Australian Civil Liberties Union

Your Rights 2004
Chapter 28



Vizard's migrant manual, Disinformation in the Media about the Stolen Generation, Greenpeace deceptions, the Maralinga Tests, "shooting galleries", Tampa, Afghanistan. Public opposition to mass immigration and to ethnic enclaves.

Illegals, overstayers and unwelcome guests; 500,000 illegals? One Nation Preferences and ethnic bloc voting;  Muslims and "jihad";  Who cares what foreigners say about us?;  Ruddock replies to attacks in "Los Angeles Times"; Winning conditions for Australian Nationalism; Immigration Policy and Cultural Assimilation.

Rising Gang Rapes of White Girls a Byproduct of Multiracialist Experiment; Don't turn a blind eye to terror in our midst more...



The policy of the Howard Government, largely supported by the ALP (but opposed by the Democrats and the Greens) to prevent asylum seekers (or queue jumpers) to land on Australian territory, helped Howard to win the federal election in 2001. This policy of "border protection" and the Pacific solution (Nauru etc.) had widespread popular support, especially in "working class" ALP electorates, but was opposed by many public figures such as former Prime Ministers Hawke, Keating and Fraser, a former Liberal minister for immigration Ian McPhee and members of what their enemies called the "punditocracy" or the "chattering classes" such as Robert Manne, Gerard Henderson and Phillip Adams.

Dr.Birrell pointed out that many Australans were opposed to calls to increase Australia's population to 50 million, because much of the increase would come from newer Asian and Middle Eastern sources; that net migration would have to increase to 460,000 immediately for the target to be reached; that multiculturalism was turning Australia into a series of communities divided on ethnic bias; that most Australians felt they belonged to a distinct national community; that we are willing to accept immigrants who want to join the team and that we do not care about the opinion of foreign elites.

Frank Devine (The Australian) asked who cares what foreigners think of us? He pointed out that an article in the New York Times misrepresented the fate of one boat of asylum seekers. He asked why our elites were so keen to see their denunciators of our purported wickedness taken up for condemnation abroad. He said that Australians know their country to be just, generous and achieving, and should not worry about what ill-informed foreigners are stirred up to say about us.

John Stone, a former secretary to the Treasury and National Party senator (The Australian) said that we only want those prepared to be like us and that our immigration policy must be fundamentally rethought so that it is built around cultural (not racial) assimilation. He had grave reservations about future Moslem immigration because of the difficulties in cultural assimilation.

Research by Dr.Spencer establishes that there have been 450,000 illegal overstayers in the last 17 years as compared with official figures of 53,143 overstayers for the same period. A former head of the UK immigration service (1981-89) said that Home Office figures for the UK bear no relation to the true facts. Spencer said that western nations are now experiencing the phenomenon of ethnic bloc voting For instance recent US elections saw over 90% of blacks, 77% of Jews and 70% of Hispanics voting Democrat. The Liberal party in Australia has been moving social policy to the left to be "ethnic friendly".





The population conference organized by Steve Vizard for 25/5/02 was stacked with speakers supporting a much higher level of immigration. The opinions of ordinary people whose lifestyles, jobs and ability to afford to buy a home, were hardly mentioned at the conference. Richard Pratt's keynote speech at the conference completely ignored the distributional side of population and in particular the likely effects on Sydney and Melbourne etc..Pratt also completely ignored the environmental implications of doubling our population in the next 50 years. Kevin McCracken (The Age 2/2/02) said that picking a number - any number - is not a population policy, while Deidre Macken (Financial Review 2/3/02) said that it was no wonder the public vote in the 2001 election was so strong. The working class, less educated demographic of outer suburban Australia, voted overwhelmingly for Howard's "tough-on-migrants" policy. But perhaps it wasn't so much an issue of xenophobia as a case of "not this week please". The battlers intuit the real cost of immigration. While a bigger pool of consumers and workers might be in the interests of the country, it is not in the interests of the battlers. A high level of immigration pushes up the cost of housing in the outer suburbs where the less well-off live. While immigration is slightly beneficial to GDP it is bad news for the poor.

Recent surveys indicate that only 12% of people support an increase in immigration, and a majority have constantly opposed the high level of net Asian immigration. The failure of multiracial societies overseas; the racist policies of most Asian countries; the extent of black on white crime in the UK and USA; and a recent spate of rapes of Anglo-Celt girls in Sydney by youths of middle eastern origin has hardened public opinion against multiculturalism. Many people in the UK for instance are worried that the Anglo-Celtic majority will end up being a minority by 2050. London will be predominantly non-white by 2010.

Many in the US and UK are worried about the extent of inter-racial crime, especially black on white crime, although this is generally a "no go" area for discussion in the media. However the Herald Sun has pointed out that the vast majority of muggings in London are committed by blacks. The attacks on the World Trade Centre on September 11 led to a wider discussion about whether multi ethnic societies can function effectively. Andrew Bolt writing in the Herald Sun "the real words of Islam" pointed out that the Moslem concept of jihad or holy war and some other aspects of Moslem teaching may be incompatible with a tolerant democratic society.

The NSW Premier Bob Carr has warned the Federal ALP that the ALP will lose Sydney votes if the federal party supports large population growth. Research by Dr.Birrell shows that Sydney and Melbourne continue to be magnets for migrants who have moved to Australia. Thus 23% of the populations of Sydney and Melbourne are made up of overseas born Australians compared with 5% dispersed across non metropolitan Australia. Much of the 5% came from the UK and Ireland.

Australia is not one country but two worlds - cities that teem with ethnic diversity and regions that are strongholds of Anglo culture.




VIZARDS'S MIGRANT MANUAL - Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, Monday, February 25, 2002

AMONG the big sponsors of Steve Vlzard's population conference today are businessmen hungry to import millions more immigrants. Think of all those new customers! So much land they'd buy. So many houses. And how keen to work, and for bugger all! So Vizard's Melbourne chat-fest will rock with these hot-gospellers of mass immigration, waving their speeches and rattling their coins. Ten million more, they'll say. Hell, lets get serious and double our population. Or more!

And I heard Vizard last week recite the statistics - how our economy would lift, trade links improve, tax base expand. Vizard is cluey, and I'm sure he knows his economics. But, as I told him, what if I were to stand in the MCG on match day and scream: 'Well bring in 20 million more migrants this century. How would the people react? Would they do their sums on the back of the footy record to figure how rich this would make them? No. They'd think: Gee, won't this stuff up my neighbourhood? But this, of course, is exactly where debates about immigration levels suddenly go quiet. Because this is One Of Those Subjects We Don't Discuss. Encourages racists, you know. How politicians and the media have dodged the hard questions. Are the various migrant groups fitting in? Are there signs of friction? What can we do to ensure they adapt? Don't ask! But how important are these questions now that many of our migrants are likely to come from countries and cultures very different from ours? Like Afghanistan.

The opinion-making class like to skate over the hazards of multiculturalism by wittering on about how immigrants make the restaurant scene so fascinating. That's nice, but it's not a benefit many working-class families get to enjoy that often. But the costs of Immigration? - now that's what they do get rammed down their throats. It's suburbs like Footscray, Collingwood, Dandenong and Springvale where residents see their streets and schools change fast, with all those new faces and shopfronts. And it's in their factories where they see Turks, Pakistanis and Vietnamese compete for their jobs. On the other hand, you don't see many mosques in Toorak, or Khmer noodle bars in Armadale. Not many ethnic gangs, either. And doctors and lawers make sure they don't have to worry  about competition from migrants, and journalists don't jostle with Iraqis for jobs. See for yourself how white newsrooms are.

No wonder many journalists can pretend it's easy to absorb streams of migrants from countries with vastly different cultures, or that to talk about signs of strain is 'unhelpful". SBS television, for instance, censored footage of the Mufti of Australia - our most senior Muslim cleric - praising suicide bombing because it would give us the 'wrong idea". And while most papers ran stories deploring an arson attack on a Brisbane mosque after September 11, hardly one reported that 13 churchs were burnt or defaced in working-class suburbs within a short drive of Sydney's biggest mosque.

Try telling the people of Bankstown there's no problem at all with mass immigration. Yet I'm sure we can solve most such problems, seeing how most immigrants - Muslims included - want to be part of this country as much as my parents did. But that will take honest discussion. Until then, that MCG crowd will be as wary of Vizard's gospellers as they need to be.




STUBBING MY TOES - Andrew Bolt, Herald-Sun, 31 December 2001

Truth doesn't hurt.  No, it's the untruths I've stumbled over that’s made 2001 so bruising at times

MOST days I have coffee with this newspaper’s finance guru, Terry McCrann, and if he’s unlucky I’ll tell him about the column I’m working on. That usually involves me complaining about the latest sign-of-the-times myth-making, hypocrisy, or falsehood I’ve stumbled over. “Can you believe it?” I ask in pain. “Of course!” Clear-eyed McCrann always replies, being far, far older than me and less sentimental, too. He’ll laugh and add: “Don’t be so naive.” And it’s true I have an adolescent expectation that truth and evidence count for something, even in this age of shameless cause-pushing arid look-at-me moralising. I guess I'm a bit of a fool, stubbing my toes on social lies and charades that others manage to step around without much fuss. But as I tell McCrann, if you become unshockable, what frauds will you allow to spread? What dangerous lies will you allow to take hold?

Think of some of the many great lies of the past – that Stalin’s Russia was a paradise for the poor, that we would run out of food, that the world faced a new Ice Age, that the sexual revolution would bring only joy, that children didn’t need discipline, that punishing criminals didn’t work, that divorce wouldn’t hurt a child. Each of these frauds was promoted by experts – academics, journalists and bureaucrats – although they harmed millions and now seem obviously silly to even a fool. Yet the same is happening now. Experts push bizarre theories and ‘facts’ that will have people laughing years from now and saying: “Isn’t it crazy we actually believed it?’’ But why are such lies believed now? I guess its because people badly want them to be true, or feel that in believing them they will be thought smarter or nicer than the rest of us. And they are believed too, because too few people dare speak up for truth and say the emperor has no kaftan.

All of which is to introduce my final column for 2001 – a review of some of the faddish frauds and foibles I wrote about this year, not always to unanimous applause. In February, for instance we learned that our chief censor had ruled that children should be allowed to watch Hannibal, a film which showed In graphic detail a killer slicing off the top of a living mans skull and slicing, cooking and eating his brains as his victim looked on.  How hard it is for cultured people now to say no to depravity! Also In February, we found that the co-patron of the Sorry Day Committee, Lowitja O'Donoghue, was not stolen from her parents by missionaries, as we’d believed, but abandoned in a church home by her father. She has since confirmed this publicly, but it is telling that so many journalists and academics should still be so cross that I revealed this truth. How eager they are to believe the worst of this country.

In March I warned that the new police commissioner, Christine Nixon, believed police should “maintain the peace” rather than “uphold the law”, which in my view tends to involve making deals with law breakers. Sure enough, by year’s end we had our police officially warn the Coffin Cheaters bikie gang that they would be raided by officers looking for guns, explosives and drugs. The reason for this tip-off? To avoid a confrontation that would break the peace. The result? Nothing was found. Surprised?

In April, we learned that Greenpeace would rather let children go blind than give up its senseless jihad against genetically modified food. This secretive, lawbreaking multinational company of activists vowed to destroy crops of Golden Rice, a Vitamin-A enriched rice that will be given free to poor farmers to save 50.000 children a month from blindness. In May, we saw yet again our city feebly surrendered to a street gang masquerading as far-Left anti-globalisation protesters. Just 2000 students, vandals and anarchists were enough to cow police, politicians and business leaders into closing the Stock Exchange and several other office buildings, at a cost to traders of around $2 million. In June, we learned from a Uniting Church booklet why we needed our new state laws for jailing people for saying racist things, The church said one case which helped “demonstrate why criminal sanctions are necessary” Involved children at a primary school calling a 5-year-old ‘ching chong”.  Jail these terror tots! We also had a man sue the Federal Government for making him work at Maralinga during the atomic tests. But it seems it wasn’t the radiation that actually made him sick as a dog, but the outrageous scare campaigns of our anti-nuclear zealots.

We also noted how journalists still won’t report that Geoff Clark, the head of ATSIC, our Aboriginal ‘Parliament”, has signed a document demanding we give half the land to Aborigines and let them have their own sovereign governments and laws, subsidised by $2 billion a year from the rest of us. ATSIC is now pushing this apartheid in pamphlets for schools, using our money, but it’s still thought to be too rude to criticise such blatant racism. Instead, we found In June that our then Governor-General, Sir William Deane, for one, thought it better to attack the white racism that led to the massacre of up to 32 Aborigines at Mistake Creek - a massacre which in fact never occurred.

In July, it was a shock to find that eight of the 19 candidates for Lord Mayor wanted to set up a heroin shooting gallery in the city to ‘save lives’’. None seemed aware that our unfashionable war on drugs was working so well that we’ve now cut last year’s death toll by nearly 90 per cent.

In August, we discovered that the Australian Democrats leader, Natasha Stott Despoja. believed our ANZUS treaty with the United States was "out of date” and we instead needed closer ties with New Zealand, which had just cut its navy, scrapped its air force fighters and had its army playing goblins in the Lord of the Rings. Just one month later, Australia invoked the ANZUS treaty to join the US in the crucial war on terrorism.

In September, the Howard Government refused to let the Norwegian ship Tampa drop off a load of illegal Immigrants on our soil. Furious commentators called us racist and demanded we obey nice Norway’s demands to take in these asylum seekers, given Norway’s moral authority on this issue. Yet we found that Norway itself rejects 99 per cent of all people claiming to be refugees, and that its voters still thought this was so terribly soft that they dumped their government just weeks later. Then came the shocking September 11 attacks on the US - which incidentally showed up how dangerously unworldly is our Left-wing cultural elite. Writers like John Pilger sneered it was the West which was actually ‘the greatest source of terrorism In the world’, and ABC broadcaster Virginia Trioli even suggested we respond to these evil attacks on America not by fighting terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, but "by sitting down with him, treating him like a human being and talking about it, and then Osama bin Laden going home.”

In October, we were told by everyone in the federal election that we had to spend billions more on education and research to get smart. But it seems that our main research funding body has such trouble finding smart projects to fund that it gave $253,000 of our money to physicists to study “the acoustics of the didgeridoo’’ and $261,000 for the "only ethnographic study of a Chinese police station ever undertaken”. Underlining its startling fall from relevance, the anti-war Left found to its horror in November that the war in Afghanistan was a triumph, despite all its predictions of untold deaths, pan-Arab revolts, savage reprisals, floods of refugees and ultimate defeat. Typical of the wailers was Brigadier (retired) Adrian D’Hage, who warned the conflict ‘now has eerie echoes of Vietnam” only a couple of weeks before the residents of Kabul were celebrating the collapse of the Taliban regime.

But November also brought a reminder of how reluctant the "elite" media is to tell the truth about the dangerous Muslim radicalism in Australia. SBS Television admitted it censored its footage of the Mufti of Australia, Sheik Taj ElHilaly, praising suicide bombing to his flock, because we might get the “wrong” idea. What a fascinating year. It could have been depressing, too, if it wasn’t for wonderful support so many of you have given through your e-malls, letters, calls and cards. It seems truth is still valued. Thank you, and see you in a month.



MASS MIGRATION A FRIGHTENING IDEA - John Masanauskas, Herald-Sun, 8 January 2002

Ordinary Australians feel threatened by the business lobby's push for mass migration, two Melbourne academics claim. Sociologists Bob Birrell and Katharine Betts say calls for the population to reach up to 50 million are scaring the mainstream community. "Immigration on this scale would have to be drawn from the newer Asian and Middle Eastern sources," they say. "It would imply an even greater ethnic transformation of Australia's major cities, with all the challenges to national identity accompanying such changes."

The academics make the comments in the latest issue of The Institute of Public Affairs Review. Dr Birrell is head of Monash University's Centre for Population and Urban Research and Dr Betts is associate professor of sociology at Swinburne University. Dr Birrell and Dr Betts say that to reach 50 million by 2050, net migration must reach 460,000 a year immediately. But they say that while broad support for mass migration has fallen steadily since the '60s, recent publicity about ethnic gangs and migrant enclaves have engaged popular fears that immigration and multiculturalism are turning Australia into a series of communities divided on ethnic lines.

They say the business community and some liberal humanitarians had difficulty understanding most Australians felt they belonged to a distinct national community. "Bloodlines do not come into this; immigrants who want to join the team are accepted.  Nonetheless, this sense of belonging has a quasi-ethnic feel to it, which is another way of saying that it is an affair of the heart as much as of the head," they say. Dr Birrell and Dr Betts say average Australians don't identify with the focus of elites on an international or cosmopolitan community. "They do not see themselves as working overseas, or as having business contacts and colleagues in other countries, or caring about the opinion of foreign elites. "High migration, combined with elite celebration of cultural diversity, appear to be regarded by many Australians as a direct challenge to any notion of community which emphasises what is shared in common," they say. Unregulated migration of uninvited people demanding to be accommodated as refugees is another direct challenge, they say.   




MIGRATION TO AUSTRALIA 1983-1999 - Dr. Rodney Spencer


Massive illegal immigration from poor third world countries into developed affluent Western nations such as the USA, Europe, UK, Canada and Australia is now acknowledged to be out of control and Governments are all being pushed to ' do something'

Illegal immigrants suffocating in trucks coming across the English Channel, or drowning after being pushed overboard, or going down with their leaky boats, ships with hundreds of illegals being stranded - even in New York harbour and the French Riviera, people being dumped on Ashmore Reef and now crime syndicates smuggling people as well as drugs, are all very visible reminders of the tip of this very large iceberg.

So far no critical study has been published in Australia regarding the Australian Government's "she'll be right attitude" on illegal immigration, overstayers and unwelcome guests'.   Indeed, the Government and Opposition, usually bipartisan on these issues, have suggested that because Australia is an island continent we are somewhat protected from this problem. Mr Ruddock, Federal Immigration Minister, in his Department's publication, "Protecting the Border", launched by him on the 9/12/99, gives the official estimate that there are now 53,143 overstayers in Australia.

How far is this from the truth?

Peter Tomkins, Head of the UK Immigration service from 1981-1989 said, "For ten years I was head of the UK Immigration service. I have long known that the Home Office statistics bear no relation at all to the true facts on immigration. The actual rate of immigration was more than twice the official one"

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) population statistics (3401 - 0) are confusing.  Even seasoned independent demographers are unable to agree on who enters Australia, in what categories and where certain entrants are placed in the statistics. It is obvious that the easiest way to illegally stay in Australia is to come as a visitor by air, overstay and merely disappear into the ethnic community of your origin.  So for this paper a simple analysis of visitor entry and departure numbers was carded out.

Overseas visitors into Australia are all carded, counted and computerised on entry and departure from Australia. A simple calculation of the difference between visitor arrivals (long and short term) and visitor departures (long and short term) tells us the number of overstayers.  When calculated over seventeen years and where trends have been consistent year after year, these calculations show an ongoing rorting of our border controls by people coming into Australia as long and short term visitors. 

As can be seen, 1,136,240 visitors came and stayed over the seventeen years.

Some corrections need to be made to these figures. Some visitors apply for and receive a place in the immigration programme and some apply and receive refugee status. Over the seventeen years, the Immigration Department's statistics confirm slightly less than 225 000 became onshore migrants. The Department does not give any accurate numbers for people obtaining refugee status onshore, but we have the total number of applicants for such change of status. Overall less than 25% are accepted. Over the seventeen years 88 246 applied (Appendix 5) and therefore approximately 38 000 would have been granted refugee status. (Note all the People's Republic of China applicants 1990, at the time of the Tienamen Square massacre, were granted refugee status by a tearful Bob Hawke and are included in this close, but approximate total).  Other corrections could be for demographic lag which would be a small number when one does a study over seventeen years.  Some Australian residents also maybe returning as visitors and legally staying.

In total, about 263 000 overstayers were legitimatised and allowed to stay.  Therefore the overstayer figure is reduced by 263 000 to 873 000.

An alternate way of cross checking these figures was done, once again with ABS statistics.  All people coming into Australia in 1983-1999 and all people leaving were counted (Appendix 6). This left an excess of arrivals over departures of 2 033 340.  This figure includes a net immigration number of 1 206 740 (Appendix 7) and allowance for the 449 040 Australian residents (Appendix 8) who permanently departed Australia over this time.

Therefore once again the excess of arrivals over departures is:

2 033 340 minus 1 206 740 = 826 600

A figure very close to, the calculation using visitor overstayers. A sizeable number of these people, approximately 400 000 (DIMA personal communication) who unilaterally decided to come and stay in Australia, are New Zealanders.  They can come as visitors and legally stay all their lives.   In more recent times 30% of New Zealand "visitors" who stay are people who have only recently migrated to New Zealand and taken out New Zealand citizenship, so as to allow them to stay in Australia

Allowing these are legal overstayers we are still left with over 450 000 illegal overstayers, yet Mr Ruddock and his Department say Australia has only 53 143 overstayers as at 9112199.   Over seventeen years 450 000 illegal overstayers amounts to 26 500 per year or 73 people every day for seventeen years.

We are being rorted Mr Ruddock. It's obvious in the streets.  It's obvious in the official statistics.  These people are not counted in our census, do not have health checks, have very few skills, provide cheap available labour for prostitution and sweat shops and are vulnerable to criminal elements.  Governments, whether of Liberal or Labor persuasion seem paralysed into inaction by the difficulties of forcible removal of illegals. In such an event the media would have a field day, sympathetically highlighting all the drama of forced deportation of illegals with their wives, children and grandparents, with much crying and suicide threats. Maybe the unwritten and unspoken policy is to let them stay but for the government to act and talk "tough" for public consumption.

The extremes of politics, from the far business right to the left, support the view "there shall be open borders" as was expressed in the Wall Street Journal Editorial 3/7/89 calling for this as an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Such a source of a compliant, cheap labour force is too good to give up.   Similarly the far left of politics, the Greens, the Churches, the internationalist liberal media, migrant groups and the multicultural lobby likewise call for no real border controls, the closing of detention camps and releasing of illegal immigrants into the community. For a Government it is easier to placate these powerful interest groups and turn a blind eye rather than face this difficult and escalating problem.

The right of the majority to resist this unwelcome swamping of our borders and maintain our standard of living, way of life and culture, has once more been trampled by powerful minority groups.   The protection of the integrity of the nation state starts with its borders. In the 21st Century the movement of people across our borders, rather than armies, is our greatest threat.


1.    "The Age" 19/2/01 page 1, Raspail Jean.   The Camp of the Saints 5th ed.  The Social Contract Press. 445 East Mitchell Street, Petoskey, Michigan 4977--2623     2.    Spencer Rodney.   On the Origin of Distrust of Immigration in Australia The Social Contract Vol.   V111,
No.2. Winter 1997-98.    3.    UK Mail, Aust Ed., Monday 13 Feb-Sunday 19th Feb 1995 pg 6






Western nations are now experiencing the phenomenon of ethnic, minority block voting. In Western societies fairly evenly divided between left and right, who will be the beneficiary of this new voting pattern?  So far it appears to be the politicians and parties of the left. Is this voting pattern a local manifestation of Huntington’s theory, that future conflict/politics will not be fought over ideology but over civilisational/ethnic values? Well Conservative parties be able to withstand both the ideological and ethnic challenges, have they a strategy to deal with this, or is ethnicity about to do what Communism never could, moving us into the "Brave New World" of ascendant left politics?

We are used to seeing governments change every few terms, swinging back and forth, between Labour and Conservative in the U.K., Democrat and Republican in the U.S.A. and Labor and Liberal in Australia. A new factor to this pattern is the growing numbers of ethnic-block votes resulting from immigration and multicultural policy, with racial voting patterns world-wide.

The recent American elections saw over 90% of Blacks, 77% of Jews and 70% of Hispanics vote Democrat, according to exit polls from the Voter News Service.  Democrats traditionally get their support from poorer voters, so is it poverty or race that gains votes for the Democrats?  The Jewish 77% vote for the Democrats suggests race trumps economics.  Asian Americans 20 years ago voted in a pattern similar to white but in the last federal election changed to support Gore over Bush.  As Asians economically are becoming more affluent their new voting pattern can only be attributed to racial voting again.  The "us" against "them" syndrome.

President Bush faired poorly among ethnic groups despite proclaimed ethnic friendly policies, political messages and support for higher immigration. Had it not been for Ralph Nader splitting the Democrat vote, Bush would have lost the election.  In the United Kingdom, similar problems beset the Conservative Party. Prime Minister Blair, like Labor here, runs a rainbow ethnic friendly party but the Conservatives, unable to argue their philosophy on immigration and multiculturalism, have back peddled and their immigration, multicultural and ethnic policies are virtually indistinguishable from Labour's.   So voters in the U.K. have two parties with similar policies and no nationalist alternative.  Should a credible Nationalist Party arise in the U.K., many unhappy Conservative voters could then express their dissatisfaction as voters and defect, as we have seen in Australia with One Nation.

Australia is the only country of' those under consideration, with a Nationalist Party of significance to take disillusioned voters away from the traditional conservative party.

Yet we see the Liberal Party here following the English and American right wing or conservative philosophy of moving social policy to the left so as to be perceived as being ethnic friendly.   By moving to the left on social policy, will a right wing party gain or loose votes, and will ongoing and increasing immigration and multiculturalism eventually lead to their moving further and further to the left resulting in the death of conservatism in the U.K., USA and here?  After all, conservative forces can never compete with the far left on ethnic matters. Conservatism by its very nature resists social change. Saying “sorry” to native peoples, reparations, deep multiculturalism, ethnic quotas etc., can never satisfy both the rainbow coalitions and the white conservative voters in England, USA or Australia. The left can keep offering more to the ethnic voters until the time that this drives their blue collar supporters to the conservative side.  In the USA the Republicans have dropped the Southern strategy, which aimed to increase white votes, and instead have adopted rainbow Republicanism but, as seen in President Bush's case, this was unsuccessful in increasing ethnic votes and his white vote declined to 54%.

Only, therefore, by getting white Christians to vote ethnically/religiously for the Republicans, in the same percentages as Jews, Hispanics and Blacks vote Democrat, will the Republican Party continue in power.

What is the Liberal Party in Australia doing to position itself for ethnic changes which, if immigration continues unabated, must also threaten the survival of Conservative politics in Australia.  Moving to the left socially, by having Peter Costello as a leader who supports all the politically correct agenda of immigration, multiculturalism, Asianisation, aboriginal reconciliation with "sorry" statements, republicanism, enhanced social welfare, soft drug policies and a rabidly "anti racist" agenda, and therefore copying Labor is not an option as Liberal notes will desert to One Nation, a party of the right.   So far the most obvious move has been to put One Nation last at all electoral opportunities, to convince ethnic voters that the Liberal Party is an ethnic friendly party. The Liberal Party obviously has put its faith in Asian Australians being entrepreneurial, small business inclined, caring little for social welfare for the community, and hopes these capitalist attributes will make them Liberal Party voters, especially as they become more affluent.  But even in July 98 The Australian reported that the Chinese community, usually split 60% Labor and 40% Coalition, would now vote solidly pro Labor because John Howard had not unequivocally opposed One Nation.  This mirrors the American experience of Asian block voting. The desire among Asian Australians to bring in more of their own people and own way of life to Australia, probably alone would result in votes for Labor, the more migrant accommodating party.  Multicultural policy, now supported by the Liberals, will also exacerbate block ethnic voting to the detriment of the Liberals.

One million people voted One Nation at the 1997 election and the vast majority of these votes, if One Nation and the Liberals exchanged preferences, would go back to the Liberals and ensure Liberal electoral success. What is more natural than exchanging preferences with a party with a social policy to the right of the Liberals as Labor exchanges preferences with parties to their left - the Greens and Democrats.  Instead, to show their ethnic friendly nature, the Liberals put One Nation last, refuse to exchange preferences and "ostrich like" are prepared to risk electoral defeat. A high price to pay. Of course, the Liberals can simplistically state that One Nation is a racist party and on principle take the high moral stand regardless of the consequences. Looking principled always goes down well with martyrs. But we must ask has the Liberal Party been manoeuvred into a self destructive position by the left and the media who have promoted this idea of evil and racism being inherent in One Nation?

The Liberals have an alternative. Firstly exchange preferences with One Nation. Secondly attract those who support traditional western civilisation values, mostly Anglo/Europeans, to vote Liberal in the same way that the Labor Party attracts Jewish, Asian, ethnic migrant and aboriginal voters. The only way to neutralise ethnic voting for Labor is to have Anglo/European voting for Liberals.  This can be done by promoting policies such as immigration control, abandonment of multicultural policy, strict refugee policies, no reparations or "sorry" statements for imagined crimes, stopping the Asianisation of Australia and showing pride in our history, traditions and way of life - all issues Labor has manipulated to create its racial block vote.  If the Liberals did this, it would create a real difference between Liberal and Labor, would be popular with the majority and would draw in votes from the blue collar supporters of Labor. As long as Labor maintained its racial and divisive policies to attract ethnic votes the Liberals would then be in power with no foreseeable ethnic electoral threats.  This would then finally bring about a change in Labor policy.

If the Liberals persist along their current path which comes from aping the English and American experience, a situation not analogous to ours as we do have a nationalist alternative, then minority demographics and ethnicity, not policy and philosophy, will decide the direction for Australia. As the Liberals are about to see the folly of their policy in upcoming elections, could we ask them to "please explain"?




THE REAL WORDS OF ISLAM - Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun - 6/12/01


Our multicultural lobby should do the country a favour and stop pretending that Islam's only problem is with its racist critics. Let me give you an example of how we are being misled. The non-profit Melbourne based Adult Multicultural Education Services is the country's biggest English training scheme for migrants, and runs courses for the Education Department. AMES boasts of its “philosophical commitment to multiculturalism”, and recently wrote to state politicians "at the suggestion of the office of Mr John Pandazopoulos", the Minister who helps the Premier run our multicultural policy.

Its letter asked MPs to distribute an AMES brochure called "Understanding Islam and Muslims in Australia", meant to increase tolerance of our more than 200,000 Muslims, two-thirds of whom were born overseas. The brochure tries to do this by "explaining" Islam to us, claiming, for instance, that "tolerance of other religions is part of Islam itself", which understands that "freedom of choice is an intrinsic human right". It also claims that jihad "does not mean 'holy war' and it does not mean harming innocent people". ("Innocent" isn't defined.) True, most Muslims here seek no trouble, but this brochure seems to me to lack the frankness we now need for an honest debate about Islam in Australia. For a start, the word "jihad" isn't quite so harmless. Right now, the terrorist Islamic jihad is praising the devastating suicide bombings in Israel, and 7000 Laskar jihad fighters are wiping Out Christian towns in Sulawesi. The AMES brochure excuses this by saying "the behaviour of extremist groups should not be identified with Islam itself.”

But then I turn to two books being sold right now by the Islamic Council of Victoria. What Islam is all About is a popular textbook for children by Yahiya Emerick, who writes that, "Muslims dream of establishing the power of Islam in the world", and of ensuring that "the law of the land is the Shari'ah of Allah". (Shariah law, it points out helpfully, demands that those who fight Allah "should be murdered, or crucified, or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides, or they should be imprisoned".)

AS for jihad, Emerick explains it is "most often associated with the act of physically confronting evil and wrong-doing, hence, it can be applied to the act of fighting as well." And such fighting is allowed to “eliminate an evil force which is oppressing people" or to "remove any barrier to the free flow Of Islamic da'wah (preaching)". Which sounds worryingly broad. Another book sold by our Islamic Council is the famous Let Us all be Muslims by Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdudi, who declares: "Stated simply, the ultimate objective of Islam is to abolish the lordship of man over man and bring bum under the rule of the One God.  To stake everything you have - including your lives - to achieve this purpose is called jihad." In case you're still not clear what this means, Mawdudi adds: "Wherever you are, in whatever country you live, you must strive to change the wrong basis of government, and seize all powers to rule and make laws from those who do not fear God ... The name of this striving is jihad." This applies even if you live under the laws "of Britons, of Germans”, and, presumably, of Australians.

These preachings by Muslims to Muslims here raise grave questions about the role of Islam in a secular, multi-ethnic nation like Australia. It is dishonest for our multicultural lobby to pretend there is nothing here to worry about or even debate.




IMPOTENT FURY OF THE ILL INFORMED - Frank Devine, The Australian, 16/11/01


Who cares what foreigners say about us? Good grief!   It must be right.  We are a pariah nation. Here on television were people at a foreign airport pummeling, booing and identifying themselves as wogs by spitting at chaps in green Aussie blazers.

Paul Keating, Malcolm Fraser and Phillip Adams will be pleased, I thought grumpily.  Their constant assertion that we are deplored by the world because of John Howard's racist policies, including rejection of boatpeople, was being given proof. Having caught only a flash of the melee on TV, I learned from the morning papers, however that the spitting wogs were Uruguayan soccer fans, angry not at Australians generally but at the Socceroos for beating Uruguay in a game in Melbourne. Subsequently, the Uruguayan ambassador to Australia said that, apart from soccer hooligans, Uruguayans were fond of Australians and that 20,000 Uruguayan immigrants loved it here. A setback for Keating, Fraser and other pariah proclaimers, I reflected, with as straight a face as possible.

With Uruguay out, the ranks of countries available to hate and despise Australia is thinnish.  In the past couple of years I have mingled on their borne grounds with Cambodians, Vietnamese, Americans, Italians, Turks, Austrians, Croatians, Slovenians, Hungarians, Czechs and Slovaks and found feeling towards Australia ranging from utmost cordiality to complete indifference.  Of hostility not a fleck.

Friends and relations travelling to other parts of the world bring back similar reports, even from England. Yet Keating assures us: "Howard won by staining the soul of the country, won at the cost of the country's reputation." Fraser: Our policy falls heavily on those seeking to flee hunger... brutality and tyranny ... Our international reputation has slumped.  It has never been worse.  It has suffered enormously." My colleague Adams: "It was Australia that lost the federal election ... Malignancies of fear and bigotry are spreading ... Australia is pursuing pariah status in the world."

Where have we heard that before? "Pariah" made its popular debut, I think, when Pauline Hanson danced on the scene defying political correctness four years ago. She was awakening an inherent Australian racism that would make us the untouchables of the world, the outraged defenders of correctness told us. But just as there now appear to be far too few interested countries for us to achieve pariahdom, there seemed then to be too few racists to handle all the racism alleged. I personally knew no racists and polled about 50 acquaintances on how many they knew. The score was low, stretched by exigent judgment, to half a dozen or so as I recall. Keating's recent narrowing of racist suspects to "a blue-collar element," doesn't suggest a pervasive presence of racists in Australian society nor even the inclination to racism.

Keating advised a study of foreign media to ascertain the extent to which Howard's policies had damaged us abroad. I looked at The Economist and found its criticisms excessively eclectic, taking in our failure to apologise to Aborigines and Hanson's existence, as well as Howard and the boatpeople. A longish pre-election report in The New York Times by Seth Mydans, with the headline, "Which candidate has the hardest heart?", struck me as ideologically weighted, but soufflé light.  The first paragraph: "Three sweet, little girls. Eman, Zabra and Fatimah, stared earnestly from the front pages; party ribbons in their hair, their dark eyes shining - three of nearly 400 refugees who drowned [after being pushed by armed people smugglers and Indonesian cops] on [an unseaworthy] refugee boat heading through a stormy sea [close to the Indonesian coast] to an Australia that wouldn't have them." The words in square brackets are those I would have inserted as an editor so New Yorkers would have been better informed. Mydans took notice of Australian doomsayers: "The language of outrage [about immigration policy] from many Australians has been vivid -barbarism, hideousness. inhumanity, our worst instincts, callous, brutal, myopic stubbornness, an insensitive, hairy-chested approach, ashamed to be an Australian, never thought I would live to see the day..." He missed my colleague Adams's puzzling accusation of Howard's dealing from the bottom (rather than anywhere) of a pack of 52 race cards.  Mydans comments that "these are the voices of Australia’s elite and articulate".

Why are our elite and articulate so keen to have their denunciations of Australia's purported wickedness taken up for condemnation abroad? It could be that they feel inadequately noticed at home and hope to raise their own profiles by being seen to have global recognition. Their challenge is Sysyphian, though. Researching his book Down Under, Bill Bryson found in The New York Times archive 20 articles mainly about Australia in 1997, compared with 120 on Peru.  Next year there were only six. In addition, Australians know their country to be just, generous and achieving. Why should they worry about what ill-informed foreigners are stirred up to say of them?




FROM:   The 'crime' of being a young refugee, by Richard C. Paddock, Los Angeles Times, 5 January, 2002


“Unlike other Western-style democracies, Australia has a policy of locking up all applicants for political asylum who have arrived without proper documentation. A 2-year-old was put in leg locks for 45 minutes and an 8-year-old boy was handcuffed, the group (Children Out of Detention) says. Several children have attempted suicide.  Others have gone on hunger strikes. At least three teenage boys have sewn their lips shut to protest their incarceration and treatment. Some former staff members say that the detention system creates opportunities for sexual abuse of children and that allegations of abuse are not properly investigated."

Philip Ruddock responds to two articles last week in the Los Angeles Times about the Federal Government's treatment of refugees:

Australia is a nation that has a very proud - arguably unrivalled - record of assisting people in great humanitarian need. We are an active participant in global refugee settlement, with our contribution dating back to the 1930s when we took 7000 German Jews.  Since WWII, we have taken 600,000 refugee and humanitarian settlers. In the past year, under Australia's refugee and humanitarian program, 13,733 people were given visas.   This is one of the highest rates in the world, about double that of the US on a per capita basis. Australia is, in fact, one of only 10 or so countries that operate a dedicated offshore resettlement program that accepts the most needy, and desperate refugees. Australia is also among the 12 largest donors to the core budget of the UNHCR (the UN Refugee Agency).

There are 21.8 million refugees worldwide. Australia cannot take them all but we will continue our efforts to assist those most in needy. We will not resile, however, from stopping those acting illegally. It is within this broader framework that your articles are notable for their lack of attention to the detail surrounding Australia’s program of dealing with asylum seekers and unlawful arrivals. Several inaccuracies and distortions need correction.

Chief among them is the allegation that Australian Government policies are responsible for the deaths of people who drowned at sea coming to Australia. Tragic as those events were, we cannot be held responsible for illegal actions that occur outside our international boundary. The source of many of the distortions in the articles may be some of the small number of advocacy groups in Australia opposed to government policy. Simplistically, they think that people who come to Australia covertly should be treated like heroes and rewarded. The result of this attitude is to encourage others to come, thus endangering more lives.

Contrary to the articles’ claims, the Australian Government does not lock up refugees, nor does it detain people for seeking asylum. We do, however, place in detention people who arrive unlawfully until their asylum claims are determined and we find out who they are, where they are from, and whether they have criminal records or health concerns. To do otherwise, and let them free into the community, is to risk their disappearance. Once a person is determined to be a refugee, they are released immediately.

Your report further asserts that Australia is alone in the international community in its policy of immigration detention. This is wrong. The US, Canada and the UK are moving towards more rigorous detention systems and they already detain people - a simple, and easily determined fact. In Australia, the great majority of detainees spend on average only 15 weeks in detention while their claims are processed. Most of those who stay longer have been found not to be refugees and have chosen to pursue avenues of further review and litigation, lengthening their detention. They need not remain in detention - they are free to depart at any time. Perhaps the most lamentable of your claims is that we have used leg locks on children.  No such practices have ever been used in Australian detention centres.

In relation to education, and again contrary to your article's assertions, we provide social and educational programs for all children in detention. In some centres, children attend local schools. In others, a school curriculum-based program is provided and is conducted by qualified staff. Social and recreational activities are also organised. Your articles also question the Australian Government's tolerance to Islamic asylum seekers, claiming that Australia has practised racial discrimination during much of its existence. The facts could not be more to the contrary. Australia is one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world. It is home to people from more than 200 countries and almost 23 per cent of the population was born overseas.

Your report rightly says that many asylum seekers leave their homeland and "first reach safety in neighbouring countries such as Pakistan and Iran". What is omitted is that, in so doing, they have already reached a haven in another country: they make a lifestyle choice to travel on to Australia. In comparison, millions of people in squalid refugee camps do not have this luxury, or the money to pay, criminals to smuggle them across borders. The unlawful movement of people in search of a better life directly undermines the limited capacity of countries like Australia to assist the UNHCR in resettling people in greatest need.

Many people who arrive in Australia illegally, have come originally from harsh and difficult conditions. Among them, feelings of loss, grief, anxiety and stress would obviously be present. It is unreasonable to suggest that these psychological problems are solely attributable to being in detention centres. Australian detention centres offer a full range of health and psychological services, provided by qualified doctors, nurses and other health professionals. The level of these services is the same as those in the wider Australian community, and even exceed those in some regional areas.

Let me make it clear that Australia is a compassionate, tolerant, strong and prosperous nation.   Australia's immigration program - one of the few such programs in the world, which this year will grant visas to 93,000 people - reflects these ideals. It does not discriminate on the ground of race, religion, colour or ethnicity.

Although the media largely focuses on Australia's approach to unauthorised boat arrivals, it is crucial that the broader scope of Australia’s internationally envied assistance to refugees is understood.

It is also vital that unfounded and patently incorrect claims are not used to form judgments that erode the pride we as a nation are entitled to feel about the hand we extend to those in such great need.


Philip Ruddock is Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs.
Sunday Age 13 January 2002




A Paper by Graeme Campbell


We on the moderate nationalist side of politics welcome the give-and-take of political debate. We believe that our position is the best reasoned and can only benefit from exposure, but our opponents demand a monopoly in the media and in our parliaments. They fear the voices who stand up for Australia's predominant ethnic interest - those of Anglo Celt and European background. We have seen this intolerance demonstrated incrementally by the chorus of denunciations of Prof. Blainey in 1984 and John Howard in 1988. I then became a target for my support of Australians Against Further Immigration in the early 1990's, Australia First and in more recent times of Pauline Hanson and One Nation. Bob Hawke had me censured by the Parliament for saying that we should slow down the rate of South East immigration to a level that we could accommodate. It did not occur to me that this was racist as I considered it common sense. This crescendo of intolerance has been building, ironically but aptly since 1984.

I believe the cause is that the multicultural elites who have been forcing radical change on this country know that their aims, if clearly understood, would be rejected outright by the Australian people. That is also why, with rare exceptions, immigration policy continued to be "bipartisan" even after the Australian people began to oppose mass immigration after the dismantling of the White Australia Policy from Whitlam onwards. When Malcolm Fraser committed the Liberal Party to multiculturalism in 1974, this eliminated choice for the Australian electorate because Whitlam and Grassby had adopted the same policy for the Labor Party.1 The Melbourne sociologist Katharine Betts2 has argued that high levels of immigration (and by extension high levels of non-European immigration) have been imposed on the Australian people by a bipartisan conspiracy of the political elite. Betts refers to the same view expressed, though proudly, by ex-prime minister Bob Hawke, as a participant.

Hawke discussed the importance of keeping non-White immigration out of the hands of the electorate at a government conference on immigration policy held in May 1993.  He said it was "quite unique" in Australian politics that for most of the post-World War II period the major parties had maintained bipartisan support for immigration in the face of public opposition.3with the common cement of ACTU support to advance the national interest ahead of where they believed the electorate to be ". "Unique" indeed!  Australia is a democratic society, and from the early 1970s onwards most Australians have opposed what was being done to them by their major political parties in the realm of immigration.  Katharine Betts4 has tracked the extent of support and opposition for immigration from 1954 to 1996, and found a dramatic fall in support and rise in opposition from around 1967 to 1972, the period when the White Australia Policy was dismantled.

This helps explain why the multicultural lobby wants to silence nationalist voices.  They sense that their message is so unnatural, so counter-intuitive, so lacking in common sense, that, to have their message taken seriously, political and media monopoly was essential.  Dissenting voices need to be silenced. Until the recent post-election reflections we have seen this process almost every day as journalists and politicians are intimidated into toeing the party line, and for the vast majority this is still the case.


The multiculturalists are right to fear the Australian people's good judgment.  That is why the nationalist winning condition is far more modest.   We only need a fair say to have our ideas accepted; we don't need or want to silence other viewpoints.


(2) More on multiculturalism's undemocratic nature

Dr. Mark Lopez has pointed out in his important book on multiculturalism, that the multicultural movement has always been secretive, has always mistrusted the Australian people, has always relied on infiltrating committees and agencies to surreptitiously foist a destructive policy on Australia. Lopez writes:

"The source of the shift towards multiculturalism in public policy was not parliamentarians, vulnerable at elections, but the influence exerted by multiculturalists from positions in the Immigration Advisory Council (IAC), the Migrant Task Force Committees, the Immigration Department's Integration Branch, non-government organisations like ACOSS, or through lobbying relevant Government ministers. . . The multiculturalists could potentially maintain their degree of influence as long as they maintained their strategic presence in these committees and agencies."5

Even Al Grassby was seen as expendable by the shadowy backroom operators, who treated our elected representatives as tools, not as honest spokesmen of sincerely held policies.6  The ethnic revolution that has taken place in Australia since the 1970s has never been the result of democratic process.  In fact it has been quite the opposite.  Gough Whitlam destroyed the Old Department of Immigration for example, because he knew that people loyal to Australia as a nation in the European tradition manned this Department. It was a department painstakingly built up over many decades by governments whose ethnic policies were publicly stated. The department was charged with maintaining a homogeneous Australia, one free of the endemic ethnic conflicts experienced by multi-ethnic societies overseas.  And Whitlam dismantled it, partly because it contained the old guard of Australia's ethnic interests appointed by true Australian leaders like Labor's Caldwell and the Liberals' Menzies.

Another reason for Whitlam's mistrust of the old Immigration Department was that the Australian people had rejected AI Grassby, the departmental minister from 1972 to 1974.7 In other words, the dismantling of the Department of Immigration was a tactic meant to circumvent Australian democracy. Instead of democratic choice being allowed to dismantle multiculturalism and the prospect of mass Asian immigration, elite multiculturalists had dismantled and circumvented expressions of democratic will.

The multicultural establishment emphasizes the rights of minorities against the "tyranny of the majority". But what is multiculturalism? What should we call a regime that has replaced relative ethnic harmony with polarization, conflict, and a campaign of vilification against the majority ethnic group?  What should we call a situation where racial minorities are displacing our own people in the professions and therefore poised to play a disproportionate role in governing the country?  It should not be necessary to remind those who have led this country to its present situation that the worst tyranny is when majority interests are subordinated to a minority.  That is why aristocracy has been overthrown throughout the West.   That is why we resent conquest by other countries, because this usually leads to the loss of liberty, not only individual liberty but also the right of a people to govern their own affairs.  Multiculturalism is tyrannical in its methods.  Mass Asian immigration was foist on the Australian people without their permission; no referendum or even an election campaign was ever fought on the issue.   Yet survey after survey has indicated that a large majority preferred a European Australia.  Australians, like all other peoples, prefer to live among their own people.

Compare the undemocratic, surreptitious methods and goals of Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating with the forthright, open declaration of then Prime Minister Alfred Deakin during the first session of Australia's federal parliament in 1901:

"However limited we may be for a time by self imposed restrictions upon settlement-however much we may sacrifice in the way of immediate monetary gain-however much we may retard the development of the remote and tropical portions of our territory-those sacrifices for the future of Australia are little, and are, indeed, nothing when compared with the compensating freedom from the trials, sufferings and losses that nearly wrecked the Great Republic of the West".8

Restrictive immigration was a plank in the nation-building program of the early nationalists of federation, as they sort to build an egalitarian, cohesive community but look in vain for any such common sense in the texts of the much promoted but misnamed Centenary of Federation Deakin Lectures of May 2001. They reek of the most perverse anti-Australian multicultural drivel seen for many a moon. Multiculturalism is the legacy of Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Keating who, for a variety of reasons, put the interests of minorities ahead of those of the Australian people.  What have they done to us?  They have tried to change who we are, as a walk through any capital city attests.


(3) Diversity, social cohesion, and welfare

The suppression of open debate on Australia's ethnic future has resulted in some remarkably stupid constellations of ideas. For example, the Left is proudly anti-discriminatory in its immigration policies, but simultaneously advocates an egalitarian social structure with generous welfare.  In fact ethnic and racial diversity produces inequality and depresses welfare.9 This was known by Australia's founding fathers, but has become politically incorrect, one suspects precisely because such knowledge would have impeded the multicultural industry.

The economic rationalist Right also is also muddled. Many believe that Australia's economic future can only be secured with permanently high levels of immigration, from anywhere and everywhere that people can be found.  In fact economic data indicate that the most efficient, prosperous nations are the most homogeneous.10 Ethnic diversity creates pressures on government to conduct "pork-barrel" politics that result in suboptimal economic policies.

In keeping with John Stuart Mills' views on the advantages of ethnically homogeneous nation states, the global trend is towards ethnic groups seeking autonomy in their own nations by bloody separation from multi-ethnic states. The resulting homogeneous states then become more prosperous once freed from the corruption and inequality endemic in multicultural societies.11

It would seem that Australia's architects in the late 19th and early 20th century were right and that the modern elites who imposed multiculturalism and ethnic diversity on the country were ignorant and short-sighted. The extreme left unions actually believe and promote borderless states. The paradox here is that there is nothing else that would more severely damage the very quality of life and general welfare, of the people they purport to support. In many cases it is the people they are selling out that pay their wages. Borderless states are the golden grail of communists, religious zealots and extreme capitalists alike. Their joint aim in this desire is not the welfare of the citizens but their own aggrandisement or the fulfilment of their own ideology.

A survey of British Muslims carried out in Britain by The Sunday Times, October 2001 found that when asked the question " Which is more important to you?"

(a)   To be Muslim?
(b)   To be British?

68% of the respondents declared to be Muslim was more important. 14% said it was more important to be British, and 18% were undecided.  The survey was the largest since the bombing of Afghanistan began and interviewed 1172 people. The survey also exposed many other examples of the breakdown of social cohesion. There can be no reason to believe that a similar poll in Australia or the USA would be any different.

Some of Australia's intellectual elites would argue that the opposition of multiculturalism infers an opposition to the tenets of individual freedom. The freedom of speech, the freedom to succeed, the freedom of faith and the freedom to expect a high standard of human rights for example. In fact the exact opposite is true with the aim of those opposed to multiculturalism being to protect these freedoms before they are further eroded.  What the multicultural debate has lacked is truth and honesty.

The official ideal of what the Australian multi-cultural state is simply defies the reality.  On November 15th 2001 Mr Carr the Premier of NSW convened a meeting of religious leaders. They predictably pontificated that all Australians should all live in harmony and be united by our differences and a greater love of humanity. If history has taught us anything, it is that differences within a nation divide and weaken it, making it vulnerable to exploitation. It is indeed difficult to imagine how Australian society could be united along side the "The political objectives of Islam,." as promulgated by Dr. Kalim Siddiquie12, which are as follows:


1.    To eliminate all authority other than Allah and his prophet.    2.    To eliminate nationalism in all its forms, in particular the Nation States.    3.    To reconstruct the world of Islamic movements into a single global Islamic movement to establish the Islamic state.    4.    To reconstruct the world of Islam .... to express the unity of the worlds Islamic community.    5.    To eliminate all political, economic, social, cultural and philosophical influences of Western civilisation that have penetrated ... Islam.    6.    To re-establish a dominant and global Islamic civilisation based on ... the unity of Allah.    7.    To create the necessary institutions for the pursuit of that which Allah approves and the forbidding of that which Allah disapproves.     8.    To establish justice [Sharia Law] in all human relationships at all levels throughout the world.

Time and again, we receive examples of what the desires of fundamentalist Islam are.  Their objectives are clear, and yet we still invite them to share their way of life. The followers of fundamentalist Islam express contempt for the west especially in relation to the West's concept of multiculturalism. This contempt is mirrored by the disregard shown by our own leaders for the wishes of the majority of Australian people.


(4)   The damage done
(a)   Separation of city and country; and the polarisation of the community.

Driving from a country town into a large metropolis is a journey between two different countries.   Rural Australia preserves the old Australia.   Post 1960s immigrants, especially Asians, have stayed in the large cities, transforming them. The distance between city and country, an inevitable result of differences in economy and lifestyle, has grown into a yawning chasm of racial divides.  Our large cities, especially the poorer suburbs where the residents are subject to the whims of the politicians, are now multicultural 'non-nations', while the hinterland remains true to the dream of our founding fathers.  Australia's greatest poet, Les Murray, has expressed this in heartfelt words:

"They are creating an Australia that is exclusive.  Multicultural, they call it.  But they are discriminatory; they exclude. They are the ruling elite of today's Australia.. the cultural bureaucrats, the academics, the intellectuals They are excluding people like me from their Australia-the country people, the rednecks, the AngloCelts, the farming people-they have turned their backs on us.  They act as though they despise us We Old Australians, not always Anglo but having no other country but this one, are now mostly caught and silenced between the indigenous and the multicultural.13 "


(b) Crime

The inevitable has happened. The less assailable minorities hold White Australians in contempt. "Fraser's children" are raping our young women, feeding the drug plague, terrorizing ghetto suburbs, and murdering those that try and stand against them: remember John Newman, MP for Cabramatta.


(c) Stratification by race.

Asianisation is proceeding apace in the Australian professional elite.  Paul Sheehan14 reports that in 1996 Asian-Australians, mainly ethnic Chinese, won over 36 percent of the top 5,000 positions in the New South Wales Higher School Certificate, an overrepresentation of about 500 percent.  Chinese representation approached dominance in several maths- and science-based disciplines.  Of the top ten places, Asians of mainly Chinese ancestry won 8 places in chemistry, 7 in 4 unit mathematics (the most difficult level), 7 in 3 unit music, 6 in 3 unit mathematics, 4 in 2 unit physics, 4 in 3 unit economics, and so on. The pattern was repeated in 1997, when 17 of the top 42 students were Asian-Australian, including the only two students to achieve a perfect overall score.  Sheehan remarks, "This is a social revolution".15

More accurately, it is an ethnic transition of the professional class. These outstanding performances will flow through to Asian-Australian overrepresentation in the university system', and actual dominance in some maths and science-based disciplines.  And as elsewhere, Chinese performance in business is exemplary. Even without further Asian immigration, the outcome will be a disproportionate Asian representation among Australia's professional and business elites. But in fact Asian immigration, though marginally slower in recent years, continues, and Asian-Australians, both immigrants and Australian born, are projected to grow from 8.2 percent of the population in 1996,16 to 19.5 percent by 2025,17 by which time "The Anglo Celtic share will fall to 62.2%".18

Australians need feel no embarrassment at the relative success of ethnic Chinese immigrants.  By and large these immigrants are an elite group selected from a total population numbering well over one thousand millions.  The most enterprising and highly educated tend to present themselves as immigrants and be selected by our bureaucrats.  These qualities are held to enrich Australia, which is true to a point.  It also makes them fierce competitors with our own people.   Essentially, our young people are being pushed into competition with elements of an elite group selected from a quarter of the world's population.

It is not as if we were not getting along as a nation. Our traditional immigration policy had helped maintain Australia as a country of rare civic peacefulness, of relative equality, of prosperity and continued economic growth.   Moreover, we were a self-governing society, whose elite was drawn from families across this great continent and who identified with the Australian people. The Australia of the 1950s gratuitously mocked by Donald Home in his misnamed book, The Lucky Country, was a work in progress.  Our ancestors had carved a magnificent infrastructure out of a wilderness, and their grandchildren were poised to take their place in that new society. Home and so many other multiculturalists have mocked us for not having reached Paris or London or New York standards by 1950. They recommended racial change as a way of breaking down the philistine Australian spirit.  But what has become of these great centres of culture, which embraced racial change? They are in the process of displacing their own peoples! Official projections indicate that Britain will be minority white by the end of this century19; America's ethnic revolution will come much earlier, by 2060.20

Why is rapid ethnic change of Australia's elite bad for Australia? The next generation of Australians will have a minority race making up a disproportionate number of their elites. This puts White Australians in the position of the minorities who have complained so long about under-representation in leading positions. Well, now Fraser and Hawke have inflicted the same circumstance on their own people.  Why? What did we do wrong that we deserved such punishment from our leaders?  What is to become of our young people who are being pushed out of the careers that are legitimately theirs?

Why is the infrastructure of schools and universities and the professions they supply with graduates, an infrastructure built up over generations of hard work by White Australians, why is this being handed from their own children and grandchildren to the children of different peoples?

It is never healthy when a minority rules a majority. This is especially the case when the racial minority is inward looking, endogamous, and has a long history of ethnic chauvinism. The contempt felt by many Chinese-Australians for Australians of European descent is well documented, in such books as The Year the Dragon Came (1996)21. And this new elite will come to power just is China makes it presence felt in Australia's region with our pro-Asia policy settings, acting as a magnet to its 50 million overseas Chinese, let alone the overcrowded mainland Chinese cities. Multiculturalism and the ethnic change it promotes are an unfolding disaster for the Australian people of today and spell doom for their children and grand children.


(5) Some ideas on Australian ethnic interests

So, what of the rights of the Australian people? We may be a majority, for the time being, within Australia's borders.  But remember that we are a tiny minority in the region of South East Asia and, further afield, East and Southern Asia. The combined population of India, China, and Indonesia alone is about 3,000 million.  In that sense we share an interest with countries of similar size, with Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, and Burma. It is certainly not in their interests to allow large-scale immigration of other nationalities, including White Australians. Would we be terribly offended if another country refused to allow hundreds of thousands of Australians to enter as immigrants, and gave as one of their reasons a love of their identity and homogeneity? How insensitive that would be of us! How rude!  How aggressive! We have our own country, isn't that good enough?

Every ethnic group has an interest in maintaining itself, in retaining a territory whose borders it controls and which it calls home. In a just world every ethnic group would have the right to its own country.  This is the cry of Zionism, of Jews who long for the dignity and freedom to live among their own people, to be a secure majority in at least one place in the world.   Australia is our Israel, in more ways than one.  We have come to appreciate the lot of the Aboriginal people. But how can any honest person feel sympathy for one people alienated from their land and not understand the wish of White Australians not to lose their country?  Why are the Australian people held in such contempt by the multiculturalists?


(6) On the Jewish assault on One Nation

I have long been criticised by Jewish commentators for my low immigration and anti-multiculturalism stance.   What is noteworthy is that these critics refer to their ethnicity as a reason for rejecting One Nation policies, in particular our identification with Australia as a predominantly European nation and the policies on immigration and multiculturalism that flow logically from that sentiment.  The self-proclaimed Jewish identification of some of our most vociferous critics is puzzling. For one thing, I am not convinced that these critics represent the average Jewish Australian.  Yet they say that because they are Jewish they oppose us, and say so in the most unambiguous terms.

What is puzzling about this?

These critics are, in effect, criticizing themselves, or rather a broader and more tolerant version of their own frame of mind. For those who love Australia, for those whose only homeland is Australia, this continent is our promised land.   It escapes me how anyone who loves his or her people cannot feel sympathy for others who feel likewise about their people.  It's like someone who loves his or her children and who puts them first, failing to accord other parents the right to treat their children with special affection.  Some of our Jewish critics have very different feelings about Israel. Isi Leibler, Chairman of the World Jewish Congress, has explicitly stated that while Israel is for the Jews, Australians must have multiculturalism.22  What sort of insensitivity - what sort of hypocrisy - is this?

Is the charge of hypocrisy too strong? Consider the facts.   These critics are Jewish activists who belong to organized Jewish groups. They are similar to One Nation in the strength of their commitment to their people.  They are Jewish patriots, just as we are Australian patriots.   The main difference is the object of loyalty.   They care passionately about Jewish interests and much of their politics is predicated on that understandable ethnic loyalty.  We make no bones about our ethnic identification. We say that Australia is populated mainly by people of European descent, but that identity encompasses Gentile and Jew, Catholic and Protestant, Old and New Australians.  While we extend equal respect to Australians of non-European descent, the fact is that Australia is predominantly European and since Australia is a democratic country, our ethnic interest is a European one.  This is accepted and indeed welcomed by many minority groups who accept that the status quo is more tolerant than any of the conceivable options.


December 2001


1.     Mark Lopez, 2000, The Origins of multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945-1975, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, p. 259.  Fraser had been converted to multiculturalism in 1973 when he visited two Greek Australian activists, one a Marxist.  The public had no idea of this conversion.  Fraser remarked two decades later, without remorse, "Anglo-Saxon Australia is dead. This isn't the kind of society we are" (quoted by Lopez 2000, p. 440).        2.     K. Betts, 2000, "Immigration: Public opinion and opinions about opinion." People and Place: pp. 60-67.  Vol 8 No 3.        3.    Melbourne Herald Sun, 25 May 1993, "Hawke Reveals Political Pact".  See also "The Social Contract" Vol 3 No4 Summer 1993 ( "Om Mane Padme Hum" by Denis McCormack.         4.    Betts, 2000.         5.        Lopez, Origins of multiculturalism, p. 337.         6.             The late Walter Lippmann, the Melbourne Jewish leader, who Lopez considers to have been the most influential agitator for multiculturalism in Australia "did not regard Grassby as indispensable, but perceived Whitlam's position as crucial" (Lopez, Origins of Multiculturalism, p. 336).         7.        Lopez, Origins of Multiculturalism, p. 339.  "Whitlam ... regarded the senior officers of the Department as the custodians of the White Australia policy, which he had abolished." Also: "No other minister wanted the position after they had seen how Grassby and his family had suffered due to the racist hate campaign.  If the functions of the Department of Immigration were shared among other departments, the racist groups could no longer target one minister." Needless to say, these "racists" included many ordinary Australians who would never attack a minister's family but voiced legitimate opposition to Grassby and the undemocratic reversal of Australia's traditional immigration policy through the ballot box.        8.    Quoted in R. Birrell, 1995, A Nation of Our Own.  Citizenship and Nation-Building in Federation Australia, Longman, Melbourne, p. p. 252, originally from Commonwealth Parliamentary Debates, 12 September 1901, p. 4806.        9.    A. Alesina, R. Baqir, W. Easterly, 1999, "Public goods and ethnic divisions", Quarterly Review of economics, 114(Nov.), pp. 1243-84). See also "Putting the Good in Good Government" by Richard Morin, Washington Post, 1 Nov 1998.         10.    A. Alesina and E. Spolaore, 1997, "On the number and size of nations", The Quarterly Review of economics, 112(Nov.), pp. 1027-56.        11.         Alesina and Spolaore, 1997.         12.    Dr Kalim Siddiquie (b. 1931, d. 1996) well known Islamic intellectual and Director of the Muslim Institute, England.        13    Quoted in Paul Sheehan, 1998, Among the Barbarians: The Dividing of Australia, Random House, Milsons Point, p.141.         15.    Sheehan, 1998, p. 200.         16.    Sheehan, 1998, p. 201.         16.    Charles Price, 1997, "The Asian element in Australia: 1996", People and Place, 5(4), p. 35.         17.    Charles Price, quoted in Sheehan 1998, Among the Barbarians, p. 126.         18.    Charles Price, quoted in the Australian, 7 January 2000, "More ingredients stirred into melting pot", by John Kerin.        19.    Melbourne, The Age, 4 September 2000, "UK whites will be a minority by 2100" by Simon.        20.    See for example P. Brimelow, 1995, Alien Nation.  Common Sense about America's Immigration Disaster, Random House, New York.  Also see President Clinton's Portland (or) State University Speech, 13 June 1998, "In a little more than 50 years there will be no majority race in the United States.  Today, largely because of immigration there is no majority race in Hawai, or Houston or New York city."         21.    Sang Ye, 1996.   Also " The Grand Plan, Asianisation of Australia, Race Place and Power by Denis McCormack, A paper presented at the 20th Anniversary conference of the Asian Studies Association of Australia.  Latrobe University 10 July 1996, Hansard 22 October 1996.        22.   Melbourne Herald Sun, 27 September 2000, "Multiculturalism not for Israel - Leibler" by John Masanauskas.

Graeme Campbell,  December 2001




John Stone, The Australian, 26/11/01


Our immigration Policy must be fundamentally rethought so that it is built around cultural assimilation.

THE September 11 terrorist attack on the US is rightly said to have changed the world.  But Australians' world had already begun to change a fortnight earlier when the Prime Minister ordered the Tampa to leave Australian territorial waters off Christmas Island, taking with it the illegal immigrants it had rescued off Indonesia.

Since September 11 our chief focus has been on Washington's (and its allies') response. But before the Tampa episode and World Trade Centre attack are played out.  Australians must fundamentally, rethink the stupidities which, for 20 years now, have dominated our immigration policies and, along with them, our official policies of multiculturalism (read “non-assimilation"). This rethinking could not sensibly be carried out during the election campaign. The matter is too important to have become the evanescent plaything of politicians on the run, let alone of the mindless journalism that marks such occasions.   I merely say that, now that the election is behind us, this is a long overdue debate we have to have.  To that end, let me set down a few propositions from which that debate needs to begin. Australia's immigration policies during the 30 or so years after World War II initiated by the Chifley Labor government and carried on by successive Coalition governments - were enormously successful. Those policies essentially comprised two requirements. First, that the new Australians we were welcoming would assimilate into the mainstream and. second, that those we were choosing (chiefly, then, from war-torn Europe,) would be culturally capable of, and disposed to, doing so.

By the mid-1970s, Australia had emerged from that process a more cosmopolitan, broader-minded, more outward-looking and in most respects better country than before. Shortly thereafter, the Fraser government accepted a relatively small number of refugee boatpeople fleeing the Vietnamese communist dictatorship. This was a principled consequence of our own earlier, entirely honourable contribution to resisting their oppressors, and was accepted as such by a generous Australian people. The much wider extension of that decision which then followed, by both Coalition and Labor governments, and which opened our doors to all and sundry irrespective of cultural background, was not in the national interest, however well-meaning it may have been.

Fatally compounding that error were the official multiculturalism policies imposed along with it.  Abandoning the previous assimilationist approach, official policy strongly encouraged the “separate development” of different cultures on an equal footing side by side within our boundaries.  In Geoffrey Blainey’s famous phrase, the nation of tribes - a concept so internally irreconcilable that it only has to be stated to be seen as a contradiction in terms - had arrived. Worse still, as Blainey's phrase reminds us, these errors were then effectively shielded from almost all effective public criticism by the elitist thought police in our universities and in the media.  This shutting down of debate - with charges of racism, no matter how gross, quickly hurled at any critic - was aided and abetted by a conspiracy of silence between both sides of politics. And the result?   The previously supportive attitude of most Australians towards a large, nation-building immigration program - an attitude which, until about 20 years ago, I shared - has been transformed to one of widespread hostility, demands for scaling back the size of the program, and increasing inter-ethnic suspicion and distrust within our previously cohesive society.

Note that I have nowhere referred to race. In that future debate, any reference to race should be immediately challenged; not race, but culture is the issue. So that there be no (honest) mistake, let me repeat that.  Our future immigration policy should have nothing to do with immigrants' skin colour or ethnicity. It should have everything to do with whether those concerned are capable of assimilating into Australia's basically Judeo-Christian culture, and disposed to do so.  Note, again, that reference, not to Australia's predominantly Judeo-Christian religions), but to the associated culture.  Unlike Americans, we are not a particularly religious people; yet we all live within a core culture shaped by, and part of, a Western civilisation having its origins in Judeo-Christianity.

In that coming debate, another distinction will be essential - that between respecting another person's right to adhere to some other culture, and respecting that culture equally with our own.  All the past brainwashing to the contrary notwithstanding, all cultures are not equal and it is ridiculous (and, since September 11, much more obviously dangerous) to keep insisting that they are. The most sensitive aspect of that future debate will be our attitude towards further Muslim immigration - towards which, I must openly say, I have the gravest reservations (while noting that the calls for Australians to refrain from harassing our existing Muslim community are, of course, entirely proper). This, too, is a debate which cannot be avoided, either here or in the US (see, for example "The closing of the Islamic mind", in the October 11 issue of The Weekend Standard. drawing upon a remarkable lecture almost 10 years ago by recently named Nobel laureate V. S. Naipaul).

Big business is again calling for an increase in our immigration program. It should understand that there can be no hope of that unless the policies of the past 20 years or so are fundamentally rethought.  The election result has confirmed that, in spades. In the end, it is the crucial relationships between cultural compatibility and national cohesion which will lie at the heart of our future debate.         John Stone is a former secretary to the treasure and National Party senator.


UK: Rising Gang Rapes of White Girls a Byproduct of Multiracialist Experiment
News/Comment; 2004-01-14

Figures released by Scotland Yard show that a hardcore of muggers from ethnic minorities are behind an alarming rise of gang rapes in London, reports the British National Party (BNP): "The figures suggest a disproportionately high involvement of young black or Asian males in group sex attacks and that a vast proportion of the victims are white European females. This sexual predation upon young white females is rising all across the country. We have reported earlier about incidents in Bradford and Oldham where Asian youths have targeted underage white schoolgirl, forcing them to use drugs and selling the girls on the streets for prostitution. One feature of these escalating incidents is the overwhelming lack of attacks upon young Asian women. These attacks suggest that the gangs do not prey upon their own ethnic groups but only upon other groups, predominantly white and to a lesser extent black."

The problem with interracial rape that White women face in Britain is also faced by White women in America. New Century Foundation's acclaimed book The Color of Crime gives statistics on rape and other crimes in America: "More than 30,000 white women were raped by black men in 1994, and about 5,400 black women were raped by white men. The black interracial rape rate was 38 times the white rate.... Of the total of 490,266 acts of multiple-offender interracial violence, no fewer than 93.9 percent were committed by blacks against whites. Robbery, for which there is a monetary motive, accounted for fewer than one third of these crimes. The rest were gang assaults, including rapes, presumably for motives other than profit."

BNP: "This climate of fear and terror being enacted upon the womenfolk of our urban areas has been brought about by the Marxist cult of multi-culturalism. It is that cult which must be challenged head-on by decent, sensible thinking people of all ethnic groups, particularly the white British folk in the towns and cities who are losing everything that was once held dear. That challenge must be conducted through protest, complaining, activism and getting organised into an active BNP unit, ready to take the challenge to the ballot box at every available electoral



Tim Priest, Quadrant, 12 January 2004

The emergence of Middle Eastern crime groups was first observed in NSW in the mid 1990s. Before then, they had been known largely for individual acts of antisocial behaviour and for loose family structures involved in heroin importation and supply as well as motor vehicle theft and conversion.

The one crime that did appear organised before this period was insurance fraud, usually motor vehicle accidents and arson. Because these crimes were largely victimless, they were dealt with by insurance companies and police involvement was limited.

But from these insurance scams, a generation of young criminals emerged to engage in more sophisticated crimes - among them extortion, armed robbery, organised narcotics importation and supply, gun running, organised factory and warehouse break-ins, and car theft and conversion on a vast scale, including the exporting of stolen luxury vehicles to Lebanon and other Middle Eastern countries.

It probably took 20 years for the Chinese to become a dominant force in crime in Sydney. But Middle Eastern crime has taken less than 10 years. So pervasive is Middle Eastern influence on organised crime in Sydney that rival ethnic groups, with the exception of the Asian gangs, have been squeezed out or rendered extinct. The only other crime group to have survived intact are the bikies - although they have now legitimised many of their operations and now make as much money through legal means as they do illegally.

With no organised-crime experience, no gang unit other than the South-East Asian Strike Force, the NSW Police turned against every convention known to Western policing in dealing with organised crime groups. In effect, the Lebanese crime gangs were handed the keys to the city of Sydney.

The most influential of the Middle Eastern crime groups are the Muslim males of Telopea Street, Bankstown, in southwest Sydney. The Telopea Street Boys and their associates have been involved in numerous murders over the past five years - many of them unprovoked attacks on young Australian men for no other reason than the ethnicity of the victims.

They have been involved in all manner of crime on a scale we have never before seen or even contemplated. Ram raids on expensive brand stores in the city are endemic. The theft of expensive motor vehicles known as car-jacking is increasing at an alarming rate. This crime involves gangs of Lebanese or Pacific Islander males finding a luxury motor vehicle parked outside a restaurant or hotel and watching until the occupants return to drive home. The car is followed, the victims assaulted at gunpoint and the vehicle stolen. The vehicles are always worth about $100,000 or more, and it is believed they are taken to warehouses before being shipped interstate or overseas to the Middle East.

The extent to which Middle Eastern crime gangs have moved into the drug market is breathtaking. They are now the main suppliers of cocaine in Sydney and are developing markets in southeastern Queensland and Victoria. They are leading suppliers of heroin in and around the inner city, southwest Sydney and western Sydney.

But what sets the Middle Eastern gangs apart from all other gangs is their propensity to use violence at any time and for any reason. Unlike their Vietnamese counterparts, Middle Eastern crime gangs roam the city and are not confined to Cabramatta or Chinatown. And even more alarming is that the violence is directed mainly against young Australian men and women. It is plain that violent attacks on our young men and women are racial as well as criminal.

Quite often when taking statements from young men attacked by groups of Lebanese males around Darling Harbour, a common theme that emerges is that the violence is racially motivated: the victims are attacked simply because they are Australian.

I wonder whether the inventors of the racial hatred laws introduced during the golden years of multiculturalism ever contemplated the possibility that we, the silent majority, would be the target of racial violence and hatred. I don't remember any race-based charges being laid in conjunction with the gang rapes of southwestern Sydney in 2001, where race was clearly an issue and racial slurs were used to humiliate the victims.

Unbelievably, a publicly funded document produced by the Anti-Discrimination Board, titled The Race for Headlines, was then circulated. It sought to not only cover up race as a motive for the rapes but to criticise any accurate reporting on this matter in the media as racially biased. It worries many operational police that organisations such as the ADB, the Privacy Commission and the Council for Civil Liberties have become unaccountable and push agendas that don't represent the values that this great country was built on.

Many have heard of the horrific problems in France with an unprecedented outbreak of crimes among an estimated 5 million Muslim immigrants. Middle Eastern males now make up 45,000 of the 90,000 inmates in French prisons. There are no-go areas in Paris for police and citizens alike. The rule of law has broken down so badly that when police went to one of these areas recently to round up three Islamic terrorists, they went in armoured vehicles, with heavy weaponry and more than 1,000 armed officers - just to arrest a few suspects.

Why did they need such numbers? Because the threat of terrorist reprisal was minimal compared to the anticipated revolt by thousands of Middle Eastern and North African residents, who have no respect for the rule of law in France and consider intrusions by police and other authorities a declaration of war.

The problems in Paris's Muslim communities are being replicated in Sydney at an alarming rate. Paris has seen an explosion of rapes committed by Middle Eastern males against French women in the past 15 years. The rapes are almost identical to those in Sydney. The rapes are committed not only for sexual gratification: there are also deep racial undertones, along with threats of violence and retribution.

What is more alarming is the identical reaction among some sections of the media and criminologists in France: they downplay the race factor and even gang up on those who try to draw attention to the widening gulf between Middle Eastern youths and the rest of French society.

That is what we are seeing in Australia. The usual suspects come out of their institutions and libraries to downplay and even cover up the growing problem of Middle Eastern crime. Why? Because these same social engineers have attempted to redefine our society. They have experimented with all manner of institutions - from prisons to mental institutions and, recently, policing.

Some of the problems we now see with policing are the result of former NSW police commissioner Peter Ryan's dream of restructuring and retraining the force. The police academy was changed from a training college into a university teaching social sciences and very little else. Constantly, I'd see young police officers emerge from the academy with a view that as police officers they were counsellors, psychologists, marriage guidance experts, social workers and advocates for social change, but with almost no skills in street policing. Their training endangered not only them but also their workmates and the community.

Never mind that policing is about enforcing the rule of law. It's never been about analysing each offender for the root causes of crime. The police enforce the law and protect the community regardless of race, colour or religion. What we have seen in southwest Sydney is ethnic communities being policed selectively. The implications for this are frightening when you look at Paris. The French practised selective policing of a particular community, which is subsequently now out of control.

In February 2001, when I appeared before an inquiry into Cabramatta's crime problem, I gave evidence which at the time attracted the usual claque of ratbags from the ABC and their associates at The Sydney Morning Herald, as well as Sydney's Radio 2UE broadcaster Mike Carlton. I said that Sydney is going to be torn apart by gang warfare the likes of which we have never seen. Last year I was finally proved right, but I take no comfort from that. However, the criticism I received was unprecedented. I was a nutter, a liar, a racist, a disgruntled detective.

Of course, the critics still refuse to concede that we have a problem. They are still clinging to the multicultural theme. To highlight the problems with Middle Eastern communities in Sydney is to tear down the multicultural facade.

The amount of money spent on the multicultural industry beggars belief. It is a lucrative position for many. Governments pour huge money into anything that includes the word multicultural. Indeed, the police department, like other government departments, spends vast amounts on multicultural issues, jobs, education packages, legal advice, public relations and the rest. Having expended large amounts of money on multiculturalism, they are hardly likely to criticise it. Those that feed off multiculturalism are almost certainly not likely to question it.

That groups of Middle Eastern males can roam a city and assault, rob and intimidate at will can no longer be denied or excused. You need only to look at Paris and other European countries that have had mass immigration from Middle Eastern countries to see the sort of problems we can look forward to in years to come. My prediction is that within 10 years Middle Eastern crime groups will have spread and their influence will extend across Australia as they seek to expand their enterprises. There will be no-go areas in southwest Sydney just like there are in Paris.

Only recently I have seen quotes from senior police and retired police who claim that race is not the issue in organised crime. Those statements are stupid and dangerous. Organised crime groups, with the exception of the bikies, are almost always ethnically based - any experienced detective will tell you that. Barring one or two local beach gangs, the days of Anglo-Saxon gangs are all but over.

I also predict that there will be a dramatic rise in gang shootings as rival gangs compete for turf and business. This will be done with almost complete disregard for police attention, as they are aware that the NSW Police Service has to be rebuilt from the ground floor. In the past three years we have seen the phenomenon of drive-by shootings, Los Angeles style. Not only are the increasing incidents a serious cause of concern, but even more so is the use of automatic weapons that spray hundreds of rounds at their targets. This is virtually unprecedented in Australia.

Indeed, the issue has become so serious that some of these Middle Eastern youth who are engaged in organised crime, and who have no regard for our values and way of life, may go a step further and engage in terrorist acts against Australia. The ingredients are there already. It is but a small step from urban terrorism to religious and political terrorism, as we have seen with groups such as the Irish Republican Army, with organised crime often being confused with terrorism.

I don't want to paint a story of doom and gloom. But, as a former policeman, I've seen the destruction that gangs can wreak on innocent citizens who want nothing more than to live in peace. I just hope we can trust the people in government and the police to ensure that we don't lose the values and the rights we have received from past generations.


Tim Priest was a Sydney detective until 2002.

A longer version of this article appears in the January-February issue of Quadrant 2004.



Contents of Your Rights

Australian Civil Liberties Union