Tuesday, September 01, 2009

What are we being delivered to?

Liberalism is advancing at breakneck speed toward the greatest emptiness ever known to mankind. Consider the following two news items. It has been announced that there is to be a national curriculum for Australian schools. On what principles is this curriculum to be based?

According to a report in the Herald Sun there are to be three "key considerations" underpinning the entire development process. They are:

i) indigenous perspectives
ii) a commitment to sustainable patterns of living
iii) the skills, knowledge and understandings related to Asia and Australia's engagement.

So the education of Australian children is being planned by people who seemingly lack a love of learning or a passion for culture or science. What a view of Australia these "key considerations" reveal. The Australian mainstream culture is overlooked in favour of "indigenous perspectives". Flogging stuff to Asia matters. And there's a nod to environmental sustainability.

And that's it. What does this say to the average Australian child? That they don't embody a culture and tradition of their own but are to develop instead as Economic Man - albeit one who remembers to recycle stuff.

The second news item is far worse. It turns out that immigration has been running at an astonishingly high level. And the officials in charge justify this on the grounds that the economy is king. Australia is one big labour market.

Last year there were 171,318 permanent arrivals in Australia. There were also 47,780 New Zealanders who settled permanently and 657,124 migrants with the right to work. This adds up to 876,222 arrivals in a country with a population of about 22,000,000.

What is the purpose of this immigration? The Immigration Minister gave this explanation:

Senator Evans said immigration should be the nation's labour agency, meaning a continued high intake of migrants ... Decisions about who came to Australia would increasingly be left to employers.


Are we a nation or an economy? Do we want to develop economically and industrially or just grow by selling passports and having more people? Do we really want to sacrifice individual standards of living just to have a higher overall level of GDP?

My apologies to Australian readers who find all this demoralising. I expect that at first it is unavoidably demoralising. But I hope that there will be at least one positive effect, which is to show just how bankrupt Australian liberalism has become. There is nothing worthwhile animating it. The focus of government policy is not even on real economic development anymore; it's just about crude technocratic management of the economy to maintain overall growth of GDP.

Anyway, in response to the educrats and their "key considerations" and to Senator Evans and his view of Australia as an employer run labour agency, I penned the following protest ditty:

Our liberal elite is cold and grey
No culture at all, the economy holds sway
Over pallid minds and hollow souls
Dedicated to technocratic goals.

Lord deliver us from these bloodless ghosts
Shut up in bureaucratic posts
Let men with hearts less feeble, values less base
Favour us all and take their place.

31 comments:

  1. When a teenager at school I remember the population being 14 million. I always wondered where the people were coming from when on average there were 150,000 annual permanent arrivals.

    Obviously the number of temporary visa arrivals being given permanent residency is not factored into the annual permanent arrivals. This gives a higher a annual permanent arrival figure than is being officially disclosed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "My apologies to Australian readers who find all this demoralising."

    I'm an American reader and I find it demoralizing because exactly the same thing is happening here, and if Australia were different I could come there to get away from it. But no dice - Australia, Britain, Canada, and America are all committing suicide in exactly the same way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As long as the Australian people continue to vote for the status quo en masse we can expect mass immigration to continue. Not that the opposition is any different. It was they that ratcheted up immigration every year they were in power. Work Choices and mass immigration was a classic one-two punch aimed at the average Australian worker.

    In this way, Howard completely betrayed the battlers that put him into power in 2001.

    Although the ALP has disassembled Work Choices, like the Libs it is also completely beholden to the growth lobby which donates millions of dollars annually to its coffers. It also relies increasingly on the ethnic vote as migrants tend to overwhelmingly vote labor which is how Howard got booted out of the seat he had held for decades.

    Essentially the major parties have allowed immigration to be hijacked by big business and the 'education' industry and are anti-democratically shutting down any debate on the issue, keeping it off the national agenda as much as possible. Anyone that has any objections - even on environmental grounds - is hounded down as a skinhead or a Nazi.

    Unfortunately, the immigration genie is out of the bottle now and the Australian public is way too apathetic to do anything about it sitting in their McMansions anesthetized by their plasma TVs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "In this way, Howard completely betrayed the battlers that put him into power in 2001."

    Howard's betrayal is laid bare in Peter Wilkinson's book The Howard Legacy.

    In one particular chapter, Wilkinson shows Howard's desperate and ultimately futile attempts to woo the Chinese vote. Essentially, the stupid old fool woke up one day and discovered that one-fifth of his electorate was now Chinese, largely thanks to his own government's immigration policies.

    Wilkinson quotes the following extract from a letter that was sent out from Howard's office to all families in Bennelong with Chinese-sounding surnames:

    I am deeply honoured and priviledged to represent an electorate which is diverse and vibrant. The Chinese community has a well-deserved reputation for strong family values and enterprise which is widely admired.

    My Government continues to build on our nation's strengths through immigration policies which balance our need for skills and family reunion considerations, and encourage overseas students in Australia completing their tertiary education to apply for permanent residency.


    Here we had the mighty Prime Minster John Winston Howard, a self-proclaimed cultural conservative and once a critic of multiculturalism and large-scale Asian immigration, obsequiously pandering to the "Chinese community".

    As Wilkinson notes, our national immigration policy was essentially being held hostage to the re-election concerns of the PM.

    Of course, the delicious irony is that the Howard Government's preferential treatment of Chinese immigrants only accelerated the buildup of Chinese in Bennelong, thereby ensuring that its swing to Labor will be permanent.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mark Richardson says:

    But I hope that there will be at least one positive effect, which is to show just how bankrupt Australian liberalism has become.

    The ideology of our fore-fathers was traditional (modernist) liberalism. It was a fighting faith which served progress.

    Thats because embedded in its economic form there was an ethical substance. Namely (largely Protestant) Christianity. This provided the moral bed-rock on which to build astonishing material monuments.

    Christianity has evaporated. What we are left with is the dross & dregs of a culture that at one time had the confidence to expect progress.

    The ideology of Baby Boomer elite is post-modernist liberalism, a caricature of modernist liberalism. That is, liberalism devoid of all purpose except fast money, feel good and look cool.

    Its a combination of nihilist ethics, solipsist epistemics and churning economics. That serves to justify self-indulgent hedonism for self-righteous narcissists.

    You can see it working across the ideological board, in the swindles of the free market financislists, the cynical power-plays of neo-con militarists and the systemic disingenuity of the multi-culturalists.

    Whenever cracks start to show in the crumbling facade they just mount another marketing campaign to silence the dissenters.

    Its not all bad, I guess. Sometimes lots of fun. But its "pretty vacant" compared to what went before.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As for the "education revolution" - we're seeing the theory that was eloquently put forward by Allan Bloom in "The Closing of the American Mind", i.e. the liberals' primary plan for education is to disregard the learning of facts and moral judgement in favour of the teaching of specific world-views (that are not backed up by facts) and upholding moral relativism.

    A sad and dangerous development.

    the Bloom apprentice

    ReplyDelete
  7. As long as the Australian people continue to vote for the status quo en masse we can expect mass immigration to continue.

    I don't know how it is in Oz, but in the USA it does not matter who you vote for, you get the same result (more immigration). As with you, anyone who objects is tarred as a racist Nazi.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The Australian mainstream culture is overlooked in favour of "indigenous perspectives".

    Modern Australia - its society, polity and economy - is a product of European civilisation. One simply cannnot hope to understand modern Australian society without studying the British and European origins of our nation.

    By failing to adequately teach our nation's history and heritage to the current generation of young Australians, we risk creating an entire generation of ignorant, deracinated citizens and destroying any possibility of the trans-generational cultural transfer that is essential to the continuity of any people.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The focus of government policy is not even on real economic development anymore; it's just about crude technocratic management of the economy to maintain overall growth of GDP.

    Indeed. Adding people to the population through immigration may stimulate further demand for goods and services and increase overall GDP, but it does not raise GDP per capita and does not create real sustainable wealth in the long term.

    This whole notion that a country can only survive economically by having an ever-increasing number of consumers and workers can be seen for the fraud that it is by simply pointing to the example of most of other industralised economies, whose populations have barely grown over the past fifty years. During that period the greatest ever expansion of their economies has taken place.

    In Australia's case, more immigration-induced demand for goods and services simply means greater import demand, which in turn adds to our current account deficit and foreign debt. It also means we have to borrow heavily from abroad to finance the additional social infrastructure needed to accommodate a rapidly expanding population. This diverts capital away from more productive economy activities, such as the development of new export industries.

    Of course, the deeper problem with the government's approach is that it presupposes that Australia is nothing more than an economy, with its people being nothing more than consumers and a labour force. It assumes that humans are merely Homo Economicus, that Australians have no other concerns beyond increasing overall economic output, and that issues surrounding community, culture, ethnicity and national identity are irrelevant.

    As Lawrence Auster observed:

    The deeper problem with economism [the view that immigration should only be viewed in terms of its economic effects] is that no true values, including the values of a distinct political system, culture and way of life, can be comprehended in economic or utilitarian terms. Solely on the basis of measurable, quantifiable, pragmatic facts it is impossible to preserve any society or institution, even so basic an institution as the nuclear family.

    Suppose there were two families, the Smiths and the Joneses, living next door to each other. The two families get along, the children play together, the parents occasionally socialize with each other. Then one day the Joneses announce that they want to move in permanently with the Smiths. When the Smiths seem less than enthusiastic about this proposal, the Joneses say: “What’s your problem? You have enough room, your house is bigger than ours, and we get along together. Besides, the nuclear family is only a modern invention. A dual family will enrich all of us.” To back up these claims, the Joneses bring in an economist who says that two-family households have larger aggregate wealth than one-family households. They bring in a sociologist who cites studies showing that the children raised in two-family households have superior abilities in adjusting to different types of people in a diverse society. Faced with this aggressive challenge to their existence as a family, what can the Smiths say? Their family, as a unique, autonomous association, is an intrinsic, irreplaceable value to its members. It cannot be defended on the basis of quantifiable facts. In the same way, the nation is a family whose distinct character and values cannot be defended on a purely rationalistic basis. To say that it must do so in order to have the right to exist, is to deny its right to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mark Richardson says:

    It turns out that immigration has been running at an astonishingly high level. And the officials in charge justify this on the grounds that the economy is king. Australia is one big labour market.

    Are we a nation or an economy? Do we want to develop economically and industrially or just grow by selling passports and having more people? Do we really want to sacrifice individual standards of living just to have a higher overall level of GDP?


    Its not quite true that the massive immigration increase has been solely driven by a Right-liberal economistic drive to maximize prosperity. The most ardent boosters of mass immigration are typically the Left-liberal culturalist drive to celebrate diversity. To many Left-liberals this diversity appears to be a positive worthy goal in itself.

    And in some ways it is, since AUS has been culturally enriched by exposure to some forms of diversity eg NE Asian nerds who go on to become heart transplant surgeons and philanthropists. Also Thai food, dont forget the spicy exotic food. And Indians with their charming accents and courtly manners.

    These are real compensations to console every time we bemoan the loss of the care-free country we frolicked in as children.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Senator Evans said immigration should be the nation's labour agency, meaning a continued high intake of migrants ... Decisions about who came to Australia would increasingly be left to employers.

    This is totally absurd.

    Firstly, the Australian people should be the nation's labour agency, not foreigners.

    Secondly, giving business groups carte blanche to decide who comes to Australia is reckless and idiotic in the extreme. It is nothing short of a green-light for open borders.

    Chris Evans seems to be completely abrogating responsibility for immigration decisions and putting that responsibility in the hands of vested interests. This is astounding.

    In all my time observing politics, I've never seen such utter abandonment of responsibility by a federal minister entrusted to serve the national interest.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Liberalism is advancing at breakneck speed toward the greatest emptiness ever known to mankind.

    I am reminded of an article I read about the situation in Canada.

    It might well be argued that the Canada of today is as far removed from traditional conceptions of European nationalism as has ever been possible in human history. Persons somewhat influenced by or aware of such traditions cannot help but experience high degrees of "cognitive dissonance" and anomie, living in such a society. In those earlier societies, one had been taught to cherish one's national and/or religious heritage as a priceless patrimony, which had to be the touchstone of one's existence, constantly fought and striven for, and never spoken of except in the most reverential terms. Any nation on the crowded European continent that would have adopted internationalism as an outlook would have simply ended up as carrion for its neighbors. While nationalism doubtless had its dark side (from the universally-known phenomenon of Nazi Germany, to the virtually unknown phenomenon of Ukrainian fascism) it could in far greater numbers of times be a focus for the most exalted, high-minded expressions of the human spirit. The cherishing of, high respect, and high regard for one's own national group is what is virtually forbidden today - to almost all European peoples. With every year, the weight of political-correctness/multiculturalism becomes heavier on the backs of European and European-descended societies. As the self-induced guilt of Europeans is continually ratcheted up, they become ashamed of merely existing. What all this will lead to appears to be that these groups will in fact become the new pariahs, while constantly accused of being cruel and harsh oppressors - the latter simply being a rationalization and cover-up for their actual dispossession. In the end, it seems that the only thing that can assuage white liberal guilt is the complete effacement of European civilization. What also has particularly tragic dimensions is that this appears to be an ever-tightening process, from which there can be no conceptual escape possible, for those societies.

    Australia, too, appears to be "as far removed from traditional conceptions of European nationalism as has ever been possible in human history."

    Like in Canada, Australia's political elites have jettisoned the traditional, ethnoculturally-based concept of nationhood in favour of the abstract liberal-civic model, thus depriving the country of any kind of distinct cultural identity that can or should be preserved and leaving it open to never-ending, immigration-driven transformation.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well said - the relentless pursuit of economic gains through immigration contrasts starkly with the lack of any social or environmental considerations arising from these pursuits. Reminds me of a story about a frog in a saucepan of water that is slowly being heated...

    ReplyDelete
  14. What we have here is simply warfare by another means. The western nations, or anglosphere, all enacted identical disastrous immigration policies within the same general time frame. Hardly a grassroots effort. This is a much overlooked subject. An inordinate amount of time can be spent analyzing the philosophy of the left why they enact the various harebrained policies that they do, but this is simply a waste of time. Of course these policies do not make a bit of sense. That much is obvious. Recognized warfare forcibly invades a nation with much destruction and mayhem and if the invading army is victorious, they displace the current race/culture/ population. Short of the obvious mass carnage, how is this any different from what is currently unfolding. Forced acceptance and hiring of foreign races and cultures leads to displacement of those in the west. Another misstep in the argument is the idea of assimilation. What once passed for western culture was the sole creation of whites. One cannot simply divorce race and culture and determine them to be mutually exclusive. Living in California is a prime example.

    ReplyDelete
  15. We are being delivered to global corporatism free of any notion of meaningful culture.


    Both types of parties, from the left and right, are rushing towards this outcome via different means.

    This seems to be the least desired outcome of ordinary people regardless of political persuasion. Never the less, it seems the likely outcome of just about every policy enacted or even considered in the Anglosphere and beyond.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "An inordinate amount of time can be spent analyzing the philosophy of the left why they enact the various harebrained policies that they do, but this is simply a waste of time. Of course these policies do not make a bit of sense. That much is obvious."

    Compared with how much time (and taxpayers money) the liberal establishment spends in justifying and promoting its policies the scattered volunteers efforts of the conservative right are very small potatoes.

    The reason we aren't making much headway yet is because there still aren't anywhere near enough people intelligent people expressing these sentiments in blogs, books, newspapers, campuses etc.

    For example, my very modest little blog is about the only blog in New Zealand advocating limited immigration, and there are perhaps only half a dozen blogs in Australia expressing similar views.

    To have any kind of political impact there has to be a critical mass of like-minded people communicating with each other through the internet or social clubs. Only then can we start thinking about establishing lobby groups, webzines, political parties and other kinds of associations which can actually influence the political process and bring pressure to bear on the elites of society.

    It isn't that we aren't channelling our efforts properly, its just that there simply aren't yet enough of us.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mike, exceptionally well put.

    There have been some excellent comments throughout this thread - thanks to all those who have participated.

    Jack, I'm probably not as keen on the historical role of liberalism as you are. Still, I agree that things really went belly-up when liberalism went it alone, rather than in alliance with other traditions, whether that of the church or an aristocratic ethos etc.

    RD, thanks for your several comments - I hope you'll return for later discussions of this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I too find the immigration situation demoralising. Incredibly demoraling. A couple of posts have fired at John Howard and yes the numbers increased under the Liberals. It was also the Liberal rank and file who roared in approval when the words, "We decide who comes to this country and the basis on which they come" were said. We currently don't decide who comes to this country and the basis on which they come. Nonetheless, I believe it will have to be the Liberals we look to to carry the fight on immigration. As Mark said the left liberal Labour party is incabable of doing so.

    We should either demmand that the Liberal party carry this issue or support a new party who will. Statements onlong the lines of "we're all screwed, we can do nothing", achieve nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Statements onlong the lines of "we're all screwed, we can do nothing", achieve nothing.

    But that's the reality unfortunately. I recall an Australian Democrats senator crowing not long ago that there wasn't a single political party with any seats: neither Libs, ALP, Democrats or Greens that supported a reduction in immigration. From that he inferred that the vast majority of Australians supported the current status quo. Opinion polls have consistently demonstrated that nothing could be further from the truth.

    The firm belief among the elites that run this country is that Australia is an economy and not a nation and that high immigration is good for business. The fact that it's not good for the average Aussie battler in terms of environment, house prices, transport, infrastructure, competition for jobs etc doesn't matter to them one iota.

    There is a powerful alliance of big business, government, the education industry and the media that work together to maintain record levels of immigration and keep any dissenters marginalised or ignored.

    Howard's "we will decide" speech was dog whistle politics to the battlers sending the message that he was tough on immigration. But it was a cunning deception - and very typical of Howard - because whilst his regime did indeed make it more difficult for a few hundred asylum seekers to enter via the back door he kicked the front door wide open by allowing 'students' doing sham courses in cooking and hair dressing to get residence at the drop of a hat.

    The current Labor governments - both state and federal - are only too happy to maintain this arrangement as they know that migrants overwhelming vote labor. And why shouldn't they given the ALPs love for open borders and multi-culturalism?

    So there really is no organised opposition to immigration in Australia to speak of and that's likely to remain the case for the forseeable future. What complicates matters is that, when parties with an anti mass-immigration platform occasionally do surface, such as the BNP in Britain or One Nation here in Oz, they tend to attract some very unsavory types.

    So not to put too fine a point on it, we are indeed 'all screwed' -unless of course we are property developers or vocational college 'entrepreneurs' or otherwise have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. And let's not forget all those lovely restaurants...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yes I agree with a lot of what you've said Anonymous. But immigration really is the emperor with no clothes on, sooner or latter its impossible to ignore.

    Immigration is THE issue. In the US, in Europe, in Britain. It will have to be addressed because the benign pleasantries on which it is based is so much bull. We need to invite people in because we're bad? We need to invite people in for low skilled workers? Or as has been pointed out for high skilled workers?

    No enculturation or assimilation, no regard for the cost. As like as not over the long term this is as demoralising for the immigrants as it is for us as they've decided to live in a dishwater society. This is madness.

    I don't care if its the Klan who raise this as an issue. It should and must be raised until the penny drops.

    When it comes to John Howard I think he was just doing the best he could. He was always on narrow margins and didn't do everything right. Mr 85%.

    ReplyDelete
  21. We are being delivered to global corporatism free of any notion of meaningful culture.

    In many ways, Australia's political and economic elites are examples of what the late Samuel P. Huntington labelled 'Davos Man', people who "have little need for national loyalty, view national boundaries as obstacles that thankfully are vanishing, and see national governments as residues from the past whose only useful function is to facilitate the élite's global operations".

    As Huntington noted:

    "The views of the general public on issues of national identity differ significantly from those of many elites. The public, overall, is concerned with physical security but also with societal security, which involves the sustainability—within acceptable conditions for evolution—of existing patterns of language, culture, association, religion and national identity. For many elites, these concerns are secondary to participating in the global economy, supporting international trade and migration, strengthening international institutions, promoting so-called 'universal values' abroad, and encouraging minority identities and cultures at home. The central distinction between the public and elites is not isolationism versus internationalism, but nationalism versus cosmopolitanism."

    ReplyDelete
  22. Adding people to the population through immigration may stimulate further demand for goods and services and increase overall GDP, but it does not raise GDP per capita and does not create real sustainable wealth in the long term.

    As Mark O'Connor wrote in his 1998 book Overloading Australia:

    "The immigration lobby argues that since migrants create a 'demand' for goods and services, they benefit the economy. As one commentator remarked, if things were as simple as that, we could do the economy a power of good by burning down our suburbs at regular intervals. Unfortunately, much of the 'demand' created has been of the sort that sucks in imports rather than generates export industries. The years of high immigration in the late 1980s were plagued by current account problems.

    The battle between nations today is to create exports, or import-replacements, not to stimulate internal demand. In a sense we are locked in a friendly but fierce trade war in which our assets are the things we can export (or can do without, or can produce at home) and our liabilities are the imports our population demands.

    After years of boosterism by the [former] BIR [Bureau of Immigration Research], the BIR's Lyn Williams finally summed up its research and conceded that the economic advantages of immigration were at best minimal or possibly neutral. Hardly the sort of economic bonanza you'd risk ruining your country for!"

    Furthermore:

    "... unless a per capita growth in GDP (or better, in real quality of living) can be demonstrated, most individual Australians do not benefit at all financially [from immigration]. In other words, whether we are talking jobs or pay or wealth, few us of benefit from a slightly bigger cake if there are far more people than before to divide the cake up among. This fundamental truth, pointed out repeatedly in the [former] Coalition government's own Mortimer Report, Going for Growth, has been hidden from the Australian people in a propaganda effort supported by sections of the media and by both the major political parties."

    http://eye-on-immigration.blogspot.com/2009/08/immigration-population-and-economics.html

    ReplyDelete
  23. My apologies - the above excerpts were actually taken from O'Connor's book This Tired Brown Land, not the more recent Overloading Australia.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The deeper problem with economism...

    According to American economist and writer John Attarian, 'economism'

    " ... presupposes that man is a rational animal, seeking pleasure and avoiding pain, who pursues gratification of appetites, which are by assumption insatiable. One's life project is attaining affluence, so as to maximize access to consumer goods, hence maximize pleasure. Therefore the most important aspect of one's life is performance of economic activity - production, exchange and consumption. Since a society's ability to achieve affluence rests on efficient production, resource allocation and exchange, economic efficiency is prized highly. So is technology, which is deemed the key to mankind's mastery of nature and generation of affluence.

    A corollary is that noneconomic phenomena, such as national sovereignty, autonomy, identity, cultural continuity, or even simply maintaining one's way of life undisturbed, are far less important- or even nefarious. More affluence therefore not only compensates for loss of noneconomic values, but makes one better off. Those who dominate our economy and politics treat the noneconomic values of others as expendable, and the consent of those whose noneconomic values suffer as purchasable with economic betterment. 'That's progress,' meaning economic progress, covers a multitude of sins, especially against noneconomic priorities. For example, the ruin by agribusiness of small farmers, who are supposedly better off for having urban jobs and amenities, or the devastation of farms and neighborhoods by highway construction and urban renewal.

    Another implication is that affluence is the universal solvent of problems and grievances. Give people enough jobs, money, goods, services and entertainment, and they will be happy and peaceable. Trade will make nations economically dependent on one another, therefore make war counterproductive, and eventually eliminate it. Nineteenth-century free trader Richard Cobden declared that he saw free trade as a powerful moral force, 'drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonism of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace.'

    This presupposes that people are essentially economic agents whose noneconomic characteristics do not matter - interchangeable parts in mechanisms of production, exchange and consumption. This presupposition also informs free marketeers' perennial brag that capitalism is the best cure for discrimination. Milton Friedman, who made this argument, observed that 'a free market separates economic efficiency from irrelevant characteristics'; since anybody, regardless of these 'irrelevant characteristics,' can act in the capacity of producer or consumer of a good or service, one's race, gender, ethnicity, politics, immigrant status, etc. doesn't matter. When others perceive that these things don't matter for the one thing that really matters - economics - discrimination, like war, will wither away as economically costly, hence self-evidently silly.

    [Continued below]

    ReplyDelete
  25. This reductive assumption of interchangeability also underlies economism's advocacy of immigration and willful obliviousness to its noneconomic problems. Our increasingly insupportable way of life - itself economism's child, with its high taxes, demise of family farms and businesses, and consumer debt to support gluttonous lifestyles - has transformed children from economic assets to economic liabilities. For this reason and others, such as feminism, the fertility of American women, especially middle and upper class European-descended women, has been below replacement rate for decades. This will eventually mean the biological obliteration of European-Americans, an outcome a sane national policy would dread and try to reverse. Yet our economism-dominated politics responds not by lightening American middle class tax burdens and striving to keep people on small farms, which would injure the money- dominated agendas of left and right, but by pursuing massive Third World immigration, which serves them. Economism is indifferent to the disappearance of European-Americans. After all, it makes no difference for economic purposes if an 'American' is a Christian or Jew descended from the colonists or other thoroughly assimilated Europeans, and steeped in America's history, or a newly-arrived immigrant who belongs to the Santeria cult, is hostile to native-born citizens, and could not care less about the original intent of the Constitution's framers or American history."

    Full article:

    "Economism and the National Prospect" - Part I & Part II

    ReplyDelete
  26. For more arguments on the peace that commerce brings see Voltaire:

    "Go into the Exchange in London, that place more venerable than many a court, and you will see representatives of all the nations assembled there for the profit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian deal with one another as if they were of the same religion, and reserve the name of infidel for those who go bankrupt. There the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist, and the Church of Eng- land man accepts the promise of the Quaker. On leaving these peaceable and free assemblies, some go to the synagogue, others in search of a drink; this man is on the way to be baptized in a great tub in the name of the Father, by the Son, to the Holy Ghost; that man is having the foreskin of his son cut off, and a Hebraic formula mumbled over the child that he himself can make nothing of; these others are going to their church to await the inspiration of God with their hats on; and all are satisfied."

    ReplyDelete
  27. What are we being delivered to?

    The post-national "new world order" of the "global economy."

    Driven by an ideology that justifies their economic and financial interests, Australia's elites in business, politics, and academia have embarked on a course that will result in a staggering increase in the size of our population and a radical change in our nation's ethnic makeup and cultural identity.

    Of course, whether or not the Australian people wanted a dramatic change in their nation's ethnic makeup is a question they were never asked.

    ReplyDelete
  28. We don't ask whether (if you're a European) you want to have closer association with the EU. We just hit you with referenda after referenda untill you say yes. Is it possible to say no after the fact? To undo any of it?

    We don't ask you whether you want immigrants on mass we just say you can't legitimatly critise it.

    Is it possible to undo things?

    We'll rely on inertia so you'll accept what's happened?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Our education system is also delivering us towards Labor's policy of a borderless Asia Pacific Union. There is now talk of a national high school certificate: Scrap HSC for national test:

    "THE nation's new curriculum chief says a national secondary school certificate is needed to replace the HSC and other state-based leaving certificates...

    In April, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development urged Australia to consider a national certificate, arguing that it would bring national consistency to education standards and allow easier movement of students between states because of common standards....

    A spokeswoman for the federal Education Minister, Julia Gillard, said the Government was not considering changes to existing state and territory arrangements, but that the curriculum authority would advise on ''the best way to ensure world-class curriculum and assessment outcomes''...".

    Labor will do it. As part of their borderless Asia Pacific Union dystopia, they will remove all distinctions of local identity in favour of seemless regional standards as a step towards finally breaking down our borders. That's Labor's way.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.