Who can doubt that there has been a conspiracy for over 20 years? Listen to these quotes:
In January 1971, Prime Minister Gorton while addressing a meeting of the alumna Association in Singapore said:
'I think that if we build up gradually inside Australia a proportion of people who are a little different, then as that is gradually done, so there will be a complete lack of consciousness of difference between the races and if this is done, as I think it can be then it may provide the world with its first truly multi-racial society. At any rate that is our ideal.'
A year later, when interviewed on the T.V., show Monday Conference', the then Liberal Senator Don Chipp made this reply:
'I would like to see a stage in the 1980s where Australia is becoming the only true multi-racial country in the world, and that is the Liberal Party's aim.'
Compare those admissions with some better publicized parallel disclaimers: Mr. William McMahon (then Prime Minister) was reported in the press on 4/5/1972 as saying:
'First of all the strain of immigration policy remains the preservation of an essential homogeneous society that does not have permanent minorities of people with essentially different backgrounds that will resist integration in the long term. We want one Australian people, one Australian nation.'
Dr. A.J. Forbes, later National President of the Liberal Party, as Minister Immigration, was reported (2/5/1972) as saying:
'I wish to make it crystal clear of the Government's determination to maintain a homogenous society, one that is essentially undivided, without permanent minorities and free of avoidable tensions.'
The Australian Labor Party immigration policy, taken from their official document (1971) states:
'... the avoidance of difficult social and economic problems which may follow an influx of peoples having different standards of living, traditions and cultures.'
In the 1980s we can see that these disclaimers were a farrago of 'double-think', 'new-speak', or just plain old lies, hypocrisy and culpability amounting to the abdication of political responsibility towards the electorate. In the end the politicians bowed to the internationalists.
Fraser Government takes Lead in Surrender-Australia Policy
In a petition presented to the House of Representatives at Canberra (11/9/1979) by Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, the plea was entered that:
'It should be possible for Australia to establish and maintain on the Australian mainland basic transit camps for the housing and processing of 200,000 refugees each year.'
Also in 1979, when public opinion polls began to show widespread objection to the entry of so many non-Europeans into Australia, a First Assistant Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr. Lindenmayer, said:
'Immigration policies are no good if they don't work, and if the community doesn't accept them.'
The answer to such a frank admission was simply to stop publishing and broadcasting unfavourable reactions. This policy came into the open following one of the many semi-secret, ethnic-orientated conclaves which have become a feature of this lobby within recent years. In July 1980, the Editor of The Australian Financial Review, Mr. P.P. McGuinness, told a conference organized by the N.S.W. Ethnic Communities Council that the media had co-operated with the Government in a 'conspiracy of silence' on opposition in Australia to Asian refugees and migrants.
Several months later two very revealing statements emanated from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. One, made by its new Permanent Secretary, Mr. John Menadue announced:
'Immigration from Great Britain and other European countries could gradually be edged out.'
The other:
'Departmental appointments made in future will be of officers who are sympathetic to non-European immigration.'
With the imposition of multi-racialism and multi-culturalism really underway in 1982, the Liberal Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr. Ian MacPhee, responded to informed criticism on the policies with the arrogant, off-hand remark:
'I don't take any notice of public opinion; my job is to change it.'
As pointed out earlier, Australia was committed to this immigration trap with the signing of the U.N. Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1963. In their hypocritical bid to brining about universal equality, hypocritical U.N. ideologues knew that this could only be achieved in the foreseeable future by lowering the living standards and expectations of the people of the industrialized societies.
The excuse often used in defending present multi-racial immigration policy is that any reversion to a 'White Australia Policy' would damage our reputation within the 'international community'. But what is this international community but a globally federated gaggle of egocentric opinion makers who imperiously lay down in their own particular bailiwick the terms of what is acceptable fashion in thought, word and deed.
The first Western country that decides to break out of this imperious straight-jacket can expect to be cheered by captive European peoples everywhere who will quickly clamour for the same lifting of restraints. They will demand of their local politicians a re-assertion of their rights to national self-determination.
Excuses Don't Justify Multi-racialism
In June 1984 the incumbent Labor Minister for Immigration, Mr. Stewart West, announced massive increases in the numbers of Central and South American migrants who will be resettled in Australia through the Government's refugee and special humanitarian programs. Also there would be 'very, very significant' increases, he said, in migrants from countries suffering political repression and they would acquire family sponsorship.
Politicians please take note; political repression varies in both kind and degree. In Australia we have political repression of freedom of speech in relation to immigration!
Mr. Des Keegan (National Affairs Editor of The Australian) in one of his eloquent articles (1984) summed up the frightening perspective of the family re-union program in saying:
'We could carry family re-union to its mathematical limit and wind up with entire nations swamping us. Who asked the Australians whose grandparents built this country?'
A common excuse is 'Immigrants provide cultural enrichment!' There have been variations of this platitude for several years now. But what is this 'enrichment' other than the presence of more and more foreign restaurants and 'ethnic' carnivals? Do these compensate for the cost of special education subsidies; ethnic media facilities; the provision of multi-language instruction material and interpreter services; not to mention just the growing social irritant of cultural diversity itself?
In January 1982, a poll published in The Age, Melbourne, showed 85% of Australians favour an assimilation immigration policy and, most significantly, only 18% of migrants born outside either Australia or the U.K. support multi-culturalism.
People of European Descent Have Reason to Worry
I think I have sketched enough to show that we are perfectly justified in being fearful of the future possession of this continent by our descendants. There is no doubt that this is the picture worrying most Australians and Professor Blainey has picked up this feeling and articulated it to the authorities in an entirely responsible manner.
The whole edifice of multi-racialism. multi-culturalism, multi-national, multi-lingualism, multi this and multi that, is a nightmarish 'internationalist~ 'house of cards' that will collapse before the onslaught of Truth.
Where the Human Rights Commission Comes In
The power elite behind the U.N. cannot allow this exposure to occur. On matters of immigration especially, the Australian Human Rights Commission is being brought into play.
The Human Rights Commission is a quasi-legal body, a veritable sub-agency of the U.N. It monitors and enforces local compliance with the covenants of the U.N. on a whole range of social engineering plans.
Those who have read Edward G. Griffin's standard work on the U.N., The Fearful Master, will recall how the various articles of the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights compare so closely with those of the Soviet Constitution on which it was patterned by the 'grand planners' back in 1948. In the Soviet Constitution, for every enunciated 'right' there is a proviso . . . so too this limitation is found in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.
In the Human Rights Commission advertisement inviting persons and organizations to make submissions to the enquiry on The Right to Freedom of Expression (1982), paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are cited. Paragraph 3 is particularly interesting in the context of this article; it states:
'The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions but these shall only be such as provided by law and are necessary:
i. For the respect of the rights and reputations of others;
ii. For the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.'
Whatever happened to Common Law and its criminal law provisions by which these sort of matters have been adjudicated in Australia for almost 200 years and which now seem to necessitate the complementation of the above riders?
The Human Rights Commission people have their answer for that. The Common Law is allegedly too limited and slow acting to reflect both the rapid and dramatic changes to Australian society within the last two decades.
There we have it, action and reaction feeding off one another. Break down the traditional culture and then obligate the Government to adopt new laws to control the consequences. The Human Rights Commission draft these necessary laws and the provisions that subject your rights to 'certain restrictions'.
In the 'Reign of Terror' in France during the 1789 revolution, unspeakable atrocities were committed in the name of Robespierre's 'Committee of Public Safety'. Hitler and Stalin did the same in the name of national security. In 1960 the U.N. itself launched a bloody armed 'police action' against civilians in the Katanga province of the Congo (Zaire) to restore public order. Professor Chipman, Professor of Philosophy at Wollongong University, when at a summer school in W.A. (January 1984) was reported as likening the role of the Human Rights Commission to some of its historical antecedents.
The Human Rights Commission proposed in December 1983 that the Racial Discrimination Act should be amended in such a way that it would be an offense against the Act if a statement had the effect of causing racial intolerance. Professor Chipman pointed out that this proposal, to be policed by the Human Rights Commission itself, would shift the onus of proof of innocence onto the shoulders of the defendant rather than the Commission having to prove his guilt. A person could be convicted of an offense against the Act even if none was intended. The Chairman, Dame Roma Mitchell, while denying that the proposed amendments would threaten free speech, conceded that the proposal would have the effect outlined by Professor Chipman.
That example provides an object lesson in the modus operandi of these new 'internationalist' inspired bureaucracies, armed as they are with substantial powers to shape laws and enforce their provisions at what are sometimes called 'compulsory' or conciliatory conferences. At these no legal representation is allowed except with the permission of the presiding officer. Hearsay evidence from a plaintiff is admitted for the basis of a charge, but such person does not have to appear for cross-examination nor does his/her name have to be revealed to the defendant. It is precisely because the offense is not classed as criminal in the normal judicial sense that makes this form of tribunal (often just one person) so dangerous.
In other words, the Human Rights Commission is lawmaker, advocate, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. Why this return to inquisition?
These organizations are essentially administrative rather than judicial. While they may be headed by a highly respected person the staffing, more likely than not, is of people who are, in a quite literal sense, zealots. They are dedicated to imposing their values on society and, if thought necessary, persecuting individuals whom they consider to have 'heretical' views.
To justify their comfortable, influential sinecures it is only a short step from waiting for evidence of heresies to be brought before them to soliciting evidence from conceptually aggrieved parties on issues such as 'discrimination' and 'racism'. Manufacture of incidents is not beyond the bounds of temptation.
Organizations like the Human Rights Commission definitely provide avenues for these politically privileged people to manipulate social changes in the community which would have no general support if electorally canvassed. Indeed the circumstances suggest that the Human Rights Commission, for one, is the brainchild of such people.
Professor Chipman has performed a signal service in pointing out the danger to civil liberties caused by the new bureaucracies supposed to protect these rights.
In conjunction with the revamping of the Constitution, the Attorney-General's Department has also drafted a 'Bill of Rights' which will list those rights to which you are entitled. If it's not there the government won't have given it to you. This is a well camouflaged attempt to regiment society along pre-determined lines of thought and action.
A clear indication of the kind of people now being given power over our lives can be glimpsed from the following comment as to why the H.R.C. favour 'administrative' rather than judicial proceedings:
'Where there is a jury trial there is always the possibility that the jury's findings will be influenced by their own sympathies for the racist case. Where the defendant is found 'not guilty' in such circumstances, the minority group which was attacked will be left feeling even more defenceless than before.'
This statement from a Commission document shows that its officials are well aware of opposing the public will and fear a backlash to the discriminatory practices they themselves create. They are afraid to offer their victims up to the judgment of their peers.
1984 and the Thought Police
Mr. John Bennett, well known as the President of the Australian Civil Liberties Union has best summarized the activities of the Human Rights Commission in his annual booklet, Your Rights?1984, itself the focus of an injunction order earlier in the year:
'The proposal to introduce legislation for a new 'thought' offense of incitement to racial hatred is a particularly dangerous threat to freedom of speech. The aim of the legislation is to inhibit debate on immigration and on whether multi-racial societies are viable.
'Existing laws relating to conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace etc. and defamation laws, are adequate to curb incitement to racial hatred. There is no demonstrable need for new laws and the Human Rights Commission has not demonstrated such a need. Present laws already go too far in inhibiting freedom of speech and steps should be taken to ensure that freedom of speech is expanded and not further restricted, especially in view of the remarkable timidity and conformity of most Australians, and their reluctance to express their views on controversial issues.
'Australian law reform should be guided by demonstrated needs and not be guided by United Nations declarations agreed upon by countries which oppose freedom of speech. It is and should remain the right of every Australian to express his views without criminal law sanctions unless by so doing a breach of the peace may occur or national security be directly threatened. Australians should defy peer group pressure, avoid self censorship, think for themselves, and speak out. Freedom of speech is a basic liberty and people should fight to retain it.'
Regardless of what alleged effect the statements of Mr. Bennett, Professor Blainey and a host of other people may have, spontaneous racial unrest runs the distinct likelihood of occurring unless the root causes of it?the multi-racial policy and the equally divisive practice of structured multi-culturalism -- are stopped; and the statutory structures underpinning these fads, dismantled.
Media-Less than Objective
I repeat, it is the taxpayer funded mischief-makers in these fields who 'having regard to all the circumstances' are 'likely to incite racial hatred'. Whether cognizant of it or not, their problem is that they are functioning in the classic Marxist manner of working against human nature rather than with it. In this they have been supported by the communications media whose only real interest in the alternative arguments is the purely technical one of 'freedom of the press' to report on the subject as it sees fit. In this respect no objectivity has been shown.
The Meaning of Nation
A nation is a delicately balanced entity comprising the people it has synthesized through natural selection, and the institutions these people have rounded to serve their needs and aspirations. Emphatically a nation is not simply a population inhabiting a landscape as Australians are being made to think of themselves.
Most Australians today have more in common with their leaders of yesteryear, and logically so. Addressing the Federal Parliament on the Immigration Restriction Act in 1901, Alfred Deakin?who was to become the nation's second Prime Minister, said:
'All that is necessary for us to urge in Justification of this measure is that these people do differ from us in such essentials of race and character as to exclude the possibility of advantageous admixture or intermarriage if we are to maintain the standards of civilization to which we are accustomed...
'Our civilization belongs to us, and we to it; we are bred in it and it in us. It fits us and is our means of progress and advancement. These people have their own independent development, their own qualities and forms of life and government which naturally are attached to them. They are separated from us by a gulf which we cannot bridge to the advantage of either. The attitude of Australia is not an offensive one when it becomes understood that it is based upon these principles. It is not based upon claims of superiority.
'Where is the standard of comparison just to both?... arguments which are used in favour of exclusion do not call for any reflection whatever upon the character of the people excluded.'
Arthur Caldwell, in his appropriately entitled autobiography, Be just and Fear Not, wrote:
'No matter where the pressure comes from, the Australian people will continue to resist all attempts to destroy our white society.
I reject in conscience, the idea that Australia should or can ever be a multi-racial society and survive.'
The Immigration Debate and You
Face the reality of having that current political swear-word 'racist' thrown at you, but don't ever run the risk of allowing future generations of your own descendants be able to call you a coward who, for comfort, sold them into submission and servitude.
Christopher Steele
* * *
Comment:
We must not overlook that the U.N. promoted ideas join with socialist education implants to impact every aspect of our lives.
Proposed gun laws aimed at taking guns out of the hands of the private community certainly have no proven justification of benefit in so far as fighting crime is concerned-experience has shown it counterproductive.
However it does have very relevant connotations in regard to protecting a political establishment against public uprising should the general population be driven to rebel because of oppression, because the general population has become aware that the political rulers are using biological weapons to destroy them, or some equally valid public defence.
Recent political events relating to the national defence also reveal cause for concern. In the area of national defence it is a common strategy to weaken an intended victim by first dividing him from his allies and breaking his friendships. We now see in Australia and New Zealand our socialist political parties making every effort to do just that; should we wonder on who's behalf they act? avoid19.htm
.../Next Page
.../Back to Contents Page