You are here

'Reverse Racism' incites 'Reactionary Racism' - it's a primitive human response

'Laboral'* invitation of hoards of foreign populations from 'contra-cultural' societies is directly displacing the lesser numbers of traditional Australians (those born here and with traditional ancestral origins in Australia). It is a repeat of British colonisation of Australia that directly displaced Australia's Aboriginal people. It is what the Dutch immigrants did to the native South Africans under Apartheid. It is what the Chinese immigrants have done to the indigenous Fijians.

It is immigration history repeated!

The Laboral policy of immigrant favouritism is 'reverse racism'. It is discriminatory against local people and their traditional way of life, their values and their rights. It is a form of 'cultural treason' against the incumbent population.

Then when an immigrant gets into a position of influence (management, politics) favouritism to the immigrant's countrymen and women is ignored by Australia's anti-discrimination laws. Australia has one rule for immigrants, another rule for traditional Australians who feel unjustly targeted by the various laws that favour immigrants. These laws treat traditional Australians as if we are inherently racist. But by such favouritising and by immunising immigrants from racism rules, Australia's anti-discrimination laws have become a passive form of reverse racism.

The tragedy to all parties (locals and immigrants alike) is that the unjust discrimination felt by traditional Australians is causing local disaffection, understandably. But what conveniently goes unmentioned by supporters of cultural immigrants to Australia, is the aggressive intolerance of foreigner cultures by the countries of origin of many Australian immigrants cultures - Indian intolerance of Christians and China's intolerance of Falun Gong are classic examples.

Traditional Australian are feeling marginalised in their own native country. That disaffection and sense of injustice is steadily converting tolerant easy-going Australians, like myself, into angry resentful protectionists. The vocal outrage is perceived as racist, but it is an early cry for justice by disaffected locals. Reverse racism risks inciting reactionary racism. It throws civilised tolerance out the window and descend humanity into its primitive mode of protecting its own clan. It is a slippery slope.

Once reactionary discrimination takes a cultural hold amongst a local population united against a perceived threat of invading immigrant culture, local attitudes become entrenched. Human history has many stories of such and many quite recent and close to home.

One shouldn't have to sign a declaration of accepting cultural diversity of foreigners if that cultural diversity is open ended without parameters and that policy does provide for Australian cultural values and standards to prevail. Yet it has become standard policy for Local and State governments to mandate all public servants comply with accepting cultural diversity - willy nilly!

I shouldn't have to speak Mandarin to get a job in North Ryde. Immigrants should though have to accept Australian values and social standards by living in Australia - equality of women, free speech, reward based on merit (no chronyism), fair pay for a fair day's work (no slavery), highs standards of hygiene, etc.

Australian social values and standards were once common sense and taken for granted, but with so many arriving with different values and standards, Australia has got to the point of needing its social values and standards protected in legislation - an Australian Values Act.

Cronulla in 2005 was a warning to governments. Heed it and curb the immigration and listen to us locals! Yet in the government of our modern society, especially across Australia, members of parliament are naive, and untravelled idealists who invariable tow their Party's line and whom hold no experience or qualifications in sociology. We are ruled by incompetents of dangerous naivety.


*Laboral is the hybridisation of the Australian Liberal Party and Labor Party, which over decades have become so closely aligned ideologically as to be indistinguishable. Both are positioned Centre-Right, growthist and seek popularism. Each has lost any long term vision for Australian society. Together they have been reduced to factions of tired 20th Century industrial 'boomerism'. They recruit career short-termers typically legalese types. Only by the comparative popularism of their leader of the moment does each Laboral faction take alternate turns of government at Federal and State level. Whitlam and Fraser were ideologically aligned and Turnbull could have had a bet each way.
AttachmentSize
Image icon discrimination.jpg39.02 KB

Comments

The "students" who assaulted and raped a woman in Oakleigh, Melbourne, have logically committed a "racist" crime for attacking a non-Indian woman. They escaped back to India to avoid being arrested.

However, this accusation will not be levelled at them because apparently only "white" people are capable of racism! It would be "racist" if our Australian and Indian governments ignore this crime in the name of "peace" between India and Australia! Similarly, ridiculing blonde women or red-headed people is accepted as funny and fair game, but painting black faces on entertainers is "racist"!

Skyrocketing unemployment rates among Victoria’s youth are being ignored by the Brumby Government.

Latest figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed the average unemployment rate among Victorians aged between 15 and 19 had increased by 27.5 per cent from 2008 to 2009.

Victoria has the highest youth unemployment in Australia is not a record to be proud of. According to an article written by Paul Bird, Mission Australia’s Victorian state director which recently appeared in The Age, the region bounded by the suburbs of Brunswick, Sunbury and Kalkallo 55% of 15 – 19 year olds are not in full time work or education. That wasn’t a typo, YES……. 55%
Youth unemployment is 28% across Victoria – the worst in the Australia.

Politicians and media focus on Australia's ability or luck in avoiding the ravages of the global financial meltdown. Little is mentioned of population growing faster than jobs, or the outsourced and privatized public services that previously provided a large number of skill training schemes and apprenticeships to our youth, and on-going employment.

Many manufacturing industries have gone overseas too. It's the casual, part-time and lower skilled jobs in the labour market - the type of jobs young people rely on - that are first to go and the last to return. These jobs have been largely taken by flexible and compliant international students.

To boost our numbers further, people overseas are still being invited to come to live in Victoria due to our "skills shortages" despite our record youth unemployment! Our political leaders would rather bypass our own youth, and new arrivals, and employ already trained and educated foreigners instead!

Globalism is the economics of treason, while increasing our "cultural diversity" is an intellectual scam put to justify mass immigration. Australia has a major neurosis concerning the topic of bulk immigration. That means that public debate is more an expression of national hang-ups - magnanimous humanitarianism, racism, xenophobia, new-age ideologies - than an expression of rational thought. It ensures that debate about feral immigration is ill-informed, unpatriotic, self depreciating and hypocritical.

The so-called skills shortage Australia is claimed and claiming to have, is a farce! Ask industry employers about skills shortages in their industry, and they might mention the lack of 'good' and experienced tradespeople and the turnover rates of some occupations. Well to fill those shortages it would mean them being filled with people who fit the above criteria, yeah - not needing foreign nationals to take up beginner positions! By far. There are plenty of unemployed Australian residents, many of which have been born in Australia, who have accessed Tafe and university institutions yet don't find employment.

Even offering employment to international students above the preference of local students and graduates is no guarantee to them staying in the industry of which they've studied. They just choose a course from 'The List'; the skills shortages list provided by the Dept of Immigration. In trades, an apprenticeship needs to be undertaken and finished to become qualified for a Trade Certificate. What internationals study are not apprenticeships, as they are private students. The latter don't fill qualified-level positions and cannot and shouldn't. Locals should be given jobs and supported in this by partnerships with employers and even government. And there is the correlation between new migrants taking locals' jobs, and tightening the local job market with them taking labour, delivery, hospitality, taxi and retail jobs as well as professional entry-level jobs. There should not be 'beyond-border' competition for jobs. In other countries, you'd struggle to find proper jobs without being a national of that country! And here? They're even advertising Australia as almost a country of drongos who don't want to work or have a low population count. What an offence to our predecessors who've gotten employment with only locals, not foreigners giving them jobs and pay! Why employ them? Have some nationalism!!!

What is going to be done about the constant stream of boats loaded with Economic migrants, so called asylum seekers that are arriving every week, and the the so called government wants to release this lot into society as the luxury airconditioned camps are full up. Well who will pay for all of this the tax payer of course. As if life in Australia isnt expensive enough for every Australian already without having to fork out for these scroungers..Is every Australian rich enough to be able to pay for this lot to have a lovely life in Australia...Who wants to pay for these asylum seekers to have a better life, I dont and I wouldnt want them living near me...If that sound racist well tough Im afraid...Charity begins at home and there are plenty of Australians without food or shelter...If anyone believes that this government doesnt have some ulterior motive as to why they are bringing all these asylum seekers here then they need to really wake up soon..

I think that 'luxury air-conditioned camps' is a false claim, Mr Rich. The detainment centres are more or less prisons, which people are held in until such time as they can establish the legality of their claims to be asylum seekers.* We need to give these people the benefit of the doubt and of charity, as we would hope would be done for us. It does not help the case for low immigration to stick the boot into people who have taken a desperate route to get here. The ideal of asylum is to give people political refuge from terrible political regimes.

Unfortunately Australia has a terrible political regime which accords its citizens very few real rights. At the moment it is our relative affluence that protects us from starvation, not our rights as citizens. This situation cannot last continuing population growth though, which is why population growth is a citizens' rights and democracy issue. Unless we carve out some real democracy in this country we cannot affect forced high immigration and therefore we cannot protect our environment and quality of life, or standard of living.

By the way, the situation in Canada, where definitions of 'in need of asylum' and 'refugee' are much looser than in Australia, does sound really problematic.

It is more helpful to discuss this matter without the pejoratives, like 'scroungers'. I appreciate that people are upset by the situation and that this is probably in part a reaction to mainstream media political manipulation, which wants to distract the public from the huge numbers of 'legal' immigrants and visitors here. For this reason we need to be calm and look factual here in the free press.

*If they subsequently are unable to show that they have a legitimate claim then they can be held indefinitely and charged for the 'privilege' if they refuse to return to their country of origin and if they have destroyed the papers to show where they should be repatriated, as sometimes happens.

Thanks, John Marlowe for, such an interesting and well thought out article. Those, who label views, in favour of the defence of economic and cultural rights for native Australians, racist, should consider the words of Paul Craig Roberts, in his article "Truth has fallen and has taken Liberty with it" (originally published earlier on Information Clearing House and also published here):

“Free market economists” are paid to sell offshoring to the American people. High-productivity, high value-added American jobs are denigrated as dirty, old industrial jobs. Relics from long ago, we are best shed of them.

Paul Craig Roberts is also an outspoken opponent of US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He tells the truth about the principle pretext for those wars, that is that the September 11 atrocity was carried out by terrorists operating from sanctuaries in Afghanistan.

How can it be that such a nationalist as Roberts is prepared to tell the truth about the lie used to justify the US's and Australia's current wars, whilst Australia's militant and outspoken "anti-racists", for example the publishers of The Green Left Review are silent about it, and, in particular, the recent attempted persecution of Victoria MUA secretary Kevin Bracken? If you don't believe me, check out Green-Left Weekly yourself. Try searching it, using search, using the term "Bracken". Of course, there are stories avout Bracken's past record as an official of the MUA, but nothing about the current attacks on Bracken.

---

BTW, Paul Craig Roberts, who can far more justifiably claim to be 'anti-racist' than the phoney revolutionaries discussed above has the most unlikely past of having been Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during President Reagan’s first term and of having been Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal. Of course, he now repudiates his past service to the awful Reagan regime.

Venezuela's minister of foreign affairs said the country’s socialist president, Hugo Chavez, is demanding that Arizona’s law against illegal immigration be “repealed” and that America turn away from its “old habits of racism.” Cuban leaders and Venezuela's president are adding to the chorus and calling the law 'racist and xenophobic" – but they're carrying their own human rights baggage. Ironically, Cuba, the communist-run island of roughly 11 million, has long been condemned for its human rights record, including the jailing of roughly 200 political prisoners, the banning of a free press and the outlawing of opposition political parties. In Venezuela there is a growing number of strikes, demonstrations and social struggles over housing, food shortages, workers' rights, and many more issues. Venezuelan elites today have a profoundly racist complex that has even led intellectuals to refer to the Colonization as a positive event. To this day, many deny that inequality has roots in racism. For example, in Venezuela it has only been now, under President Chávez's government that recognition is given to African-Venezuelans.

Today, Venezuelans come to Australia, and decide to stay here and work. For foreigners living in Venezuela, many advertise ONLY VENEZUELAN-BORN people may apply! They protect themselves from being adversely affected by immigrants taking jobs away from nationals, yet condemn Arizona as "racist"!

Editorial comment: Whilst much that is positive can be said of Venezuela and Cuba in terms of social justice and sustainability, their demands that the U.S. effectively allow open borders would harm most of all, the poorest in the U.S. if they were agreed to, and, ironically, be of greatest benefit to the US elites, who are, otherwise, hostile to the governments of those countries, Efforts to limit immigration into the U.S., Canada and Australia have to be maintained contray to the objections of the governments of Cuba and Venezuela.

Anglophones need to take what they read about Venezuela in the Anglophone press with an entire shaker of salt. I agree with James that Chavez is wrong to prevent Arizonians from taking democratic control of their territory to prevent flooding of the labour-market and to prevent exacerbation of ecological degradation by overpopulation, but his remarks could be made in the context of an ongoing propaganda war between the US and Latin America, where the US has for many years sponsored and marketed privatisation and exploitation. I went into this with an open mind when I researched the article which I cite below for a book of energy articles in 2008. I cannot see how things could possibly have been described as 'better' - except for the corrupt elites - before Hugo Chavez won power.

Venezuela before Chavez:

“In 1998, or 168 years after independence, a tiny wealthy elite was separated by a vast chasm from the rest of the people, of whom one quarter were unemployed. This seems disgusting when you realize that Venezuela was then the second biggest [oil] exporter in the world and had received around 300 billion dollars in oil sales – or the equivalent of 20 Marshall Plans - over the preceding 25 years. It was in this context that Hugo Chávez and his social plan won the elections of 6 December 1998 with 56.24% of the votes.” (Nicolas Lehoucq, Paris Institute for International Studies).

Why and how Chavez won government of Venezuela:

"From the 15th C the indigenous long-term stable clan and tribal populations of Chávez’s people were ravaged by invasion, immigration, disease, dispossession and slavery. The original peoples nearly died out, then, completely disorganized, ballooned in circumstances where child labour was the only source of additional income for low-wage landless people. What is now called Venezuela contained a stable population estimated at around 400,000 Amerindians in 1498. (Now the population is around 27 million.) In the early 16th C King Charles Martel V granted Welsers German banking firm rights to exploit the people and resources of Venezuela in payment of a debt. The colony returned to the Spanish Crown within 20 years and hereditary land grants were made to conquistadores for a time, but later declared illegal. Meanwhile the Amerindians fought back until smallpox overwhelmed most of them in 1580. Not until 1821 did Simón Bolívar win the long indigenous struggle for independence.

In 1921 the discovery of oil permitted agricultural and industrial development. At the start of the Second World War Venezuela’s oil production was only exceeded by that of the United States. Much of the oil concession development involved attracted US, British, and Dutch companies. Venezuela became a democracy in 1958 and founded OPEC in 1960.

The historic inequities of colonial land distribution guaranteed a large population of impoverished rural labourers. As oil prices waxed and waned, productive agricultural holdings were neglected and waves of poor people left the country regions to look for work in the city, creating the slum of Caracas. Between 1959 and 1964 the government redistributed rural land to 150,000 families but many resold the land to speculators, it is said, because they had little education about farming and no ready market for their product. Other wealth redistribution and educative policies were carried out but these programs failed to establish themselves against a background of depressed commodity prices and political schism. The then Democratic Action (DA) government was aligned with the USA but many Venezuelans were sympathetic to the Castro regime in Cuba, which was charged with supplying arms to guerrillas in 1963. The state became increasingly repressive in the context of continued political unrest. In 1968 the Social Christians (SC) won government and remained in power until 1973.

In the wave of nationalizations following the first oil-shock, the DA Government created the State-run oil and natural gas company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PdVSA) in 1975-1976. PdVSA is Venezuela’s largest employer and provides 80 per cent of export earnings but, reflecting later trends to privatization, government revenue declined from 70.6 per cent in 1981 to 38 per cent in 2000.

The oil countershock of 1979 culminated in currency devaluation by one third and a change to an SC government, which remained in power until 1983, when AD was returned under Jaime Lusinchi. Despite promises to diversify the economy and deliver on housing, public health and education, the situation continued to deteriorate. In 1988 another AD president, Carlos Andrés Pérez, introduced an austerity regime, removing subsidies on gasoline as well as on a number of important consumables, culminating in hunger riots in Caracas, with a death toll of thousands.

Two attempted military coups took place against a background of continued repression in 1992 and Hugo Chávez led one of them. President Pérez later went to prison for 28 months with the government limping along under another recycled leader, Caldera, whose foreign policy was very USA friendly. In 1995, 103 per cent inflation hit the Venezuelan middle class. In 1997 doctors, university professors, and national telephone company workers went on strike. In December 1998 Hugo Chávez won the Presidency.

On 30 December 1999 Venezuela’s 26th constitution was approved by 71 per cent of votes. The Senate was replaced by a single chamber National Assembly, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela came into being, named after the National hero. Presidential terms increased from five to six years and limitations on presidents serving a second consecutive term were lifted, but it became possible for the public to sack a president through a publicly initiated referendum. Privatisation of the oil industry, social security, health care and other major state-owned sectors was outlawed." (The above was an excerpt from the following book-chapter: Sheila Newman,"Venezuela, Chavez and Latin-American Oil on the World Stage,"Chapter 10 in The Final Energy Crisis - 2nd Edition, Pluto Press, UK, 2008.)

It is instructive to realise that the same heroic, courageous and principled person that stopped President Reagan launching nuclear war against the Soviet Union in the 1980's, tried to stop the 1992 and 2003 wars against Iraq, tried to stop the war against Afghanistan, and spoke out about the false flag terrorist atrocities of 11September2001 , also opposes unlimited immigration into the United States.

Perhaps it takes the same courage to stand up to the politically correct.

Below is what former Lieutenant Colonel Bowman has published on his web-site www.thepatriots.us:

www.thepatriots.us/pg_02_issues.html
http://www.thepatriots.us/pg_02_issues.html#MM

Immigration: "Immigration is a complex issue which cuts across party lines. Those in favor of “amnesty” or a “guest worker program” include pro-corporate Republicans, elements of the Roman Catholic Church seeking new congregants to replace millions of alienated and excommunicated parishioners, a few Union leaders hoping for new dues-paying members, and liberal Democrats driven by compassion for poor illegal immigrants seeking a better life. Those opposing the “guest worker program” include a few racist Republicans and a lot of disgruntled taxpayers who don't want to subsidize social services for illegals. None of the above groups sees the critical problem with illegal immigration (or indeed with uncontrolled legal immigration). The problem is that large numbers of immigrants willing to work for peanuts depresses the wages for all working Americans, including what's left of the middle class."

In Australia, the same political groups that stridently support mass immigration are publicly silent on the excuse for the current war against Afghanistan, despite raging controversy surrounding Jon Faine's attempt to start a witch hunt against Kevin Bracken.

Whilst Green Left is publicly silent on the 9/11 controversy, individual members of the 'Democratic' 'Socialist' Party, who distribute Green Left Weekly will take you aside to push something very similar to the official US government story about 9/11.