In September last year, journalist Greg Sheridan observed: ‘In 40 years the racial and ethnic identity of Australia has been completely transformed’. His article, ‘Constitutional change will divide not unite the nation’ included the following shocking statements:
From the late 70s, less than 40 years ago, Australia began accepting large numbers of Asian immigrants.
Almost from the first words I wrote for public consumption I have strongly supported this policy. It has resulted, incidentally, in a kind of benign cultural genocide. The old race of ‘Austral-Britons’ is gone forever. It was not a bad race and it produced a good culture. Don’t think this was not a real identity. National leaders as recent as John Curtin and Robert Menzies called Australia a British nation, or even more explicitly, ‘a nation of Britishers’. We are certainly not that now. The old Austral-Britons have been supplanted by a much more diverse range of ethnic and cultural backgrounds. I don’t feel at all unhappy about that because race and ethnicity are the least interesting or important things about a person. It is the content of their character that counts.
Can ‘cultural genocide’ ever be ‘benign’? We don’t think so, and feel sure that most Australians, including many immigrants, would be horrified at the concept.
But ‘cultural genocide’ correctly describes the outrageous effect of immigration on traditional Australia over the last 40 years. How has this occurred? Research by Denis McCormack reveals that there has long been a ‘Grand Plan’ to bring about such dramatic and unwanted change to our society. For your reading over the Australia Day weekend, we present his grim reflections and inconvenient truths about the history and impacts of Australia’s immigration policy: Asianizing Australia – An Elite’s Long-Term Project (2015).
This catastrophe is not unique to Australia. Readers seeking an international perspective should consult Professor Kevin MacDonald’s book, The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements (1998). It includes an important chapter on Jewish involvement in shaping U.S. immigration policy.
McCormack’s essay concludes by quoting his own words, published in the Washington Post and The Guardian Weekly in 1993: ‘It is not a position of cultural or racial superiority to wish to preserve your own culture … Our complete racial and socio-cultural milieu is being changed through undemocratic policies. This is grounds for revolution.’
For a powerful suggestion about getting the political revolution rolling – using democratic means – please revisit our 2014 Australia Day message!
Reduce Immigration 
While some “diversity” of cultures is stimulating and creates broadening of understandings, mass immigration is a flooding of a country with foreigners. Every nation has a right to protect and treasure its history, territories, communal memories, heritage, not have them overwhelmed by foreign imports.
What is Australia’s identity? Japan, India, China, Korea all have their identities, but it’s assumed that Australia -and other western nations- must be a conglomerate of mixes? Multiculturalism assumes that Australia is a blank canvas, and doesn’t have a culture of it’s own or is one that’s inferior and needs boosting by imports? Australia Day has become dominated by welcoming migrants, and praising Multiculturalism rather than celebrating the traditional owners of the land, our unique landscapes, and our colonial history.
Do some research into the Fabians. That’s where a lot of this PC and Multiculturalism stems from…http://www.restoreaustralia.org.au/an-open-conspiracy/
Hi Michael – we are aware of the Fabians. Thanks for sharing the Restore Australia post. At one stage, however, the Fabians were vehemently opposed to mass immigration: see our post on 8 Jan 2015: https://reduceimmigration.wordpress.com/2015/01/08/open-ended-immigration-dream-or-parisshooting-nightmare/ and the footnote reference there relating to their published views against inappropriate migration.
To take an extremely long-term view, it would not be fatal if our existing culture were completely destroyed. As long as our people survived, those whom the race-mixing Greg Sheridan dismisses as “the old Austral-Britons”, we could eventually rebuild a new and vibrant culture. Cultures grow out of the biological imperatives of race, out of our phylogenous instincts, so any new culture that arose would be ours – and would no doubt live up to our intrinsic ideals. But once our precious genes vanish, there is no hope of a cultural resurrection. Therefore the debate should be about more than just “cultural genocide” – bad as that is. It should be about what the word “genocide” actually means: the deliberate destruction of a race of people. According to the man who coined the word, Raphael Lemkin, this involves “a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.” That is what is happening in Australia today, and the group being “annihilated” is the population that created what we all recognise today as Australian culture.
Of course, cultures and values can evolve and be updated, but Australians have a right, surely, like any other nation, to protect their way of life, their history, environmental values, and heritage. The Multicultural policy assumes that Australia is an empty vessel, and has none!
Thanks to globalization, world communication is at our fingertips, and we don’t need to be the melting-pot of the world!
High immigration is more about propping up our GDP, disguising our weak economy and serving capitalism than appreciating other cultures!