils and other instrumentalities (farmers groups, student leagues and unions).

We can do something similar here. Our road won't be a carbon-copy, but lessons can be applied.

It is not necessary for all who come to this event to follow this argument or support any particular group or party. It is only necessary they agree that celebrating Australia's heritage is a necessity. Indeed, the entire idea implicit in this project is that it represents many groups. The role of the FOE group and newsletter, like the role of the Australian Heritage Society, was merely to get the event discussed and then act to see this project under way. For the 2004 celebration, we hope to see a committee of interested persons building attendance into the hundreds.

For some years now, different people have discussed the possibility of celebrating Australia Day as a 'European Settlement Day'. In the fight in which we are engaged the significance of Australia Day has deepened as our enemies have intensified their scheme to abolish the very idea of Australia! It is now European civilization and its local 'Australian' identity that is under direct and ultimate challenge. We are not simply celebrating the foundation of a country on January 26 2003, but celebrating a very special representation of a civilization that in 150 years could disappear off the continent. No!

Winning our country back is a long road, but each journey starts with a single step. Be at European Settlement Day at Botany Bay National Park, next January 26, to take that step!