Chapter 4.

THE UNITED NATIONS v THE PEOPLE (Part 4.)

Christopher Steele is another who has independently investigated the effect of the U.N. on Australian politics. To follow is a revised extract from a talk given in South Australia.

The Right to Freedom of Expression and the Immigration Debate

'The great difficulty we have in facing the race problem is that a whole generation of educated Americans have grown up under Professor Boas' teachings . . .

'These are the people who are now in power in the United States and they don't know what it's all about. . .

'That leaves the race question to be solved only by the more uneducated people in the country. That means it is going to be solved in a pragmatic way which is always, of course, the most disagreeable way possible.'

Extract from a confidential letter to the author of Race And Reality, Carleton Putnam, in 1967, from the son of a former President of the United States.

Anthropology and Politics.

Franz Boas [1858-1942) was born in Germany but later moved to the U.S.A. His parents were radical socialists and his uncle, by marriage, was a close associate of Karl Marx.

Professor Boas can be regarded as the practical founder of the school of cultural or environmental anthropology, as distinct from the biological school. Margaret Mead, of more recent fame, [now discredited on some work. A.G.l was one of his students.

As with a number of intellectual disciplines anthropology has moved from a background based on pure science to a political science basis. This brings us to the theme of this paper:

The Blainey Intervention.

In March 1984 another intellectual gentleman, our own Professor Geoffrey Blainey—a professional historian of considerable standing—felt moved to remark that the federal government:

'. . . was moving too far ahead of public opinion with its policy on immigration from Asia. The continued entry of Asians could threaten the tolerance Australians had extended to immigrants in the past 30 years.'

He made several other observations on the matter at the time and more recently stated that whether the critics of the current immigration policy were right or wrong, they had a powerful case and deserved to be heard.

There is no doubt in my mind that Professor Blainey believes in what is known as multi-racialism. He is on record as saying:

'I welcome immigrants from Asia'... 'It's a delicate process to build up a multicultural society. You just can't do it in a rush.'

Personally I'm sure neither multi-racialism nor its running mate multi-culturalism, are practical policies to adopt in either the long or short term. If this type of view, or prejudgment (referred to disparagingly by some academics and journalists) reveals the 'deep-seated prejudices' of the majority of Australians, then so be it.

All Professor Blainey said initially, and has since elaborated on, is pretty innocuous Stuff. Nearly 7 out of 10 Australians identify themselves with his views. Yet this mild mannered and courageous man has been subject to some of the worst character assassination, peer group ostracism and mob violence directed against a scholar. I say courageous because, moving in the circles he does, Professor Blainey must have known full well what he was letting himself in for.

If the viability of Australia's immigration policy today is balanced on such a razor's edge that the generally commonsense remarks of Professor Blainey are felt likely to incite racial hatred (as suggested) then clearly that policy should be halted immediately before any substantive reactions against it produce real damage to the social fabric of our country.

Immigration Policy a 'Taboo' Subject of Debate

The fact is that race, immigration, ethnic affairs, etc. have finally been exposed as absolutely taboo topics of debate unless one shares the opinions of a dedicated minority of political scientists with a race-mixing internationalist outlook. By our trusting innate sense of conservatism we have allowed these people, together with their sympathizers and dupes, to entrench themselves at crucial levels of decision making in Australia.

On their own say-so, only they are permitted to engage in any real questioning of what Australia's immigration policy should be. People like Professor Blainey are excluded, and as for the rest of us, well, we are assured that the issues are far too complex for our minds to comprehend. Debate, we are told, has to be 'informed', 'rational', 'sensible', 'sensitive', 'legitimate'; These desirable qualities apparently being confined solely to their intimate circle.

Even those who know only a smattering of history will recall that mankind has been through this kind of scenario before; notable examples being the persecution of Copernicus, and particularly Galileo, in the 16th and 17th centuries respectively, for challenging the contemporary establishment (the Church) over what we know today as the untenable dogma of a flat earth. There is nothing new under the sun and harbingers of unwelcome revelations are never popular with vested interests.

One of the challenges of our time is: Do communities of people (nations) have to go on enduring the unwanted and unnatural race mixing policies which are inflicted on them as being necessary to consummate the tenuous theories of a brave new 'One World' egalitarian economic order? Or are they going to make the effort to become informed of their plight and free themselves from the tentacles of today's 'internationalist establishment' which has arrogantly taken to itself the sole right to determine the future composition of each country's population?

It was Vladimir Lenin, the mastermind of the Russian communist revolution (1917), who said British people would never produce their own revolutions. The stimuli for such would have to be introduced to their societies. Over half a century later that process is bearing fruit.

Racially alien immigrants are being used as one of the main catalysts in a dangerous and potentially explosive, 'social engineering experiment' to try to restructure the industrialized nations of the West in conformity with what is officially referred to as the New International Economic Order. This grand plan aims (amongst other things) to dispossess each national majority from control of their own destiny by producing governments which are nothing more than a coalition of minorities acting as stooges to the United Nations organization.

The Policy of Deceit.

In 1972 an official definition is directed towards the maintenance of a policy was contained in the Commonwealth Year Book. Under the heading, Conditions of immigration into Australia, it stated:

'Australia's immigration policy is directed towards the maintenance of a socially cohesive and homogeneous nation. It seeks to avoid the creation of permanent minority groups resistant to integration even through successive generations. The policy does not exclude persons of any ethnic origin; but it does exercise prudent caution in the matter of accepting large numbers of people with substantially different backgrounds, characteristics and customs who may resist general integration even in the long term.'

This was the last time such a commonsense definition appeared.

In the 1980s we are again going through the same controversy on immigration which our forefathers brought to a head a century ago with the proclamation of the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 (commonly referred to as The White Australia Policy, and denigrated in recent years).

It is not generally known today, probably because the information is suppressed for political reasons, that one of the main inducements for the federation of the Australian colonies was the urgent need to control further massive non-European immigration. It was seen as being of the utmost importance to have a unified racially homogeneous population and continent-wide system of immigration laws and regulations.

It is enlightening to note that a survey conducted by Time magazine in December 1983 showed that in western Europe the hitherto conventional wisdom that the continuing economic recession was to blame for the rise of 'racism' is now under question. It goes on to say that sociologists are re-examining the likelihood that the natural factor of race, itself is alone responsible.

The Menace of the United Nations.

What is the difference in the immigration debate now, compared with that of 100 years ago? It is the arrival on the scene of the U.N. and the persuasive, disruptive influence the policies of its plethora of agencies are having on our traditional way of life. To all intents and purposes Australia is today not governed by parliamentarians representing the will of their own constituents but by politicians, diplomats and advisers who give allegiance to, and enforce, the dictates of U.N. covenants.

According to Dr. Mark Korowicz, United Nations delegate from Poland who defected to the United States some years ago:

`. . . the organization of the U.N. is considered as one of the most important platforms for Soviet propaganda in the world.'

On immigration the high sounding sentiments embodied in the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights are being translated into a two-edged sword to attack the most affluent European countries. For instance Article 13, Part 2, states: -

'Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.'

Article 14:

'Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution' and 'This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecution genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the U.N.'

In 1973 the Whitlam Government signed a U.N. protocol extending Australia's obligation to the Convention on Refugees. Only three Asian nations, Iraq, Israel and Turkey, ever signed the original agreement on the 14th December 1950. Then just 26 of the 51 member states (there are now over 150) bound themselves to accept refugees.

Significantly no compensating right of refusal of entry is actually spelt out although a signatory member state is allowed to withdraw after twelve months notice. In the past Australia had generously offered sanctuary to European-Caucasians, now it was deliberately laid open to pick up the tab in Asia or anywhere else. As Australians we have to face the realization that we are engaged in a battle (with the U.N. and local stooges) to maintain self-government and control of our own affairs.

The creation and exploitation of refugees is an historic tactic of warfare. A study carried out in Hong Kong in 1981 showed that a mere 8% of Vietnamese who fled their country did so for fear of political reprisals.

While every decent person can sympathize with the plight of genuine refugees, the growing re-settlement (by the U.N. High Commission for Refugees) of non-whites in specifically European nations is only producing more problems. It would seem that is the intention.

Another devious ploy of the 'internationalists' involves the use of the U.N. Declaration on The Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. When this was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly in 1963 few could imagine the mis-use to which most of its eleven articles would be put.

In those days Australia was a racially homogeneous society and it was the policy of the major political parties that it should remain so. The insertion into Australian law of legislatively approved clauses seeking to eliminate discrimination based on race, religion or national origin was understood and accepted by the broad national community as pad of the traditional Australian ethos of a 'fair go' for minorities.

Today's advocates of mass migration who refer to the success of the programs overseen by Mr Arthur Caldwell in the late 1940s conveniently forget the fact that he had strong support simply because he insisted that migrants be limited to those of European descent (although it was never exclusively so).

Understandably most of the migrants were British and naturally they had the least difficulty in adapting to what was a predominantly Anglo-Saxon- Celtic country. For many other nationalities this too was the attraction, hard as it is to believe in the face of today's relentless anti-British propaganda. These people, many refugees from Europe, came to Australia understanding that they were welcome, but were expected to accept Australian institutions. In return Australia has benefited from the process of cultural osmosis from various new acquisitions found compatible with our traditional way of life. Sadly however, for some years now a handful of egregious migrants, collaboration with an equally small number of locally born agitators and subversives, are repaying that hospitality in a manner most Australians regard as bordering on treachery.

So it is quite unrealistic for the authorities to expect that the old attitude of a 'fair go' to migrants and refugees would endure in the face of today's provocative policies, the intent of which is to completely transform the composition of Australia -- to 'Asianise' or 'Eurasianise' it as Foreign Affairs Minister Hayden describes the process.

The propagandizing of this aim is undertaken through the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, widely regarded now as a highly suspect anti-Western agency. To quote Article 8 of the U.N. Declaration on The Elimination of Racial Discrimination:

'All effective steps shall be taken immediately in the fields of teaching, education and information, with a view to eliminating racial discrimination and prejudice, and promoting understanding, tolerance and friendship among nations and racial groups as well as propagating the purpose and principles of the United Nations, of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and of the Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples.'

Furthermore, and this must have been drafted in anticipation of the reaction which would surface in opposition to forced alien immigration and similar unnatural demands, Article 9, Part 3, says:

'In order to rut into effect the purposes and principles of the present Declaration, all States shall take immediate and positive measures to prosecute, and/or outlaw, organizations which promote or incite to racial discrimination, or incite to or use violence for purpose of discrimination based on race, colour or ethnic origin.'

This inquisition is happening now. The instrument is the Australian Human Rights Commission which came into existence by means of an act of Federal parliament in December 1981.

Language Distortion Undermines National Resistance.

A cliche in prevalent use nowadays is 'incitement to racial hatred' to describe the thought processes and reactions of anyone opposed to the country's multi-racial immigration policies. This is intellectual dishonesty at its worst. It is analogous to condemning a citizen's criticism of foreign affairs policy as seditious; or querying the applicability of a law as a breach of the peace. Hate is a very strong word signifying an equally strong emotion, and to set it loose in a political context is highly irresponsible.

It used to be that a person discriminating was one choosing from a range of available alternatives, measured either by his own standards of reference or those mutually held by the community in which he lived. In other words pursuing the right to freedom of choice.

One is reminded of the statement made by Professor G.E. Lundberg, President of the Sociological Research Association of America in 1952. He said:

'The right to discriminate and to choose one's own primary group associates on whatever discriminatory basis one pleases is among the most generally recognized in our culture both in common and statute law.'

Today discrimination is a word that has nearly lost its original meaning. Analyzing why an almost opposite interpretation is now in vogue tells us a lot about the political direction in which we are heading.

Race (the natural division and basis of secure nationhood) rather than some arbitrary man-imposed parameter, is the fairest distinction on which generally discriminate in this matter.

The U.N. is attempting to make it illegal for the citizens of a country to choose which other people they wish to admit as migrants. There is no sensible rationale why Australia should have a 'global, non-discriminatory immigration policy', which impresses nobody except its own ideological proponents but will soon result in unprecedented social trauma for everyone.

Those largely responsible for causing the present social ferment are that coterie of people actively promoting, abetting and enforcing the unacceptable policies of multi-racial immigration and structured multi-culturalism on the Australian community.

The Social Engineering Industry.

What we have here is a huge and powerfully profitable lobby for those who can get themselves a piece of the action. These people, during the last decade, have had an almost open slather in successfully cajoling governments to set up all manner of councils, commissions, task forces and institutes which, on the basis of their supposed expertise, they are next appointed, to administer at public expense. A stock-in-trade tactic then is to secure their privileges in these sinecures by professing to have the welfare of sundry disadvantaged or minority groups as their first concern. These thinly disguised confidence tricksters imply that their services and protective role are needed against perceived threats from 'extremists', 'bigots', 'racists' and the like. It is parasitism run wild.

A few individuals probably have the best of intentions, namely to bring about a universal brotherhood of man'. But the form it should take is their own personal utopia, and its ramifications are not widely appreciated by the community as a whole. As T.S. Elliot once remarked:

'Between the idea and the reality, between the motion and the act, fails the shadow.'

That shadow is massive public objection to what is going on.

This lobby has based what they see as their right to ram multi-racialism and multi-culturalism down the throats of reluctant Australians on the pretext that because all political parties have found it expedient to support these changes, and the majority of people vote for these parties, it is therefore democratically acceptable. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Real democracy is the right of all people to express an opinion on any far-reaching issue.

Let me say (as a rank-and-file Liberal member for over 10 years) that these controversial policies were never canvassed for approval at the grass roots level of the party. 1 have heard that the same situation existed within the A.L.P. The general public (who should be able to trust their representatives to do the right thing by them) have been kept even more in the dark and are denied a referendum on alien immigration to decide the issue.

The surreptitious plan to 'Asianise' Australia has been a long time in the making, but is now fully exposed. The conspirators are so sure of its fulfillment that there is no longer any pretense to cover up the aim.

Are we going to let ourselves be the last generation of traditional Australians? avoid18.htm

.../Next Page

.../Back to Contents Page


http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/