'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.
Comments
anon (not verified)
Sat, 2010-10-23 17:03
Permalink
Only "white" people can be "racist"!
nimby
Sun, 2010-10-24 10:15
Permalink
Immigration despite Victoria's record youth unemployment
BeattyO (not verified)
Sun, 2010-10-24 12:42
Permalink
'The List' determines their 'course'.
RichB
Sun, 2010-10-24 15:11
Permalink
Asylum Seekers..
Sheila Newman
Sun, 2010-10-24 16:05
Permalink
prisons, not luxury camps
Geoffrey Taylor
Sun, 2010-10-24 11:39
Permalink
'Anti-racists' silence on the most racist lie of all
Matilda B (not verified)
Sun, 2010-10-31 15:22
Permalink
Venezuela slams Arizona’s illegal Immigration Law
Sheila Newman
Mon, 2010-11-01 13:43
Permalink
Venezuela pre-Chavez
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.)
Geoffrey Taylor
Mon, 2010-11-01 21:24
Permalink
Robert Bowman opposes open borders
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
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.
Add comment