In a stunning display of common sense, Australian women have said ‘no’ to inflammatory political stunts, and ‘yes’ to having a good time… at the beach! On a stinking hot weekend, on the coastlines of the world’s driest inhabited continent.
Who woulda thunk it? Not local fascists; they were praying to Odin for 1,000s of pissed and pissed-off locals to descend on beaches… and mosques… in bikinis.
This weekend — the first anniversary of the Cronulla anti-Muslim / anti-Arab pogrom — was an opportunity for the far right, especially in the misshapen form of the Australia First Party, to publicly flex its puny muscles. Today, Sunday December 10, about ten of the racist losers made it down to Cronulla. Yesterday, in Brunswick, was the original date given for ‘The Great Australian Bikini March’ — officially cancelled by organisers on December 5, and possibly delayed until Invasion Day 2007.
But suppose they gave a date… and nobody came?
Well, that’s exactly what happened. Nobody — literally nobody — was stupid enough to gather at Clifton Park on Saturday, while just around the corner, the community BBQ organised by members of a local mosque went off without a hitch, and attracted several hundred people, despite being extremely hot and smoky weather.
In Sydney, fascist hopes of a second ‘uprising’ were dashed by a strong police presence and the not-unexpected revelation that locals were more interested in splashing about in the surf than they were in embarking on another racist pogrom:
One year on from Cronulla ‘all is quiet’
The Age [AAP]
December 10, 2006
A pleasant summer’s day is all that is happening at Cronulla beach on Sunday, 12 months after a racially-fuelled riot tore through the southern Sydney suburb.
Police have stepped up patrols at southern and eastern beaches this weekend.
All reports from Cronulla indicated it was quiet, NSW Police Minister John Watkins said, and there would be no repeat of the December 11 troubles.
“The deputy commissioner said the only people running amok at Cronulla were the little nippers running into the water, and that’s exactly as it should be,” the Minister told reporters in Sydney.
“Cronulla is a beautiful beach, an icon of the Australian summer, and that’s how we want and expect it to remain through today and the rest of the summer…”
In summary, a good weekend for bushfires, BBQs, and a day at the beach; a bad one for racist losers. Speaking of which, special thanks to Ben Weerheym for his sterling efforts at sabotaging the organising efforts of local bigots. Apparently, if you want to blame anyone for screwing the March up, blame him.
Unrelated comment – well, semi-related comment. Does anyone know if Ben Weerheym is in Adelaide at the moment? Leaving work for the pub on Friday night, I was pretty sure I saw his mug waiting at a bus stop. This morning I noticed a significant amount of Stormfront shit around the bus stops at Victoria Square, claiming ‘It’s only racist if you’re white’ and other fash/antisemitic crap. I think it was probably put up last night (I hadn’t noticed it on Sat or Sun at all) and it’s solidly glued.
Any Adelaideans who read this might want to keep an eye out for Weerheym in a local area near them and give him a big, fat, antifa welcome.
…in reply to: ” It’s only racist if you’re White” – well – that particular statement does hold it’s merits.
In defence of that statement, on how many occasions have you heard of ‘non-whites’ being referred to as racists for racial discrimination? Every time I hear the term ‘racist’, it’s always directed at Anglo-European’s – even for claiming pride towards kindred.
I think @ndy responded to this kind of suggestion best in an earlier response.
” yes, it’s possible for White Australians to experience ‘racial discrimination’ — some have — but the fact is: White Australians constitute the vast majority of the population, do not experience institutionalised racism, and live in a country where the construction and maintenance of a White Australia has received both popular cultural and bi-partisan political support; notably, in the form of the ‘Immigration Restriction Act’ of 1901 — a founding document of the Australian state, which remained in force until 1958.”
I do not think the statement holds any merit whilst I acknowledge that indeed it is possible for all people to experience racism. Nor is it a justification for continuing to participate with or in organisations that contribute to the sustaining of racism.
Popular discussion of Japanese culture routinely describes the Japanese as racist or xenophobic. The same goes for Malaysia and Singapore, where many jobs and positions are off-limits to people with Chinese or Indian backgrounds.
…because of some draconian policy 50 years ago, Anglo-Europeans don’t have a say on racial attacks directed towards their own ethnic group?
As a [person] of White European decent, I feel that this type of system is simply discriminatory, and I also feel that ‘Whites’ should be separated from it – if they wish to live free from political correctness. It is very evident that Europeans are of no interest [the interests of Europeans are not served] by this policy.
If you believe in a multi-cultural society, then you [are] free to [hold] such a belief – but mine differ.
– Mick Reyfield
You will rarely ever see these type of issues discussed, because Anti-Defamation lobbies are concerned mainly with ‘White Supremacism’, and Male Dominan[ce]. Which leads to the idea that Anti-Racism equals Anti-White that is predomina[nt] among right-wing politics.
“…because of some draconian policy 50 years ago, Anglo-Europeans don’t have a say on racial attacks directed towards their own ethnic group?”
The ‘draconian policy’ in question only really began to be dismantled in the 1970s.
1) The 1958 Migration Act removed references to race, and thus opened the door to a potentially non-racially discriminatory policy. However, non-European immigration to Australia remained limited until the passage of the Racial Discrimination Act in *1975*, a little over 30 years ago.
2) Post-WWII, the government continued to employ a racist immigration policy: in terms of desirability, British (England, Scotland, Wales) and Irish migrants were most valued as they were ‘Whitest’, followed by peoples from Continental (Western) Europe.
3) Throughout Australian history, and in contemporary Australia as well, British-born migrants have been the most numerous.
4) Australia only really began to experience mass migration from Asian countries (Vietnam, China) in the 1970s.
What do you mean by ‘Anglo-Europeans’? Does that mean ‘Whites’? (Do you even know who the Angles were?) What ‘racial attacks’? What does it mean to ‘have a say’? Are you aware that racism is a crime? That there is a legal system in this country?
“As a [person] of White European descent, I feel that this type of system is simply discriminatory, and I also feel that ’Whites’ should be separated from it – if they wish to live free from political correctness. It is very evident that Europeans are of no interest by this policy.”
1) What, as opposed to being a person of Black European descent?
2) What ‘system’? What ‘political correctness’? What are the interests of ‘Europeans’? In what way are they qualitatively different to the interests of non-Europeans? What about the interests of workers, ‘European’ and ‘non-European’?
What are you talking about?
Your feelings are just that. In order to establish an argument, evidence is required. You provide none.
3) So you advocate the establishment of a White Australian state? Then you are, by definition, a racist.
Etc., etc., etc..
How many ‘Blacks’ have you met that identify themselves as European? It always seems that if parents – black and white – have a child, the offspring will be identified as Black, which, over time, will cause the disintegration of White-European society!
I will list political ‘correctness’: affirmative action; ethnic employment quotas; non-white migrants receiving special assistance; over-allocation of indigenous funds – while hospitals and schools are under-resourced; slashing sentences of non-white offenders – just look at how the ‘Cronulla’ task force handled the situation; etc….
I could research and go into great detail in reply to this, but I will keep it brief:
Australia, Europe and America were founded and developed at the hands of ‘White’ settlers/colonisers – invaded, [is] how some people [describe] it. From their establishment, and through the threat [?!?] of national security, these nations were administered and cared for [?!?] by the ‘blood & sweat’ of our fore-fathers. They sacrificed themselves for the future of Europe/Australia, and its inheritors – generally, White Europeans.
It was their unique[ness] and ingenuity that created the great living conditions today that [are]n’t seen in any other culture, nor country for that matter. If you go to Africa, most Asian countries and even some parts of Arabia, the townships are basically ‘pigsties’ – you wouldn’t live there! The only provinces [?] worth a mention in this issue is Japan.
I am not going to say that we’re superior, nor will I refer to other ethnicities as ‘mud’ races, because there are some ‘Blacks’ with exceptionally high cognitive abilities – and some ‘non-whites’ do intergrate [sic]. However, forcing this multi-cultural policy into our already unique societ[y], will cause many ‘inbeneficiaries’ [?] to occur. In small cliques, these alien cultures do not pose a threat, however, as they grow in numbers, the essence that makes us European will become subdued through competition – and this is already prevalent.
…but one thing I will never contend: [if] you have faith in a multi-cultural society, then you are free to express that. What I am getting across is that my ideas are not based on hate, or any neo-Nazi agenda – but from my own analysis, and my wishes to secure it without competitiveness from multi-culturalism. I also believe that other cultures/races have the same right to do so.
And thanks for the replies.
Just look at all those NESBs on the government front bench. My, it’s almost overflowing with them! The Socceroos and any AFL team would crap all over them in terms of ethnic/socioeconomic diversity.
“How many ’Blacks’ have you met that identify themselves as European?”
Literally? Like, maybe one. On the other hand, this is Australia, not Europe. And on the third hand, there’s this:
“Popular versions of history have all too often airbrushed out the contribution of non-Europeans to Western arts and sciences. In recent years, however, scholars have begun to challenge the idea that race or ethnicity is a barrier which can stop individuals from participating in any culture they choose. In Europe this has encouraged a new drive to explore and understand the hidden or ignored contribution of people of African descent to the mainstream of European culture and society.
The figures featured in Black Europeans – Alexander Pushkin, Alexandre Dumas, George Polgreen Bridgetower, Samuel Coleridge-Taylor and John Archer – all have a mixed European and African ancestry. Although they were fully conscious of their mixed backgrounds, they also regarded themselves as part of a European nation, and thought of their work as a contribution to their own sector of the culture of Europe and the world. And they were all figures whose public image and whose activities have been generally accepted (both by their contemporaries and by later generations) to be an important part of Europe’s cultural heritage – to the point where most people ignore, or have forgotten about, the ‘black’ element of their identity and its significance in their lives and work.”
“It always seems that if parents – black and white – have a child, the offspring will be identified as Black, which, over time, will cause the disintegration of White-European society!”
A few things:
1) If you study anthropology, you’ll discover that the prevailing scientific consensus is that our species, *homo sapiens*, has its almost certain origins in Africa. In other words — egads! — we’re all descended from folks with black skin.
2) The tendency of the offspring of parents from two different ‘races’ to identify with one or another of their parent’s racial categorisations/identities is actually quite a complex phenomenon. But that aside, in the Australian context, a closer allegory would be the nature of contemporary ‘Aboriginal’ identity, and the manner in which Aboriginal culture, and Aboriginal identity, actually *transcends* skin colour… which points to ‘race’ being a cultural/social category, not a biological one.
3) I really don’t care if a child wants to identify as ‘black’, ‘white’, or neither. Membership of the Magpie Army is open to all: black AND white.
OK, so by ‘political correctness’ you really mean *government policy*, which, you assert is unfairly biased towards furthering the interests of non-Whites. But listing terms does not constitute evidence — which, again, you fail to provide.
Your account of the history of Australia, Europe and America is based on MYTHOLOGY: another characteristic of fascist thought.
‘Australia’ was established by the British Empire as a fucking penal colony, motivated in part by inter-imperialist rivalry (chiefly with the French), but also a desire to rid Britain of a surplus, ‘criminal’, genetically ‘inferior’, population. The idea that the architects of this policy deeply cared for anyone other than themselves, their class, and its enrichment, is laughable. The huge numbers of poor people who died in transit tends to suggest this idea is nothing if not a sick joke… leaving aside the history of this project in the 200 years since!
The living and working conditions of (the majority of) Australians are indeed ‘higher’ than (the vast majority of) those in the ‘Third World’. However, the reasons for this have 4/5 of 3/4 of 2/3 of fuck-all to do with ‘White’ superiority, and everything to do with history, especially the last 500 years, and the construction of various European Empires: Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, English, French, German, Italian and — from the late 1800s especially — US (and Japanese) imperialism.
It’s another MYTH that the reasons people are poor or oppressed is because they lack the capacity to assert a different conception of their own value, irrespective of the dictates of states and markets. It’s bullshit, as the history of resistances — both contemporary and historical — confirms.
And having a ‘White’ ruling class has never meant a secure existence for ‘White’ working classes: check WWI and II.
Etc., etc., etc..
This conversation is going nowhere!
Does this bring back memories:
I am not going to say that we’re superior, nor will I refer to other ethnicities as ‘mud’ races, because there are some ‘Blacks’ with exceptionally high cognitive abilities.
(Can you please tell me the point behind those slashes between the apostrophes?)
Even though they classed themselves by their European heritage, they would still have a sense of belonging to the African community. The only exception to this is the Australian cricketer, Andrew Simmons – I can’t think of anyone more ‘Australian’!
I will agree we are from the same species – homo-sapiens… however, to say there are no differences among *homo-sapiens* [borders] on disregarding the existence of gender. An anthropologist in his/her first year of study could pick up the skull of a negroid and a caucasoid and pinpoint the structural differences without the need [for] equipment – and this is true for any *homo-sapiens* sub-species.
(Come on, Andy, you should know that.)
Everybody, regardless of colour, should have the right to choose what they want to do with their lives.
If you believe that the English came all the way to Australia just for ‘garbage disposals’, you, my friend, must be sharing an apartment with a full-time jester.
Let’s recall something:
“From the establishment, and through the threat of national security, these nations were administered and cared for by the ‘blood & sweat’ of our fore-fathers. They sacrificed themselves for the future of Europe/Australia, and its inheritors – generally, White Europeans.”
As the old saying goes: “A building can’t be established without its foundations”.
What I mean by ‘the blood & sweat of our fore-fathers’ — look up the Eureka Stockade, the ANZACs, and the explosion of Chinese workers.
History has it that: ‘if you drop an egg, it will break…’
History, itself, has nothing to do with the advancement of Euro-Culture. Why we\’re enjoying the luxuries today is because our ancestors had a different mentality – a goal to search and explore. If you want to go back even further, our ancestors (assuming you’re of Germanic descent), had to endure the harshest of conditions – such as the inability to collect fresh water, because the lakes were always frozen, year-round.
Through the tough times, they had to use their ‘wit’ for harvesting food, and collecting water – this lead to the creation of mechanical devices. Using their ingenuity, they devised a way of harnessing the wind to pump bore-water, hence, the creation of windmills. I could give more [examples], but I think you get my point.
When you think modernisation [under?] capitalism, your statement is correct.
I would love to reply, but then it would lead to an anti-Semitic tirade – we don’t want that.
That’s what happens when you think the world is flat.
Referring to the statement about ‘anti-semitic tirade’ – no, I do not have a hatred of Jews.
Ha ha ha!
Lemme guess. You were drunk?
“Ha ha ha!
Lemme guess. You were drunk?”
Too bad you made mistakes when trying to correct my grammar.
On *homo sapiens*:
Nowhere did I state that ‘there are no differences’ between members of the species. Of course there are! (And ‘gender’ is merely one of them.) The POINT is that *tiny* variations in our genetic inheritance fail to explain the *huge* diversity of human cultures. Whether or not a first year anthropology student could correctly classify a human skull as being ‘caucasoid’ or ‘negroid’ is completely irrelevant… although it should be noted that such terms and methodologies are considered inaccurate and out-dated (at best).
Online (US) Cultural Anthropology:
On Australia’s origins as a penal colony you write:
“If you believe that the English came all the way to Australia just for ’garbage disposals’, you, my friend, must be sharing an apartment with a full-time jester.”
No. But I am literate.
Robert Hughes, ‘The Fatal Shore’, p.66:
“The proposal to colonize Botany Bay with CONVICTS [my emphasis] was formally drawn up… in an unsigned document titled “Heads of a Plan for effectually disposing of convicts” and was presented to the [British] cabinet in August 1786. Its emphasis was clear: The proposed colony would serve as “a remedy for the evils likely to result from the late alarming and numerous increase of felons in this country, and more particularly in the metropolis.” The secondary benefit of the region’s RAW MATERIALS [my emphasis] was presented at the end of the document: “It may also be proper to attend to the possibility of procuring … masts and ships’ timber for the use of our fleets in India, as the distance between the two countries is not greater than between Great Britain and America…”
“By 1837, hanging was mainly restricted to cases of murder, while crime after crime — forgery, cattle-theft, housebreaking — was relegated to the less terrible and magical status of a “transportable” offense. Slowly, the English authorities acknowledged the mistakes and fantasies that had led their predecessors to fetishize the death penalty. But the real rise of transportation began, not with the law itself, but with its new enforcers: the “peelers,” the English police, established by Sir Robert Peel in 1827. A police force meant a huge rise, not in gross crime, but in successful arrests and convictions. Likewise, the abandonment of transportation was not caused by any fall in crime, but by three other factors: the growing moral and political opposition to the System [of transportation] among English reformers in the 1830s, the growth of an alternative English penitentiary system and the Australians’ own opposition to a continuous dumping of fresh criminals on what, after 50 years of settlement, they had come to view as their own soil.”
“In their most sanguine moments, the authorities hoped that [Australia] would eventually swallow a whole class — the “criminal class,” WHOSE EXISTENCE WAS ONE OF THE PRIME SOCIOLOGICAL BELIEFS OF LATE GEORGIAN AND EARLY VICTORIAN ENGLAND [my emphasis!]. Australia was SETTLED TO DEFEND ENGLISH PROPERTY not from the frog-eating invader across the Channel but from the marauder within. English lawmakers wished not only to get rid of the “criminal class” but if possible to forget about it. Australia was a cloaca, invisible, its contents filthy and unnameable. Jeremy Bentham, inveighing against the “thief-colony” in 1812, argued that transportation
…was indeed a measure of *experiment*… but the subject-matter of experiment was, in this case, a peculiarly commodious one; a set of *animae viles*, a sort of excrementitious mass [ie, shit], that could be projected, and accordingly was projected — projected, and as it should seem purposely — as far out of sight as possible.”
Multi-culturalism in action against the state:
“At the Eureka uprising, there were Canadians, Irish, Swedes, Italians, Germans, French, Jamaicans and Americans (both black and white). Raffaello Carboni, an Italian-born leader of the league, called on all miners “irrespective of nationality, religion or colour to salute the Southern Cross as a refuge of all the oppressed from all countries on Earth”. Given the evident acceptance of ethnic diversity on the goldfields, it is bizarre this episode now serves as the inspiration for Australia’s racist right-wing nationalists.”
On the ANZACs… your point? Oh, and do tell me about exploding Chinese workers!
Your knowledge of history and technics isn’t all that deep is it Mick? Sorry, but the desire to explore and the ability to imagine is a human trait; it’s certainly not confined to thirsty, hungry, medieval Germans! (Not that they were ‘Germans’ of course…)
Your anecdotal understanding of European history and culture is, quite frankly — pardon the pun — completely fucking bizarre.
For example, on windmills (for fuck’s sake!): the first windmills were not used to pump water but to grind grains. Further, they have been used in diverse parts of the world, from China and Tibet to Persia and Europe.
“about exploding Chinese workers”
It was suppose[d] to be expulsion, but I spelt it expolsion – and something [or perhaps someone] must of changed it around…
Ah, look it up again, they did use windmills to pump water.
…because they used a few black slaves, they call it a multi-cultural event…
During the industrialisation age [sic], Australia was predominately White. Andy, think of this, if Australia was founded by multi-culturalism, Australia would not of been 98% white up until the late 60s.
…there are also differences in brain matter, cardio-vascular strength, muscle endurance, bone structure, etc….
To go down [this] path even further, a pathologist can take a piece of human hair, or blood samples, from either an African [or] European, and tell what their sub-species group is (race).
I will give you some pictures:
http://www . i4donline.net/issue/march04/images/africans.gif
http://www . million-against-nuclear.net/pic/actionpics/putin2.jpg
What do you mean the skull structure doesn\’t prove anything? If you can pick up a skull and tell the immediate differences, then that shows we are separate.
If there are so many ways to define our own ethnicity, then how can you confirm that no races exist?
[Blah blah blah: Mick quoting @ndy.]
OK, you don’t know what I mean by established. When I talk of ‘established’ I am [referring] to the fact that Australia was a self-sufficient, self-marketable nation – it didn’t declare independence until 1901.
I would not refer to an island used as a dumping ground as ‘established’. The development that this country has seen today was at the ‘goodwill’, and toil of our fore-fathers – hence – managing through natural disasters, and the war times. This [contributed] to the unique culture you see today – I guess it could be the work of the banding [together of] European cultures.
However, there was already a cultural connection [to] Europe well before this time – so it certainly wasn’t anything significant.
In fact, you’re correct, this is a pointless exercise.
I want [the] European/White race to have a future without being governed by a political system that has no interest in serving them. To me, it really doesn’t matter if Europeans came from out of space. I am seeing no positive affects for Europeans from this multi-cultural policy that is so heavily implemented in Western societies.
Discussion on this topic: ended!
Mick, Mick, Mick, Mick, Mick,
1) Explusion, expolsion, explosion: “Chinaman go home. Or we’ll kill you.”
2) On *freaking* windmills: you cited their ‘invention’ by ‘our German ancestors’ as an example of their (and our) innate ‘wit’. This uniquely German/European mastery of the art of survival, you further claimed, is what explains the fact that living and working conditions for Australians are vastly superior to those endured by Africans, most Asians, and even those in some parts of Arabia, where “the townships are basically pigsties” and places nobody in their right mind would choose to live.
So to remind you, you wrote:
“It was their unique[ness] and ingenuity that created the great living conditions today that [are]n’t seen in any other culture, nor country for that matter”.
When asked for elaboration in response to my comments, you wrote:
“History, itself, has nothing to do with the advancement of Euro-Culture. Why we’re enjoying the luxuries today is because our ancestors had a different mentality – a goal to search and explore. If you want to go back even further, our ancestors (assuming you’re of Germanic descent), had to endure the harshest of conditions – such as the inability to collect fresh water, because the lakes were always frozen, year-round.
Through the tough times, they had to use their ’wit’ for harvesting food, and collecting water – this lead to the creation of mechanical devices. Using their ingenuity, they devised a way of harnessing the wind to pump bore-water, hence, the creation of windmills. I could give more [examples], but I think you get my point.”
I ‘get’ your point.
Your argument is both ILLOGICAL and (based on) FALSE (premisses):
Windmills were not the invention of ‘our German ancestors’ — they were ‘invented’ elsewhere and;
Windmills were first used to grind grain, not draw bore-water.
*Humanity*, both ‘German’ and ‘non-German’, has survived thousands of years of deprivation — whether in hot or cold weather, at high or low altitudes, among deserts or on tropical islands, and all places in-between.
To put it simply: ‘survival’ is not an inherently ‘German’ quality, *it’s a human one*.
Closer to home, you might consider the fact that Australia has been occupied by indigenous peoples for tens of thousands of years… curiously, in the complete absence of windmills!
(And where the fuck do you think the ‘Germans’ came from anyway? Outer space? Are you aware that ‘Germanus’ was a Latin name imposed by their Roman conquerors? That ‘the Germans’ were a multi-cultural society?)
3) The blacks at Eureka were, almost self-evidently, not ‘slaves’. John Joseph, the African-American who was accused of firing the first shot at the Eureka Stockade that killed Captain Wise, was also the first man brought to trial (by your mates in the Australian political establishment) in 1855:
“The first clash came with the selection of the jury. The Crown challenged potential Irish jurors and publicans. John Joseph sent the court into a spin when he objected to *gentlemen and merchants* being selected on the jury. No Irish jurors were picked for jury for Joseph’s trial.
The Crown called two government spies to give evidence: both claimed they saw Joseph in the stockade. Two privates from the 40th regiment claimed they saw Joseph fire the first shot that struck down Captain Wise. The charge against Joseph that had to be proven was that Joseph had attempted to subvert the authority of the Crown in the colony by wounding and killing her soldiers. In other words, the Crown had to prove “treasonable intent”.
The defence lawyers didn’t call any witnesses and made much of the point that “a riotous nigger” or a “political Uncle Tom” could have “treasonable intent”, leaving it up to the jury to decide if Joseph had any intent to commit treason.
The jury returned quickly from their deliberations, finding John Joseph not guilty of High Treason. Pandemonium broke out in the court at the not guilty verdict. The cheering was so loud that Chief Justice Beckett (the presiding judge), in a fit of pique, singled out two members of the public gallery and jailed them for a week for contempt of court.
“On emerging from the Court house, he was put in a chair and carried round the streets of the city in triumph” according to the *Ballarat Star*. Over 10,000 people had come to hear the jury’s verdict. When you consider that Melbourne’s population wasn’t even 100,000, the crowds that had gathered to listen to the jury’s verdict were an indication of how important many people believed these trials were.”
4) On dem bones:
In the real world, scientists and pathologists tend to rely on DNA-sampling from hair or blood samples to ascertain identity. Nevertheless, according to the (Australian) *National Institute of Forensic Science*:
“The question of racial affiliation is difficult to answer because, although racial classification has some biological components, it is based primarily on social affiliation. Nevertheless, some anatomical details, especially in the face, often suggest the individual’s race. In particular, white individuals have narrower faces with high noses and prominent chins. Black individuals have wider nasal openings and subnasal grooves. American Indians and Asians have forward-projecting cheekbones and specialized dental features.”
You ask: “What do you mean the skull structure doesn’t prove anything?”
I’ll say it again: “The POINT is that *tiny* variations in our genetic inheritance fail to explain the *huge* diversity of human cultures.”
Here’s a useful distinction:
This is the “internally coded, inheritable information” carried by all living organisms. This stored information is used as a “blueprint” or set of instructions for building and maintaining a living creature. These instructions are found within almost all cells (the “internal” part), they are written in a coded language (the genetic code), they are copied at the time of cell division or reproduction and are passed from one generation to the next (“inheritable”). These instructions are intimately involved with all aspects of the life of a cell or an organism. They control everything from the formation of protein macromolecules, to the regulation of metabolism and synthesis.
This is the “outward, physical manifestation” of the organism. These are the physical parts, the sum of the atoms, molecules, macromolecules, cells, structures, metabolism, energy utilization, tissues, organs, reflexes and behaviors; anything that is part of the observable structure, function or behavior of a living organism.
There are NO HUMAN SUB-SPECIES!
“There is not one gene, trait, or characteristic that distinguishes all members of one race from all members of another. We can map any number of traits and none would match our idea of race. This is because modern humans haven’t been around long enough to evolve into different subspecies and we’ve always moved, mated, and mixed our genes. Beneath the skin, we are one of the most genetically similar of all species.”
5) “Australia was a self-sufficient, self-marketable nation – it didn’t declare independence until 1901.”
No. You’re wrong. Again.
Between the years 1788 and 1901, a lot happened.
But the Australian Constitution formally adopted on January 1, 1901 was basically a trade document stitched together by a group of Victorian gentlemen. The Bill to establish the Australian Constitution required Royal Assent, given on July 9, 1900. The Queen remains our Head of State and we have no ‘Bill of Rights’.
Australia was not an autarky in 1901 any more than it was in 1801. (Or 2001, for that matter.)
(And wtf does ‘self-marketable’ mean anyway?)
‘Australia’ was and is a product of Empire, British Empire.
In summary, ‘Australia’ did not declare its ‘independence’ in 1901: what happened was that, after a number of years of debate and discussion, the British Government deigned to give approval to the state-building desires of local (white, male) businessmen and politicians; all good, arse-kissing Empire Loyalists.
And Mick, you’re an ignorant bigot.
The reason behind the expulsion of Chinese workers is because they posed a threat to the Australian labour force – by driving down wages with an endless supply of cheap labour.
If you look through the evolution of Europeans, and Mongolians: they faced great odds with ext[r]eme weather. This being the reason, survival for these groups [was] based on creativity, and being inventive. However, both the African, and Indigenous [sic] population didn’t have the need for cognitive skills — which is the reason why they never advanced to the point of both East Asians, and Europeans.
Africans, and Aborigin[e]s, lived in fairly moderate climates, mainly on the shoreline, where dense forestation l[i]es. So, basically, they didn’t have to ‘think up’ ways of obtaining food – so progress was slower.
I know it was a little too brief, but that’s basically in a ‘nutshell’… an Afro-centri[c] point of view.
Even though there are other differences, that basically proves the point that: races do exist!
Through studies in zoology, a dog’s geneology matches 98% that of a human – this would confirm there is only 1/50 that sep[a]rates us – but are we truly 98% alike in characteristics?
I have found a thread on [Scumfront] that answers this question with an analogy. [Link deleted.]
Now, there is no reason to hate me, because our opinions differ. However, isn’t multi-culturalism about understanding – if I am not mistaken? I have respect for yours, so it would be better if we can share the same c[o]urtesy.
— Thank you.
In fact, human beings share 95% of their DNA with dogs.
“Discussion on this topic: ended!”
Mick, I know that ‘re-writing history’ is a compulsive habit on your mob’s part, but the anti-Chinese pogroms of the late 1800s — of which the so-called Lambing Flat (Young, NSW) riots of 1861 are but one example — did, in fact, employ violence and the threat of violence in order to eliminate Chinese workers from Australia.
And steal their property.
And yeah, one justification for these sorts of actions was opposition to ‘coolie labour’…
Phil Griffiths has written (in a draft paper) something about the subject of anti-Chinese racism in Australia — and in particular its codification in law — during this period. He concludes:
“The anti-Chinese laws of 1888 represented a virtual declaration of White Australia: the laws of 1901 did not add much to what had been achieved thirteen years earlier. These laws represented more than the promotion of racism; they defined—in conjunction with vast assisted immigration programs—both the ideal Australian population, and the dominant mode by which labourers in Australia would be employed.
It is my opinion that the White Australia policy represents the coming together of two fundamental needs on the part of the Australian ruling class at the end of the nineteenth century. The first was the need to secure their physical control over a vast portion of the earth’s land mass, including areas they were incapable of exploiting. China’s supposed emergence as a significant military power represented the first possible threat to that control; and Japan’s actual rise consolidated that fear.
Secondly, White Australia met the ruling class’s need to find a means to incorporate the middle and working classes into a new Australian nationalism, loyal to the British empire, as a means to legitimate the kind of society they presided over and defend their rule from internal rebellion. The willingness of the labour movement to mobilise against Chinese immigration helped drive through the anti-Chinese laws, and to shape the form Australian nationalism took, but only because such a form fitted with the wider needs of most of the dominant class in Australian society.
Finally, White Australia represented the final act in the long struggle by Australia’s urban capitalists and modernisers to get the kind of economy and labour force they wanted: “free” and white wage labour. The majority of the ruling class, and almost all the middle class, wanted to avoid the economic problems which they believed would be created by a racially-stratified plantation-based economy in the north, and the political disaster experienced by United States of America which found itself plunged into civil war by the irreconcilable divisions between the modern industrial sector based in the north, and the southern slave states.
The anti-Chinese legislation and hysteria of the late 1880s was part of the process by which an increasingly wealthy and powerful local ruling class established a measure of independence from London, as a means of remaining a loyal part of the wider empire. White Australia was a declaration that Australian politics would be driven by a fear of Asia and Asians; a standpoint which remains—despite all the talk of engagement and multiculturalism—a significant element of government decision making today.”
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~griff52/Road to white australia.rtf
The (White) Australian ruling class returned the favour by sending the (White) Australian working class off on some Awfully Big Adventures: killing and being killed in order to help keep the Sudan, South Africa, China and Turkey, British.
Then, as now, racism is the boss’s little helper.
Your fraudulent observations on European, Mongolian, African and Australian Aboriginal “history” are completely without foundation, as is your hare-brained theory that “extreme weather” explains several thousand years of world history, cultural differentiation, economic, political and social development.
Your claims about genetics and culture are also nonsensical.
Finally, when I wrote that you’re an ignorant bigot, I meant exactly that.
And you’re a bigot.
I don’t know you, nor do I care to.
I have no respect for your opinion: it’s fucking daft.
Note: I write for myself, thank you.
I will admit there were a few mistakes made – but not once did I ‘re-write history’. The authors of the stories you quoted did nothing more th[a]n insinuate the proof that any hint of multi-culturalism formed instability in regional Australia — the battle of Eureka…
I can agree that happened.
I wouldn’t exactly refer to skilled tradesmen as ‘coolie’…
Watch the movie Glory. You will find out how Blacks were treated in military units.
Yes. There were some dark moments in Australia’s histor[y]. The British were responsible for many atrocities…
Ahhh… but they do! It is these reasons why we’re not all the same.
What is so ‘nonsensical’ about my supposed claims? It isn’t that hard to understand that something [as] simple as different geographics and climates can cause a change in evolution patterns – we would have humans swimming at the bottom of the vast oceans if it didn’t!
Just like the old analogy: “Only those who feel cornered come out screaming”.
…and I’ve kept my composure.
– Mick Rey.
Oops… DID I hear Singapore and Malaysia mentioned? And \’racism\’? Yep, I sure did. Let me relate to you just HOW nepotistic and racist Asians can be. (No, not all Asians are racist.)
I visited a packaging equipment factory in northern Singapore. I noticed that virtually ALL the workers in the office were Indian, and there were 2 Chinese blokes. (Singapore is by far mostly Chinese.) When I and my local contact arrived, we were greeted by the receptionist, who then called out to \’daddyyy\’ that his visitors were here. It appeared that nearly all the many Indians were related. Perhaps they named the Chinese bloke \’token\’?
CRONULLA, AUSTRALIA FIRST, BIKINI MARCH.
Well you ain\’t seen nothin\’ yet, I assure you. Personally I don\’t have much time for Australia First, although they do have a good swag of nationalistic resources. Unfortunately, unless I\’m mis-reading them, they also have a strongly \’white\’ flavour.
I was taking up the baton on the Bikini March myself, but having contacted the original organizers, and out of regard for their personal well-being and in a spirit of distant co-operation, we are renaming our event as follows:
\”ONE NATION, ONE RACE, ONE CULTURE… full stop.\”
I won\’t explain what this means, people can froth and foam at the mouth as much as they like, they can even jump up and down, roll around the floor, but none of those things will stop it nor its impact. But it WILL be addressing a number of issues including those raised by the Bikini March group along with others such as IMMIGRATION (woo) and Multi-cultural Fuehrers. We will kill multi-culturalism dead in its tracks forever. We will turn on the light of social harmony and mutual understanding as never before. We will rid ourselves of Racist Union/Leftist/Green exploitationists and other social parasites, who seek to inflame and exploit \”difference\” for political advantage.
Yep, sounds like a day\’s work well done.
Why are you such a complete and utter wally? Let me count the ways:
1) You understand absolutely nothing about human evolution.
Contemporary humans (homo sapiens) are virtually indistinguishable from our ancestors. EVOLUTION is a change in a population over time — a very very very very very very long time. Like, hundreds of thousands of years. Genetically, this means a change in the frequency of certain alleles over many generations. (An *allele* is an alternate form of a gene or trait. For example, for the gene for ABO blood type, the possible alleles are A, B, and O.)
In other words, you confuse THE EVOLUTION OF THE HUMAN SPECIES with SOCIAL AND HISTORICAL CHANGE (esp the ‘extreme weather conditions’ endured by ‘Germans’ ffs).
2) You think that a film about the Fifty-fourth Massachusetts Infantry demonstrates… something. What, I dunno. Your film criticism is presumably intended to be in some way related to the fact that a black Eureka rebel called John Joseph “On emerging from the Court house… was put in a chair and carried round the streets of the city in triumph”. Or something. I’m buggered if I know. In any case, Eureka was a multi-cultural event not because of the presence of “a few black slaves” (sic) as you put it, but because, as I already stated, “there were Canadians, Irish, Swedes, Italians, Germans, French, Jamaicans and Americans (both black and white)” involved.
3) You write stuff like: “The authors of the stories you quoted did nothing more th[a]n insinuate the proof that any hint of multi-culturalism formed instability in regional Australia — the battle of Eureka…” Wtf does THAT mean? Presumably, what you’re trying to say is: multi-culturalism is baaad. What “authors”, and what “stories” you’re referring to, I’ve no idea. Again, presumably, given your invocation of ‘Eureka’, you mean Griffith’s (draft) essay. If you read it, you’ll discover that Griffiths actually cites evidence for his argument. You, as usual, provide neither anything even vaguely resembling an ‘argument’, nor evidence to support it.
You ain’t posting on Scumfront Mick.
4) “I wouldn’t exactly refer to skilled tradesmen as ’coolie’.”
No, neither would I. Which helps explain why I haven’t. ‘Coolie labour’ is an archaic term used to describe UN-skilled labourers from China and other parts of Asia.
5) You are incapable of answering my questions:
a) What do you mean by ‘Anglo-Europeans’? Does that mean ‘Whites’? (Do you even know who the ANGLES were?) What ‘racial attacks’? What does it mean to ‘have a say’? Are you aware that racism is a crime? That there is a legal system in this country?
b) What ’system’? What ‘political correctness’? What are the interests of ‘Europeans’? In what way are they qualitatively different to the interests of non-Europeans? What about the interests of workers, ‘European’ and ‘non-European’?
c) On the ANZACs… your point?
d) Where the fuck do you think the ‘Germans’ came from anyway? Outer space? Are you aware that ‘Germanus’ was a Latin name imposed by their Roman conquerors? That ‘the Germans’ were a multi-cultural society?
6) Your scribblings have bugger-all to do with The Great Australian Bikini March.
You remain, as always, cannon-fodder.
ONE NATION, ONE RACE, ONE CULTURE, ONE BRAIN-CELL.
This source states that humans have been around for 500,000 years — long enough for a potential evolution chain (yes, I mean chain):
Can you please post up a chart on samples taken from Europeans, Africans, Asians and other animal species – because that piece of info doesn’t desolve [?] shit!
I will post up the differences between racial groups (since you don’t like the term, ‘RACE’).
Biogeographical ancestry –
Note: Don’t take into account the list they provided, because they class mestizos as a racial group – even though they are multi-ethnic.
Cauca – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Skullcauc.gif
Mongo – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b3/Skullmong.gif/441px-Skullmong.gif
Negro – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/5e/Skullneg.gif
Racial grouping – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cc/Fig.2.3.542pop.jpg
Note: Iranians/Arabs have slightly less characteristics th[a]n the European – hence – caucasoidal.
Brain Sizes: http:// theoccidentalquarterly.com/images/jpr21-chart2.jpg
Note: I am not referring to Blacks as ‘dummies’, it’s purely about brain-sizes.
I will not go down the path of DNA, because there’re more similarit[i]es th[a]n differences — and also they’re less obvious. For example: dog DNA matches 95% of the human strand; apes/pigs about 98%, etc..
It’s been proven that different climate[s], over a period of time, change a human’s physical traits — the reason why Scand[i]navians are hairier then Africans, because Africans and Scandan[i]vians endured different temperatures in their habitats.
I made reference to the movie ‘Glory’ because it shows exactly how Blacks were treated in society – other th[a]n in cases of slavery. This is only if they were actually paid for their services.
…very much European.
I will answer [other questions] later.
Yeah… David Morrison confirms a popular scientific consensus. And?
‘Evolution chains’: Mick, we ain’t playing Pokémon. What’s yr point?
“Can you please post up a chart on samples taken from Europeans, Africans, Asians and other animal species – because that piece of info doesn’t desolve [?] shit!”
Um… the salad?
Or: Huh? You want a ‘chart’ of DNA samples, ’cause the definition of an *allele* I provided “doesn’t desolve shit”?
(Have you ever considered a class in remedial English Mick?)
Yeah… Wikipedia. Genealogy. Autosomal DNA testing. Anthropometry. Skulls.
What next? Phrenology?
This shit ain’t exactly new.
On Anthropometry :
“Anthropometry is the study of human body measurement for use in anthropological classification and comparison.
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, anthropometry was a pseudoscience used mainly to classify potential criminals by facial characteristics. For example, Cesare Lombroso’s Criminal Anthropology (1895) claimed that murderers have prominent jaws and pickpockets have long hands and scanty beards. The work of Eugene Vidocq, which identifies criminals by facial characteristics, is still used nearly a century after its introduction in France.
The most infamous use of anthropometry was by the Nazis, whose Bureau for Enlightenment on Population Policy and Racial Welfare recommended the classification of Aryans and non-Aryans on the basis of measurements of the skull and other physical features. Craniometric certification was required by law. The Nazis set up certification institutes to further their racial policies. Not measuring up meant denial of permission to marry or work, and for many it meant the death camps.
Today, anthropometry has many practical uses, most of them benign. For example, it is used to assess nutritional status, to monitor the growth of children, and to assist in the design of office furniture.”
On Cesare Lombroso :
‘Anarchist as Monster in Fin-de-Siecle Europe’
“In an 1894 pamphlet titled ‘Anarchism and Its Cure’, the pseudonymous author Emanuel described “rabid beasts and poisonous reptiles in the shapes of men, who call themselves ‘anarchists,’ seeking by means of violence to bend the world to their personal desires.” Five years later, a professor of criminal law in Bonn described anarchists as “rapacious beasts in the shape of men.” The figure of the monstrous anarchist, common at the end of the nineteenth century, distilled Europeans’ fears of political radicalism, biological degeneration, and common criminality. In this paper, I will describe the production of this image in the popular imagination—through newspapers, popular fiction, and “expert” accounts—and examine the social and political work that it performed in explaining political radicalism for late-nineteenth-century audiences.
Two interconnected narratives about the anarchist monster’s origins articulated Europeans’ fears about the dangers menacing their society. One perspective presented the anarchist as biologically defective. In the words of Cesare Lombroso, the pioneer of criminal anthropology, “the most active advocates of this anarchist idea are … for the most part either criminals or insane, or sometimes both together.” By reading the *physiognomies* of famous anarchists, Lombroso descried an unusually high rate of men he classified as “born criminals.” The other interpretive framework linked anarchist monstrousness to a specifically Russian form of degeneration. In this telling, anarchism, a philosophical doctrine invented by French and German thinkers [sic], had been infected by an Eastern thirst for blood: the Russian anarchist Mikhail Bakunin, wrote one author, “pressed the dagger and the dynamite bomb into the hand of anarchism, inspiring it with the sinister fanatical lust for destruction and murder which continues to burn today and which has made anarchism into a nightmare abhorred by the entire world.” Like the fictional monster Dracula, the anarchist embodied fears that an eastern European corruption had come to haunt the West.
The construction of the anarchist as monster obliterated the option of understanding anarchist acts as rational or political, substituting dread of the alien and unknown for an analysis of the social context that gave rise to anarchism.”
Also : ERICKSON, Edward James, Jr. “The Anarchist Disorder : The Psychopathology of Terrorism in Late Nineteenth-Century France.”
As for GENETICS and IDENTITY… this tells an interesting story:
‘Black Like I Thought I Was’
Erin Aubry Kaplan
October 7, 2003.
“The surprising outcome of a DNA test proves a man’s race while throwing his blackness into question.”
Of course, even if we are able to discern certain kinds of variation within the species, politically, this means: nothing. In other words, while it may be possible to explain why some people have ‘black’ skin and some people have ‘white’ skin through reference to their genetic inheritance —
— to establish a POLITICAL DOCTRINE on this basis is fucking stupid.
A) We may explain an individual’s skin colour through reference to their genetic inheritance;
B) Mick wants a White Australia;
C) A White Australia is A Good Thing. Join Australia First.
“I made reference to the movie ’Glory’ because it shows exactly how Blacks were treated in society – other th[a]n in cases of slavery. This is only if they were actually paid for their services.”
Sweet Jesus. More nonsense. We live in Australia mate, not Massachusetts.
When, precisely, did I ask you for filmic references to the status of blacks in the United States in the late 1800s? Wtf has ‘Glory’ got to do with the fact that those who took part in the Eureka rebellion were drawn from diverse (national) cultures?
But if you wanna know about Stolen Wages:
Finally, a word of advice for budding fascist intellectuals:
Geeze, that’s a pretty bland comeback.
Well, it had to have some purpose.
Oh, yeah, it also tells racial differences:
…and I have shown that racial differences are deeper th[a]n skin colour.
It also refers back to this paragraph:
Mick: “It’s been proven that different climates, over a period of time, changes a human’s physical traits — the reason why Scandinavians are hairier then Africans, because Africans and Scandanivians endured different conditions – temperatures – in their habitats.”
It’s to ensure that the European racial group is allowed to live in a society free from the Multi-Cultural propagand[a].
Yes, it is genetically inherited through our parents – however, it is also a product of evolution through habitation.
Yeah, time to ring-up Mr. Salad Saleam for a membership package.
Actually, the treatment of blacks was uniform around the world – except on the part of the Irish: Look up the establishment of the Barbados.
They have one of those systems placed in [?] America over ‘Stolen Wages’ – which is true, they weren’t paid for their services. However, I would think the right to a free society was remuneration.
Can we please get to the original questions that you gave to me?
I don’t know what that has to do with the price of meat?
The Angles were Nordic tribes who crossed the British Aisles [!] in 500 AD.
Well, just ask my Old Man about racial attacks when he use[d] to drive through Redfern… or the ‘retaliation’ attacks by the Arab community:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuU-9564S5o. (Watch from 4 seconds to 10.)
Another racial attack:
The Lebanese site on Bebo:
Evil Aussies – proof of intoler[a]nce:
…and I can assure you, there’re many others.
White Australians being denied a voice against racism – on the part of Leftist groups:
The flag being banned at Cronulla beach. [2UE] radio station facing a vilification suit:
European workers have a certain level of standard, while most non-Europeans are willing to work minimal wage – and the 457 Visa is allowing overseas workers to take Australian jobs.
I stand for all workers over capitalism.
Ah, they fought for Australians, and the British Empire – not for non-Europeans to come to Australia, and dictate our way of life.
Actually, the Germans were predominately under Christendom, the others were Jews and Pagans – they tended to live in isolated communities.
That’s what I want to know.
Last things first:
1) On ‘the Germans’ :
“Actually, the Germans were predominately under Christendom, the others were Jews and Pagans – they tended to live in isolated communities.”
Do you mean the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Vandals, the Burgundians, the Lombards or the Franks?
Or perhaps the Saxons, the Alemanni, the Thuringians, or the Rugians? The Bavarians? The Alemanni? The Stem Duchies?
WHEN was this?
Do you mean the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth, fourteenth, fifteenth or sixteenth centuries?
(And which of these ‘Germans” invented windmills?)
Stop relying on the back of a Wheaties packet for your knowledge of history.
2) On the ANZACs :
“Ah, they fought for Australians, and the British Empire – not for non-Europeans to come to Australia, and dictate our way of life.”
In Europe, the outbreak of WWI on August 4, 1914, prompted Australian IWW radicals to respond:
“WAR! WHAT FOR? FOR THE WORKERS AND THEIR DEPENDENTS: DEATH, STARVATION, POVERTY AND UNTOLD MISERY. FOR THE CAPITALISTS: GOLD, STAINED WITH THE BLOOD OF MILLIONS, RIOTOUS LUXURY, BANQUETS OF JUBILATION OVER THE GRAVES OF THEIR DUPES AND SLAVES. WAR IS HELL! SEND THE CAPITALISTS TO HELL AND WARS ARE IMPOSSIBLE.”
— ‘Direct Action’, August 10, 1914.
From a ‘national security’ perspective, invading Turkey in 1915 makes about as much sense as occupying Iraq does now…
3) On ‘anti-capitalism’ :
“I stand for all workers over capitalism.”
No, you don’t. You’re a racist. You care more for ‘White’ bosses than you do ‘non-White’ workers.
4) On 457 visas :
“European workers have a certain level of standard, while most non-Europeans are willing to work minimal wage – and the 457 Visa is allowing overseas workers to take Australian jobs.”
Um, yeah… the HoWARd Government wants to: a) ensure the supply of ‘cheap’ labour and; b) undermine unions’ capacity to organise workers — native and foreign-born — to defend their wages and conditions.
Of course, the capacity of 457 visas to accomplish this hasn’t exactly gone unremarked…
“The conference of the WA branch of the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) in Fremantle on July 26-28  strongly condemned the use of section 457 visas, used by employers to bring guest workers to Australia. It denounced the Australian government “for its willingness to provide a pathway for employers to openly exploit guest workers who come to Australia whilst at the same time undermining Australian workers’ pay and conditions”.
A conference session on the issue was addressed by Wilson Baldonaza, president of the Filipino union ANGLO KMU; Ian Bray, WA MUA assistant secretary; Steve McCartney, president of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union (AMWU) WA branch; and Adam van Harte, a former 457 visa holder from South Africa.
Baldonaza painted a grim picture of the threats to Filipino unionists, who risk assassination and detention for organising and taking industrial action. He described the dire economic situation facing workers in underdeveloped countries, such as the Philippines.
“We have 56% unemployment”, he said. “Ten million Filipinos have been forced to work overseas where most are brutally exploited. We don’t want to be used against organised labour in Australia or be the butt of racist policies. It’s in all our interests for our unions to cooperate to get a fair deal for everyone.”
Bray warned about the political agenda behind the guest labour laws. “Howard wants to do two things. First, divide and conquer the Australian working class along racist lines. This is the next ‘children overboard’ issue coming into the federal election.
“Second, he wants to drive down wages and conditions by giving capital the right to exploit foreign labour. If we go down this road, we’ll all end up on the scrap heap in a dog-eat-dog world.”
Bray stressed: “The union movement can’t buy into the racism argument. We have to stand strong against the guest labour laws, both here and internationally.”
McCartney described some of the horror stories that AMWU organisers have uncovered, such as the case of a Korean man who paid $50,000 for the “right” to work in Australia by selling his house and leaving his child in Korea with grandparents. In another workplace, guest workers had “Filipino worker” written on their helmets.
McCartney said the AMWU has assigned a full-time organiser to the 457 visa issue. He told Green Left Weekly, “Only 35 companies with 457 visa employees have been investigated to date and, of those, 28 were found to be in breach of the regulations.”
McCartney said the AMWU’s WA state conference resolved to call on all unions and Unions WA to force the state government to hold a royal commission into 457 visas. Later, the MUA conference passed a resolution to this effect. The AMWU national conference resolved to exert similar pressure on the federal government, calling on Amanda Vanstone to step down in the interim.
Van Harte told a tale of exploitation and deceit. He said that the labour hire firm that brought him to Australia warned him, above all, not to speak to unions.
During discussion, one seafarer jumped to his feet and shouted, “If they want to have a go at these blokes [457 visa holders] then they’ll have to come through us first”. Another exclaimed, “If people are good enough to work here, they’re good enough to live here and they’re good enough to get Australian wages and conditions”.
Fremantle Port Authority delegate Ron Hayward said, “I’ve never heard anything like it. We’ve got to get the word out into the community [about the exploitation of guest labour]”.
The conference committed to trying to organise workers on 457 visas, and to working with ethnic and community groups to support and defend these workers’ rights. It called on the union movement and the state and federal ALP to support a campaign to abolish 457 visas in favour of an immigration policy that would grant full citizenship rights.
The conference also pledged solidarity with the workers and people of the Philippines.”
Now, you can play into the boss’s hands and be a dirty scabby racist, or you can fight back.
5) On the systemic nature of PC and what it means to ‘have a say’:
Powerful stuff Mick.
a) ‘Meat & Livestock Australia’ decide to withdraw an ad (December 17, 2006);
b) 2UE / Southern Cross Broadcasting wanna declare state anti-vilification legislation unconstitutional (December 4, 2006) and;
c) Some people organise a BBQ ‘against racism and sexual assault’ (December 7, 2006).
I don’t care if:
M&LA decide an advertisement should be canned (because they believe it won’t be profitable);
2UE’s right to talk shit (for profit) is compromised by anti-vilification legislation or;
Some people organise a BBQ ‘against racism and sexual assault’ because some suburban dickheads-in-bikinis declare their intention to invade Brunswick in order to flog t-shirts (for profit).
Needless to say, the three links to media items you provide do absolutely nothing to demonstrate the vice-like grip ‘political correctness’ has over all forms of political expression… leaving aside the fact that you fail to define it, or bother to elucidate what you mean by ‘having a say’.
6) On the remainder :
The Lebanese site on Bebo: “This profile has not been made public. The profile can only be viewed by registered members.” I ain’t registered. Presumably, the site contains racist bullshit.
Islamic boys told of ‘evil’ Aussies: the rantings and ravings of a Muslim mentalist is not a ‘racial attack’, nor is it evidence of such attacks (upon Whites) being systemic or widespread in nature.
Muslim boys urinated on Bible: the two boys deemed responsible were expelled. (“Michelle Beech from the Australian Association of Christian Schools said the boys – in Year 7 and Year 9 at East Preston Islamic College – would have benefited from counselling and suspension rather than expulsion.” — School expulsion an ‘overreaction’, The Age, December 5, 2006)
It’s not all about imams
December 07, 2006
“THE furore over Taj Din al-Hilali’s shameful comments has died down. But as two media reports yesterday on young Muslims behaving badly show, the issues raised in that debate about Muslim integration continue to haunt Australian Muslims.
In Victoria, two Muslim boys were expelled from East Preston Islamic College for urinating on the Bible, an act condemned in the strongest terms by the school principal. In NSW, meanwhile, the Muslim winner of the NSW Young Australian of the Year award had to defend herself for drinking champagne against an online backlash on a Muslim youth website.
The question of Muslim integration in the broader society, the social implications of multiculturalism and the security threat posed by homegrown extremists are themes that keep popping up in public commentary on Muslims and Islam. Coming on the heels of security alerts in Europe involving real or alleged Muslim terrorists, this conflation of issues may be understandable, albeit politically and socially unproductive.
In a way, the notion of the Muslim internal threat is not entirely new. It goes back to the conflation of dissent and disloyalty. Canberra’s foreign policy choices in the Middle East have often met with disapproval among Australian Muslims. Some observers have misconstrued this political alienation from government policies as lack of loyalty to Australia.
Applied to anyone else, this presumed link between political dissent and treason would have been preposterous. When applied to Muslims, it suddenly seems less so. This misguided perspective, often promoted by the tabloid press and shock jocks, has seriously damaged mutual trust and understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Although it is not publicly admitted, most criticism against multiculturalism implies an inherent incompatibility between being Muslim and being Australian. The debate about Australian values and the presumed difficulty Muslims have in subscribing to them is based on the false premise that Muslim values are different from Australian values.
More important, this position assumes that this alien Muslim value system links Australian Muslims with an external threat. To put it bluntly, Australian Muslims are seen as some sort of a fifth column for global jihad.
The instinctive response among our policy-makers to this assumed problem has been to overemphasise the importance of ideas: to suggest that ideas of liberal democracy are under threat from ideas of Islamic intolerance and bigotry. Ironically, this fascination with rhetorical proclamations is shared by Islamists who argue the reverse: that democracy and liberalism are Zionist ploys to destroy Islam.
Both approaches are equality absurd and have the potential to cause enormous damage. An old Persian proverb says it takes only one fool to drop something precious in a well but it takes a hundred wise men to retrieve it.
The obsession with ideology comes at the expense of a balanced assessment of real issues regarding Muslim integration in Australia. Last year, the Australian Government formed a Muslim Community Reference Group to provide advice on the most pressing issues that adversely affect Muslims and, by extension, Australia’s security, and on how radicalisation may best be averted.
The reference group came up with a list of key areas that required attention: foremost were issues of education, employment and women’s support infrastructure to facilitate social integration. The group also noted the need to foster Australian-based Islamic scholarship.
The notion of training religious leaders in Australia to lead Muslims here, as opposed to the existing practice of importing religious leaders, has captured the imagination of the Government to the almost total detriment of other recommendations from the reference group.
Training local imams to lead Australian Muslims is not a bad idea. But its impact is likely to be far more limited than the Government is willing to acknowledge.
There are two critical flaws in this approach. For one thing, it assumes significant authority for the Islamic leadership among the 300,000-plus Australian Muslims. Yet informed estimates of mosque attendance among Muslims put the figure at about 30 per cent: most Australian Muslims do not attend mosques and, by extension, do not turn to imams for guidance. Australian Muslims constitute a heterogeneous group, and some of them drink champagne.
The second – and perhaps more significant – flaw in this approach is that it plays down the social, economic and political factors that affect Muslim integration. Unemployment among Muslim youth, for instance, is much higher than the national average, especially in Sydney’s western suburbs.
It’s time for a reality check. We need to acknowledge the diversity of Australian Muslims. Religious devotion is not the primary characteristic of Muslims. And we need to put the appeal of anti-social ideas for some Muslim youth in the wider context of socio-economic dissatisfaction and political alienation.
A firmly integrated community is less likely to create potential recruits for jihad. Public policy should be reoriented towards lubricating the mechanisms of integration, rather than engaging in an ideological campaign for the soul of Islam.”
Shahram Akbarzadeh is director of the Centre for Muslim Minorities and Islam Policy Studies in Monash University’s school of political and social inquiry.
Online resources to produce a serious analysis of ‘violence and hate crimes against minority groups’:
Finally, on the Angles… and their tendency to cross aisles armed with supermarket trollies:
“…So, based on the overall genetic perspective of the British, it seems that Celts, Belgians, Angles, Jutes, Saxons, Vikings and Normans were all immigrant minorities compared with the Basque pioneers, who first ventured into the empty, chilly lands so recently vacated by the great ice sheets.”
Of course, the REAL QUESTION is:
What the fuck does the fact that some mob called the Angles invaded Britannia 1500 years ago have to do with justifying bigotry, ignorance and inequality in contemporary Australia?
I can’t be specific, but look up the spread of Christianity throughout Europe: there were Pagans, Jews, and Christians.
…and ‘Germanic’ doesn’t necessarily have to mean German.
…I don’t think they are 100% certain.
Maybe I should of said it like this:
They fought for Australians, and the [interests of] the British Empire – not for non-Europeans to come to Australia, and dictate our way of life.
Yes, the interests of the British wasn’t best at heart for many Australians, but their sacrifices shouldn’t be forgotten, and it will forever be a part of the Australian Culture:
It also should be free from any Multi-Cultural strangle hold:
[On 457 Visas:]
At least we can agree on something!
OK. Why should every 3rd World screw-up be our problem? How do Australians benefit from this?
Well, that’s something not everybody will agree with.
Anyway let’s look at the immigration issues behind the 457 Visa:
So, you are eligible for a permanent Visa after the 457 expires – and the 457 is also quicker to process.
Look! My main concern is with the rights of Australian workers – not with those who come from overseas.
Yes, I will agree that some of these ‘White Bosses’ have been exploiting the capitalistic market – sending jobs overseas. However, if it weren’t for the ‘White Bosses’ there wouldn’t be an employment infr[a]structure for Australians.
[On Meat & Livestock Australia:]
Well, I don’t know how many Muslims purchase their goods from M&LA – but it stated this:
It’s a radio station – not a business.
I didn’t see any particular marketing scheme going on.
So you refer to a group of anti-discrimination protestors as Dickheads-in-bikinis because they’re, in a way, stamping out sexist attacks against white women.
Well, I suppose it isn’t as bad in Australia as [it is in] some other countries. However, look at what happened to [Andrew Fraser] for his article on… African refugee policy. Or try to *slightly* annou[n]ce a different… opinion on the Holocaust – and see the consequences.
Yeah, it’s su[r]prising that no thread has been made on FDB about it. And neither [will you] see any vilification suits made against this group.
Well, Christianity being such a great representative of the ‘White Culture’, they certainly weren’t referring to the Sudanese – were they.
I’ve heard stories of Muslim women telling their children to piss into the pool during after [hours?] sessions (yes, they are given special ‘Muslim only sessions’) because Australians were about to use the facility. So it’s fairly widespread.
It’s their actions that have damaged trust between Muslims and non-Muslim[s]:
http://www . youtube.com/watch?v=Z7_LfghKTrk
http://www . youtube.com/watch?v=lKnSkK09vL8&NR
http://www . youtube.com/watch?v=ZYe1Sbpt3BQ
(Women receiving death threats?)
Yes. It’s only political[ly] correct to offer special assistances to [M]uslims that are not available to other Australians.
Well what’s stopping them from completing school, and applying for employment?
One of my friends wasn’t born to a very lucky family, but he managed to do well at school, and apply [to] a university – now he has employers offering him contract[s] for their firm.
That’s never going to happen on a large scale… Note: I do feel sorry for Muslims – [particularly] some women. Just knowing the fact that they were bought up in a household that doesn’t respect [them], and denie[s them] basic… freedom[s].
[On online resources to produce a serious analysis of ‘violence and hate crimes against minority groups’:]
Yeah, like I ever said that ‘minorities’ aren’t victims of crimes. How about Middle-Eastern crime in Australia:
[On the article in Prospect:]
I don’t think a little, unofficiated article will deter the historically recognised belief that we are ‘Anglo-Saxon’.
When did I justify bigotry?
All I wish [for] is the preservation of our culture – the Australian Culture. I also hand this right to anybody else, for that matter.
Andy, I am going to be heading down to Melby in a couple of days, maybe my mate and your mates could have a quiet group discussion on the political front[?]
How does that sound?
@ndy, did Reyfield just challenge you to a breakneck car duel at Thunder Road?
It’s a town full of losers,
And I’m pulling out of here to win.
This is my third attempt at a reply, my computer having kkkrashed twice previously. It will also be my last, as Fate and the law of diminishing returns seek to convince me that any further dialogue is pointless.
ON ‘THE GERMANS’:
Your lack of knowledge of real history is painful. Your knowledge of the history of the German peoples in particular takes the form of a fairy tale:
Once upon a time, in a country far far away, there lived a race of people called The Germans. It was very cold in their country. So cold, in fact, that in Winter the lakes and rivers froze. A lesser people would have died. But the Germans were a very intelligent people, so they invented The Windmill. This wonderful invention meant that they could access water from deep below the ground. And that’s why Africans are lazy, Asians are dishonest, and neither should be allowed entry to Australia. The End.
Mythologies such as these — both cruder (?) and more sophisticated — form the basis of fascist ideologies. Roger Griffin, a Professor of Modern History at Oxford University, makes use of the concept of *palingenesis* in his analysis of this filthy doctrine. On which subject, David Neiwert writes:
“Griffin has essentially managed to boil fascism down to a basic core he calls *palingenetic ultranationalist populism*. (Palingenesis is the concept of mythic rebirth from the ashes, embodied by the Phoenix.) One of Griffin’s signature essays on fascism opens with this useful definition:
‘Fascism: modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence.’
Griffin, of course, is an academic, but once you wade through the definitions and link it all together, it makes a great deal of sense, and actually provides some sharp definition to an otherwise murky phenomenon. In general, I’ve found all these studies, while often competing in nature, to be useful each unto themselves. (Another text I’ve obtained, an English translation of Harald Ofstad’s Our Contempt for Weakness: Nazi Norms and Values — and Our Own, which is not generally available, has also proved very insightful and helpful, but it’s hard to recommend since few readers can get it.)
It’s clear that Griffin’s work gives the most concrete handle on fascism as a phenomenon, especially since he manages to drill down to its animating core. For the most part, other approaches to fascism mostly offer useful descriptive traits that clearly complement Griffin’s central concept. What makes Griffin’s argument so compelling is that the tripartite components of Griffin’s core — palingenesis, ultranationalism and populism — are nearly unique to fascism and appear mostly secondarily if at all among the other kinds of totalitarianism…”
Source: ‘Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An exegesis: III: The Core of Fascism’
In the Australian context, Clinton Fernandes also makes use of Griffin’s typology in ‘Fascism: Are we there yet?’, D!ssent, No.22, Summer 2006/7:
“Clinton Fernandes discusses the history of fascism to show that the Howard government is simply trying to contain the power of trade unions and curtail civil liberties in order to strengthen capitalism rather than leading a counter-revolution against the Enlightenment.”
The fact that 8,000 Australian soldiers died during the botched invasion of Turkey in 1915 is a tragedy. To not acknowledge the fact that they did so as a result of the expansionist claims of the rulers of the British Empire to the remnants of the Ottoman Empire is daft. To use their deaths in the manner in which you do is farcical, and a job that is more properly left to scumbag politicians like HoWARd.
ON 457 VISAS:
In response to criticism, Immigration authorities have recently released a flood of propaganda (‘fact sheets’) regarding 457 visas:
17,934 holders of 457 visas were granted permanent residency in 2005/6.
Local bosses ‘send jobs overseas’ and import workers on the basis of profitability. If it’s more profitable for an employer to import a worker than it is to hire a local one, or to close down a factory or workplace in order to open it up in another country, all things being equal, they will do so.
Unlike Dr. James Saleam’s ancestry, it’s not a mystery.
The response of the trade union movement to this situation — as it’s reflected in the account of the conference provided above and in reference to 457 visas — is based on the recognition that workers in Australia have common interests, irrespective of their ethnic or national origins.
This is the most sensible approach, and one with the greatest possibility of successfully countering government-sponsored attempts to undermine wages and conditions.
2UE is both a radio station AND a business, one owned by Southern Cross Broadcasting:
“Southern Cross Broadcasting (Australia) Limited is engaged in the operation of commercial television and radio stations, and television production and distribution. The Company is organized into three segments: television broadcasting, radio broadcasting, and film and television production and distribution. The film and television production and distribution segment includes revenue and expenses attributable to the Southern Star Group Limited. The other segment includes revenue and expenses associated with Southern Cross Telecommunications Pty Limited (a broadband network operator), Satellite Marketing Australia Pty Limited and the parent entity. On October 1, 2005, the Company acquired a 75% interest in Darrall Macqueen Limited, a television production company based in the United Kingdom. On July 1, 2005, it acquired a 100% interest in Satellite Marketing Australia Pty Ltd, an Australian company specializing in digital music distribution to subscribers.”
Sales revenue for the 2005/6 financial year was $543.9 million. Normalised net profit for the same period was $54.7 million.
ON THE GREAT AUSTRALIAN BIKINI MARCH:
The March was ‘sponsored’ by Chris Gemmell-Smith (True Blue Productions). I’ve blogged about it quite extensively.
“So you refer to a group of anti-discrimination protestors as dickheads-in-bikinis because they’re, in a way, stamping out sexist attacks against white women.”
An absurd proposition.
(About which I’ve also blogged quite extensively.)
ON ANDREW FRASER:
Again, something I’ve written about previously:
What happened was Fraser wrote a letter to a local newspaper, the Parramatta Sun, in June, 2005.
After seeing a photograph of a Sudanese child in the Parramatta Sun, Associate Professor Fraser wrote to the newspaper saying “an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems”.
“The fact is that ordinary Australians are being pushed down the path to national suicide by their own political, religious and economic elites.”
Racist nonsense with conspiratorial overtones.
The rest is history.
Like the Holocaust (however much nutcases on Scumfront and in Iran deny it).
“I’ve heard stories of Muslim women telling their children to piss into the pool during after [hours?] sessions (yes, they are given special ’Muslim only sessions’) because Australians were about to use the facility. So it’s fairly widespread.”
You’re an idiot.
ON THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY REFERENCE GROUP REPORT:
As is customary, you raise the spectre of ‘special treatment’. In reality, government policy is formulated on the basis of recognising that citizens constitute distinct groups with particular needs and interests. That’s why Governments have Departments. In Australia, a directory of (Federal) Government portfolios includes:
* Commonwealth Parliament
* Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
* Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
* Education, Science and Training
* Employment and Workplace Relations
* Environment and Heritage
* Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
* Finance and Administration
* Foreign Affairs and Trade
* Health and Ageing
* Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
* Industry, Tourism and Resources
* Prime Minister and Cabinet
* Transport and Regional Services
None dare call it conspiracy, but many do call it sensible.
HoWARd initiated the Group in August 2005. It was given terms of reference, and compiled a Report with recommendations. If you genuinely want to understand “what’s stopping [some young Muslims] from completing school, and [/or gaining] employment”, read something.
ON TIM PRIEST:
More great stuff.
Tall tales from an ex-police detective:
Joseph Wakim has already responded to Priest’s after-dinner diatribe here:
“I don’t think a little, unofficiated article will deter the historically recognised belief that we are ’Anglo-Saxon’.”
The author of the article I referred to is Professor Stephen Oppenheimer, a Research Associate with the Institute of Human Sciences, Oxford University and the world’s leading expert on DNA.
(The author of the article you referred to is an ex-policeman, subsequently exposed as a liar.)
The article itself is a summary of Oppenheimer’s book, The Origins of the British (Constable & Robinson, 2006). It’s based not on hearsay and lies (Priest) but scientific research into DNA.
“The greatest advances in genetic tracing and measuring migrations over the past two decades have used samples from living populations to reconstruct the past. Such research goes back to the discovery of blood groups, but our Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA are the most fruitful markers to study since they do not get mixed up at each generation. Study of mitochondrial DNA in the British goes back over a decade, and from 2000 to 2003 London-based researchers established a database of the geographically informative Y-chromosomes by systematic sampling throughout the British Isles. Most of these samples were collected from people living in small, long-established towns, whose grandparents had also lived there.
Two alternative methods of analysis are used. In the British Y-chromosome studies, the traditional approach of principal components analysis was used to compare similarities between whole sample populations. This method reduces complexity of genetic analysis by averaging the variation in frequencies of numerous genetic markers into a smaller number of parcels—the principal components—of decreasing statistical importance. The newer approach that I use, the phylogeographic method, follows individual genes rather than whole populations. The geographical distribution of individual gene lines is analysed with respect to their position on a gene tree, to reconstruct their origins, dates and routes of movement.”
“All I wish [for] is the preservation of our culture – the Australian Culture.”
Football, meat pies, kangaroos and Holden cars.
Now go bash someone else’s ear.
Firstly MICK.. can you contact me please ?
I’d like to discuss a few things with you.
Andy.. “one brain cell” ? 🙂 not a bad comeback, I’ll give you a half point for that.. but did you read my link ?
I don’t think you did.
Yep, what would you like to know.
More great stuff.
Tall tales from an ex-police detective:
Joseph Wakim has already responded to Priest’s after-dinner diatribe here:
Yep, typical, it’s all lies…
Considering that statistics proves you wrong.
I must say spending time in the beach would be a lot relaxing than joining such program. I am in any way against causes like these..I have also participated campaigns of these kinds..but I must admit that attending such programs requires a firm stand on the cause. You just don’t want to attend the program..do the activities other participants are doing and not know what it is all about.