By Geoff. Muirden

Melbourne, 25 February 2005


A spectre is haunting Western civilization: its name is "political correctness", neo-Marxist planned destruction of what remains of freedom and democracy as a heritage of Western civilization. The application of this is global, a deadly virus seeking to demolish Western civilization and culture. This deadly virus afflicts Australia also, but is not unique: it is part of a worldwide anti-white movement and this background needs discussion. Anti-white vilification is of no concern to politically correct robots, engineered to target the white race as the only one allegedly guilty of the dreaded scourge of "racism", all other races being "victims". The fact that the white race has been the most productive and inventive on earth is swept down the memory hole in the current insanity bringing the earth to ruin. This served a political purpose too in destroying nationalism based on love of country and shared values which was the glue that held society together. Now, it is to be torn apart, while "diversity" is praised so that globalism can prosper and a minority can control others.

The hypocritical and one-sided application of "racism", according to its inventors, the "Frankfurt School", which developed in the 1930s and has had a growing influence since, means that whites are regularly targeted as "racists", whereas non-whites are repeatedly denounced as "victims of white racism", ignoring or denigrating those who realistically point to anti-white racism.

The Frankfurt School has been well analyzed by Kevin McDonald in his book, The Culture of Critique (1) funded by millionaire, Felix Wehl. One of the productions of the Frankfurt School was a psychiatric study called "Studies in Prejudice", a series of which was called "The Authoritarian Personality." A series of double standards was created, according to which Judaism can continue as a cohesive group but in which cohesive, nationalistic, corporate Gentile groups based on conformity to group norms have been declared "pathological." This is spelt out well in an excellent review of Culture of Critique at http://www.heretical.com/miscellx/culturec.html

As a part of this philosophy, non-white races have been flooding into Western countries to dilute white civilization and Christian values and capture them for Marxist enslavement while at the same time Israel, while pushing "multiculturalism" for "goyim", conducts a war against the Palestinians and aims for Jewish supremacy in the Middle East. Israel does not practice what it preaches. Jesus Christ has guided us in understanding motives: "by their fruits shall you know them". In other words, judge them not by what they say, but what they do. Israelis said they wanted multiculturalism - for others. But they do not do it themselves.

Pat Buchanan’s book, The Death of the West (2) fully documents how whites are becoming a dying race, which may die out by the end of this century, and this policy is forced by governments on white citizens. It is politically correct to criticise the white race to "end racism"!

This madness, commonplace in the later 20th century, gathered impetus in the 21st century. What is not generally appreciated is its spiritual cause: the West has turned its back on God, and God had removed His protecting hand from those who rejected Him. Only a massive turning back to God can save the white race from eventual destruction and that does not seem to be happening .

To some extent we are now repeating the history of what occurred in the ancient Roman and Greek empires, because in those times, in addition to a moral decline which the West is also experiencing, they became flooded with immigrants who contributed to the collapse of ancient Greece and Rome.

To take but one example: the ancient Romans employed Germans in their armies, but because it was clear that the Romans despised the Germans, there was no inclination on the part of the Germans to fight for the Empire, so it is a factor in their decline.

In the case of Greek decline, Alexander the Great, tried to persuade his generals to intermarry with Asians in conquered areas. His generals started being dominated by Asian interests, and lost sight of Alexander’s goals.

A pattern emerges, in countries such as ancient Greece, Rome, Egypt, Sumeria, etc., that they were in general strong as long as they were culturally homogeneous- that is, as long as they were mostly of one race, or similar races- but showed decline when they began to admit or be controlled by immigrants of alien races and cultures, which led to clashes between different races, different interests and race mixing or miscegenation, leading to a decline of the race. John Tiffany’s analysis of ancient Egypt, for example, shows it fell because of a mixture of other races. www.barnesreview.org/Feb_2004/ Egyptians/egyptians.html. But we must not learn from history. It must be distorted so that "diversity" is "celebrated".

Common sense has become a rare quality, especially in the schools and universities, flooded with a mania for "political correctness", usually the opposite of factual correctness. Common sense would have shown that, allowing other races with alien values into a racially and religiously homogenous society would encourage conflicts that create tensions in society. The allegedly "clever" people in universities either were not "clever" enough to understand this or were not allowed to say so.

That is what the West is faced with now, with the active collusion of treacherous white politicians. We are faced with the decline and potential fall of the white race now undermined by alien races and religions that bring division and conflict into countries around the world. It’s a worldwide pattern, promoted by globalists to weaken and ultimately exterminate the white challenge to their authority.

If there were a call for the extermination of Jews, we would never hear the end of it, but because it is a call for the extermination of whites, it is acceptable to "anti-racists" such as Harvard trained Noel Ignatiev, an academic at Harvard’s W.E.B. DuBois Institute for African- American Research. Dr Ignatiev is founder of a journal, Race Traitor, saying "treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity."

The journal’s purpose is "to abolish the white race". Paul Craig Roberts’ article, "Harvard Hates the White Race?" www. vdare. com/roberts/harvard_genocide.htm gives the game away: the multicultural plan is to destroy Western civilization and stamp out the white race itself. This was part of a "fashionable" and lethal madness that spread during the late 20th and early 21st century. Susan Sontag, who died in 2004, notorious for saying that "the white race is the cancer of history", was not chastised for it, but widely accepted. If she had said it about another race, that would have been "racism!"

As Paul Craig Roberts’ article mentions, white undergraduates are encouraged to call themselves a "racist, sexist, homophobic oppressor." Maybe the next step is to dig our graves and jump into them. Certainly whites are now invited to participate in their own extinction. There are plenty of white "race traitors" happy to cooperate with the "anti-racists" and denigrate their own race. One reason some whites go along with it, is that it plays on sentiments of altruism, creating "guilt" that whites have not given other races a "fair go". However, there was no indication that those other races reciprocated this striving for "fairness". A comment in John Lidsmoe’s Columbus & Cortez, Conquerors for Christ. - Green Forest, Arizona, USA, New Leaf Press, 1992, p.286, said it all: "a Polynesian chief once observed to a white officer: "I don’t understand you English. You come here and take our land and then you spend the rest of our lives trying to make up for it. When my people came to these islands, we just killed the inhabitants and that was the end of it." The "guilt industry" would not flourish among such Polynesian chiefs.

Nevertheless, in case anyone believes that Marxists care about blacks and are "anti-racist" out of their deep concern for them, they should read "The Racism of Marx and Engels" in TBR, Vol. II # 10, October,1996, which shows that both Marx and Engels put up a "front" of being friends of the negroes , but derided blacks as "idiots" and used the term "nigger" in private correspondence. This should be recalled before it, too, vanishes down the memory hole. Nor have modern Marxists fared better. In his 1986 book, Russia and the Negro, Alison Blakely states that Somalis in Moscow during 1960 quit their studies saying that "the Russians consider us an inferior race and treat us accordingly." This concentration on blacks is a ploy to get power, using them as a weapon against whites.

Before the end of the 20th century and on into the 21st century, in Australia, this "politically correct" pathology had been well established. It was apparently impossible to speak of "race" without bringing in "racism", even when there was no necessary connection, in which case it was invented.

This developed in Australia into a clash between different schools of historical interpretation. As revisionists, we are familiar with the clash between the revisionists who seek to "bring history into line with the truth" and the "court historians" who seek to write a history that vindicates the victors and serves special interests.

In Australia, however, two other schools of historical thought developed, one of them promoting views of Australia as mainly a success story; and the other, Left-wing reaction against it, who denigrate and decry Australian history as a record of oppression. This latter, somber view of Australian history, in line with neo-Marxist political correctness, became known by one of its critics, historian Geoffrey Blainey, as the "black arm-band view of history," by which it is now widely known. Blainey, and some other outspoken Australian historians, including Keith Windschuttle, have fought "history wars" battles since to preserve a more optimistic view of Australian history. But neither of them are "revisionists" in Barnes’ sense of the word. These anti-black armband historians do not challenge orthodox views of the Holocaust; they accept the pejorative "tag" associated with "racism", refusing to accept the fact that one can support one’s own race without "hating" others; and they do not see the connection between "political correctness" and the planned end of the white race and Christianity.

The earlier, optimistic view of "race" in Australian history concentrated mainly on the white race. One such presentation was that of Max Hartwell, a former professional fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford, and former editor of the Economic History Review, writing in the Australian magazine, Business Review Weekly, dated Dec. 18,1987-Jan. 14,1988 under the heading "First entrepreneurs flourished in freedom" (pp. 58-62)

He mentions the work of "black arm-band" historian, Robert Hughes, The Fatal Shore, (3) that highlighted the worst features of the convict system in Australia but points out that, in spite of this dismal version, overall the history between the white settlement in 1788 up to the Gold Rush was "a remarkable success story".

The Fatal Shore, presents Australia as the world’s first totalitarian dictatorship.

It’s true there were injustices in the convict system, but in terms of settlement in Sydney, New South Wales, a more accurate and less sensational work is D.R. Hainsworth’s book, The Sydney Traders,(4) which shows that convicts became active in Sydney’s life and by 1790 were largely controlling it. When the terms of the original convicts expired, only 7% wanted to go back to England. Many convicts could succeed better in Australia than in England.

In general, the Australian convicts were flourishing under what historian, Edward Shann called "the free activity of the free". Settlers worked without too much government interference, and created a prosperous and growing society.

The British Empire was in general seen as beneficial, and many Australians supported it up to the Second World War.

An attempt was made to undermine this generally optimistic vision of Australia in 1939, when historian Brian Fitzpatrick in British Imperialism in Australia (5) produced a vision of Australians manipulated and oppressed by British interests. The Fitzpatrick thesis was rejected by most as implausible, and it gave no credit to the British for establishing principles of democracy and autonomy which developed in Australia, so the generally optimistic view of history won out. Hartwell concluded triumphantly that Australian history was " a success story of individualism and enterprise in a free society."

Max Hartwell was not the only Australian historian to see Australia as a success story. Geoffrey Blainey, in the Australian magazine, Quadrant, Vol. XXXVII # 7-8, July-August, 1993, from his Latham Memorial Lecture, said that he was raised on the "Three Cheers" view of history, which saw Australian history as mainly a success, a view which mostly prevailed until the 1980’s but acknowledged attacks on this view, which he called the "Black Arm-Band" view of history, his first use of this phrase.

Later he developed this theme in an article published by the Samuel Griffith Society’s Vol. 12, Chapter 11, titled "A Black Arm- Band for Australia’s 20th Century?"

 www.samuelgriffith.org.au/papers/html/volume%2012/ v12 chap 11.htm

Here, Geoffrey Blainey, speaking mainly of the white race, suggests that "the nation’s successes, in its first century as a federation, outweigh its failures by a large margin." He stated: "it was almost certainly the first nation in the world in which women possessed both the right to vote and to stand for Parliament. During its first century as a united Nation Australia solved its internal disagreements and disputes by discussion and debate, not by force. Measured by the modern and non-Athenian sense of the word "democracy", it was the world’s first."

"Along with New Zealand, Australia was a pathfinder in the welfare state and the idea of caring for those who, largely through no fault of their own, could not care for themselves...Australia’s relatively small population achieved a remarkable sporting record...in the 20th century, as in earlier decades, the nation could take pride in its inventiveness...in the global history of metallurgy, which is one of mankind’s most valuable skills, the three or four great innovations of all time would include the flotation process. Mainly invented and applied at Broken Hill in the years 1902 to 1914 (this process) is now used on a large scale in every corner of every continent to extract minerals.

He speaks of the outstanding record of Australian fighting men during WWI and WWII and concludes that "Australia since 1901 has been more of a a success story than a failure."

This is out of fashion to the black arm-band historians, who whine and moan about Australia’s terrible past. An analogy could be drawn here between US historians, who used to praise the US Founding Fathers to promote national pride in schools and now mostly don’t. In much the same manner, the way in which Australian historians generally favoured the contribution of those who developed the Australian Constitution was replaced by a more cynical spirit of denigration, a mood suitable for the destruction of patriotism and nationalism, as intended.

The "black arm-band" historians are Left wing critics, pursuing a political agenda. They were not interested in the disinterested pursuit of truth, but only propaganda gains.

The Left wingers were so disinterested in the pursuit of accurate history, they invented a term unknown to the Australian colonists and governments of the 18th and 19th century: "terra nullius."

Dr Michael O’Connor depicts the rise of this bogus phrase, in http://www.samuelgriffith.org.au/ papers/ volume16/ v16chap4.html. Dr O’Connor traces its first use to Professor O’Connell who said, in a legal textbook, "since the Australian aborigines were held incapable of intelligent transactions with respect to land Australia was treated as terra nullius." This was taken up by other writers and especially publicised by Judge Lionel Murphy as a legal and historical explanation of Australian sovereignty.

Historians, especially Henry Reynolds, began using this phrase.

Dr O’Connor shows that, although Reynolds misused the term "terra nullius", it was generally taken to mean "a land without inhabitants". This was supposed to mean that the English colonists treated the aborigines with such contempt that they could not "see" aborigines and treated the land as "uninhabited!" This gave the Left wing interpreters a chance to agonize about the white’s arrogant "racism".

However, this term was a complete invention when applied to white settlement. The term "terra nullius" was never used by English settlers or government during the 18th or 19th century, and it is bogus to suggest that it was. It was a total fraud.

"Terra nullius" was not the only fraud associated with the Left wingers. Windschuttle showed, about Tasmanian aborigines, that Reynolds and others had falsified and invented claims of massacres that either did not happen, or had been exaggerated.

The black armbanders nevertheless hammered "racism" as a scourge, and even Blainey’s phrase, "black arm-band" was vilified as "racist", allegedly derived from the Aborigines as a denigratory phrase. In fact, Blainey did not borrow it from aborigines and did not mean it to be anti-Aboriginal.

Blainey says he took the term from the custom, in Australian Rules Football, of players wearing a black arm-band to honour a colleague that had died. This symbol of mourning was used by white, not black, Australian traditions.

The term was given prominence when it was used by John Howard, soon after he became Prime Minister in 1996, in the annual Sir Robert Menzies Lecture at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. John Howard re-elected as Prime Minister in 2004 is likely to see the phrase and the influence of Blainey and other supporters given continued prominence, whereas a future electoral win for the Australian Labor Party could promote the dismal historical analysis of the "black arm-banders" . These competing views of history inspire different political parties. Just as the main division in the United States is between the Republican and Democratic Parties, so in Australia, the main division is between the Liberal Party, (with its Coalition partners) and the Australian Labor Party.

(See "Different perspectives on Black Armband History" from Australian Parliamentary Library-Research Paper 5, 1997-98 at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1997-98/98rp05.htm

It has been fashionable for black arm-banders to bemoan "the fate of the aborigines" and their "attempted genocide" at the hands of whites. In terms of Aborigines, Blainey’s view is that Aboriginal and British cultures were so far apart, that misunderstandings were inevitable. One factor was that the British realized that Aborigines were a nomadic people, documented by Blainey in Triumph of the Nomads, a History of Ancient Australia, Melbourne, Macmillan, 1975. For this reason, they were not seen as owners or cultivators of the land, so no treaty could be made with them by the British government.

Nor can it be said that the Aborigines lived an idyllic life as Rousseauist "noble savages", as they were frequently at war with each other, and used some customs such as infanticide and cannibalism, which now have to be swept down the memory hole and denied. Even Michael Cannon’s book, Black Land, White Land, Port Melbourne, Minerva,1993, which mostly castigates the whites, admits that "although people today may find it hard to believe, cannibalism was a normal way of life among some Aboriginal tribes in the early nineteenth century." Cannon mentions an eyewitness report from Protector Sievwright at Lake Terang in 1841, who mentions a cannibalistic feast of a dead woman. (p.58)

Further evidence is given in such books as Anthropophagitism in the antipodes: or cannibalism in Australia, with a discourse on the evils thereof by James Cooke, RN, Rtd. Self-published, Australia, James Cooke, 1997. It shows many reports of cannibalism over different times and places.

Daisy Bates, in The Passing of the Aborigines 2nd ed. London, Heinemann, 1966, reported "baby cannibalism was (once) rife among these central-western peoples, as it is west of the border in Central Australia" (p. 107) and it is also documented in other books, such as Cape York: the Savage Frontier, that mention a cannibal feast witnessed by a white woman, Barbara Crawford, who saw a cannibal feast (p. 23).

The black arm banders, in depicting fights between whites and blacks, shed copious tears for blacks, but have no tears for the whites that were killed. They wanted monuments for the Aborigines, but none for the settlers’ families.

One of the most politically incorrect observations I have read on this, which would generate apoplexy today, is that of John Greenway, in Down Among The Wild Men, the narrative journal of 15 years pursuing the Old Stone Age Aborigines of Australia’s Western District, Melbourne, Hutchinson,1973. He mentions that a policeman in Adelaide over a hundred years ago, Alford, observed that Aborigines were killing many settlers, but the rule of the Protectors - guardians of the Aborigines - were that no white man could fire on an Aborigine unless he had thrown his spear at him. This would now be good politically correct stuff, showing concern for the Aborigine, but it had the disadvantage that the white was likely to be killed under this policy, and Alford was politically incorrect enough to oppose this.

Alford arrested the protector and made him walk in front when they were going after "a mob of abos" (sic) who had killed a twelve-year-old. The youth had obeyed the law- he had waited until the Aborigine threw his stick, then he fired and killed one of them, but not before he had been speared, and later died.

The policeman told the Protector that when they caught up with the killers, he would fire back just as soon as the Protector, in front, was speared by them, as the youth had been. The Protector begged Alford to fire first. (pp. 283-284)

He was surely making the point that the Aborigines did they faithfully observe rules of etiquette about who was to attack first. The point is made further in Rodney Liddell’s book, Cape York; the Savage Frontier, which shows the Aborigines had no mercy for their victims. The scenario of Aborigines as always "victims" is not historically accurate.

As part of their "anti-racist" and anti-white crusade, it was claimed that, until 1967, Aborigines did not have the right to vote in Australian elections. In fact, Blainey says that many Aborigines did have the vote in the 19th century and some Aborigines could vote in the first federal election while many whites did not.

Not many Aborigines did vote in these late 19th and early 20th centuries, but they were not alone. In 1900 most adult people in Australia did not have the right to vote. When the Australian Commonwealth Constitution was shaped, most women, whether white or black, could not vote. Aborigines were not singled out as unable to vote as an act of discrimination against them alone.

In the first Commonwealth electoral Act of 1902 many white civil servants could not vote. However, concern was shown to give welfare rights to full blood Aborigines. This historical evidence is replaced by a falsified assertion that Aborigines were denied the vote until 1967 and this was "racism".

We are then told that the White Australia Policy was "racist" and a criminal act. The "correct" procedure was to flood the nation with multicultural influences that would lead to clashes and to the watering down of the white race, such as is now happening.

Denigration of the White Australia Policy has been done by the Australian Labor Party who were initially key exponents of it, which again vanishes down the memory hole. But there is a remarkable silence on so-called "racist" policies of other countries, such as Malaysia, which has a "bumipatra" policy favouring Malays. There is no mention of the way China and Japan have immigration policies favouring their own, nor any mention of the "apartheid" wall built in Israel, creating a barrier between Jews and Arabs. A false, misleading and hypocritical impression is created by isolating the real, or alleged "racial sins" of the whites without comparing them with the attitudes of other races. Whereas it is never politically correct for whites to use any term derogatory of Aborigines, it is OK for whites to be denounced. This double standard is applied without any irony or even acknowledgement. Doublethink is alive and well.

One illustration of the way whites have to be denigrated in the historical record was the record of "protectors" set up to assist the aborigines who, during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and even later, were regarded as a dying race. It seems strange, if the intent of the whites was to "genocide" aborigines, as  now claimed, that they invested money to save them.

Their efforts are mostly denigrated in a book called My heart is breaking; a Joint Guide to Records about Aboriginal People in the Public Records Office of Victoria and the Australian Archives, Victorian Regional Office, published 1993. Jim Berg, writing in a foreword, gives the whites a backhanded compliment. He calls settlements, reserves and mission stations "concentration camps" but then admits that "if it wasn’t for these ‘concentration camps’ all of our people would have been wiped out." Instead of being grateful for this, however, it does not stop him accusing the missions of "legal genocidal policies."

Another classic example of how you "can’t win" is that on pp. 54-55 of the report, the whites are castigated for trying to isolate aborigines from Europeans, as "the board took away their freedom"; whereas between 1886 and 1910 the opposite way was tried, to absorb them into the white community, but we are told this too was a failure. So they are damned for trying to isolate them, then damned for trying to integrate them.

The irony of a lot of this, however, is the way it is published at a time when the white race is vanishing, and no concern is shown about this by these writers, some of them white, but only for the blacks. We are told it was not so much the (black) "race that was vanishing, however, it was their cultural identity." (p. 51) Why not show concern for the loss of cultural identity in the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic race whose identity is being undermined?

And if blacks were poorly treated, as claimed, then let us also consider the evidence in the survey titled "Forgotten Australians: a report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children", issued by the Australian Senate’s Community Affairs References Committee, published August,2004. It is prefaced by a statement from Nelson Mandela: "any nation that does not care for and protect all of its children does not deserve to be called a nation." Ironic, isn’t it, that a man who "necklaced" some of his own people and killed men, women and children should be a source of "moral guidance"? He should be called a "terrorist." This is another example of the moral blindness that afflicts our times. What will it be next, a quote from Mao Zedong on the "sanctity of life!?"

Forgotten Australians deals with children, maybe as many of 500,000 - mostly white -  who were raised in Australian orphanages or institutions and suffered. If blacks suffered and deserve sympathy, why not extend as much to whites who may have been ill-treated in these institutions?

In 2004, Keith Windschuttle published White Australia Policy: race and shame in the Australian history wars. Paddington, NSW, Macleay Press, 2004, which accuses academic historians of using the immigration policy of the past to paint Australia in terms similar to South Africa under apartheid and Germany under the Nazis. He does not challenge the orthodox Holocaust explanation and, in fact, endorses it. The truth is, he argues, that the White Australia Policy was mainly an economic policy to prevent cheap indentured labour from undermining living conditions and dividing Australia rather than a "racist" one, which he maintains was a minority attitude.

His book is a significant blow against the black arm banders, but he accepts the propaganda myth that South Africa was more oppressed under apartheid, ignoring the reality that the anti- apartheid movement was again a Communist ploy to destroy white control of South Africa, which it has largely succeeded in doing, and endorsed the orthodox view of the "Final Solution".

Neither he nor Blainey have taken on these larger issues. The anti black armbanders have accepted myths of "political correctness". Windschuttle complains about the white apartheid regime. He does not know, or does not want to know, that since white apartheid has been abolished in South Africa, the black regime has been far more brutal. It would be interesting for him to read, for example, the comments of Anne Paton, wife of the late Alan Paton, who wrote Cry the Beloved Country which denounced the suffering of blacks under white apartheid. His widow, writing for London Sunday Times, DISPATCHES, Sunday, Nov. 29,1998 http://www. stopboergenocide. com/128853.html, mentions that under ANC rule and Mandela there has been more racial tension than ever, not only because of racial attacks on whites, who are blamed for "apartheid", but also on blacks, who are victims of most hijacking, rapes and murders. See also"

See also:




Windschuttle has, however, taken on multiculturalism which he argues is more "racist" than the White Australia Policy. "What I call hard multiculturalism is a doctrine of the intellectual elite, and that’s a doctrine which says people should not try to assimilate or integrate, they should preserve their own ethnic cultures intact, that no cultures are better than others, " he told Sydney Morning Herald, December 4,2004,"it’s a form of ethnic separatism which is far more racist than anything being ascribed to the White Australia Policy."

Windschuttle said the White Australia Policy was rooted more in economic and political motivations than theories of whites’ biological supremacy. He wrote the book because "the younger generation of people at university and the schoolteachers who take these ideas into schools are now being taught that Australia under the White Australia Policy was comparable to South Africa under apartheid. My aim is to convince people that these ideas can’t be trusted." SMH, Dec. 4, 2004. He did not follow through to show that South Africa is now under a "black apartheid" regime more vicious than the white one.

Windschuttle is correct in noticing the way history has been distorted and radicalised in pursuit of a Left-wing agenda. He points out that in the 1960s a radicalised generation of history students came to see the White Australia Policy as the product of "racism", to "work for the goal of radical social change" in schools and universities.

"What’s ironic", he said, "is that the people who today make the most noise about the White Australia Policy are a mirror image of the people who instituted the policy. The late 19th century elite most in favour of it was republican, socialist, feminist, in favour of land reform, a few other trendy issues of the time. The only issue today’s elites disagree with them over is immigration policy."

Immigration policy has changed owing to the dismantling of the White Australia Policy, but this was not caused by any great pressure from most immigrant groups in Australia. Comments from Kevin Macdonald suggest the influence of the Jews behind this change: "Australian Jews led the effort to dismantle the "white Australia" policy, one reason for which was cited in an editorial in the Australian Jewish Democrat:

"The strengthening of multi-cultural or diverse Australia is also our most effective insurance policy against anti-Semitism. The day Australia has a Chinese Australian Governor General I would feel more confident of my freedom to live as a Jewish Australian." Like Earl Raab writing about the United States, this Australian Jew is prepared to sacrifice the traditional culture, people, and identity of Australia to specifically Jewish interests."

Http://www. heretical. com/ miscellx/culturec.html Of course, it might create "anti-Semitism" among "goyim" who objected to sacrificing their society for the Jews.

The most thorough analysis of "multicultural" immigration in Australia is Mark Lopez’ The Origins of Multiculturalism In Australian Politics, 1945-1975. Melbourne, University Press, 2000. Lopez noted that "in the formation of multiculturalism, ethnic minorities had a minor role" and that "surprisingly few people were involved in the academic and policy debates from which multiculturalism emerged during the 1950s,1960s and 1970s." (p. 9)

As James Jupp puts it, "a small politically involved minority rushed in multiculturalism in Australia." (p. 10)

Lopez notes the false and misleading way in which impressions were created of larger numbers of peoples and organizations being involved than really existed, by having one individual represent many different organizations, whose membership was usually tiny, but by stacking up lists of different organizations, the slender basis for involvement was concealed. Despite comments on Christian churches, only a very small minority was involved. "It is the values of individual actors...that provide the major clues as to how change was achieved. Accounts that obscure these names in collective nouns, or committee titles, divert attention from the important political processes, and the role played by key individuals in those processes." (p. 13)

Lopez also mentions the Marxist analysis of Jakubowitz, Morrisey and Palser as having a seminal influence on how multi-culturalism was foisted on Australians, which led some school writers being "involved in a historical revisionist exercise of reinterpreting Australian social and intellectual history from the perspectives of values drawn from the ideological canons of ‘political correctness’, for example, anti-racism and anti-sexism. From this basis they have advanced their own ‘politically corrected’ version of multiculturalism, a modification of the left, class-based structural multiculturalism of Jakubowicz." (p.15)

The advent of "multicult" was a further stage in the dismantling of cultural homogeneity to fragment the capitalist state and soften it up for the globalist New World Order, as in the United States. Part of it was an attack on "white supremacy" and the alleged evils of white history.

Windschuttle, in 2002 (reviewed in TBR) challenged the claim that whites were responsible for exterminating the blacks in Tasmania, in his book, The Fabrication of Aboriginal History Volume One. Van Diemen’s Land,1803-1847. Paddington, NSW, Macleay Press,2002, suggests that Tasmanian aborigines were already dying out before white settlement; that they were few in number at that time-maybe about 2000-and that stories of white massacres have been greatly exaggerated or actually invented. But he notes that there were far more murders of whites by blacks seeking food and goods. Windschuttle’s book is an important attack on political correctness.

[Reviewed TBR vol. IX #5, May/June, 2003, pp. 75-76) Also

 http://www.angelfire.com/folk/aclu/windschuttle_review.htm) and


In Australian history, it has become customary to use such terms as "invaders" instead of "settlers" to describe the English who settled Australia in 1788 and afterwards, and they are accused of trying to "holocaust" the Aborigines. This has led to demands on the current Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, to issue a public "apology" to the Aborigines. As an astute politician, Howard is probably well aware that any such apology would lead to the government being sued, and made liable for Land Rights claims. This he will not do. Any such "apology" and capitulation would more likely be made by the more Leftist Australian Labor Party. Ron Brunton, in Herald Sun newspaper, Thursday, January 13, 1994, "Making sense of apologies", makes some valuable comments: "Unfortunately, while every nation and ethnic group can find praiseworthy acts in their past, virtually every people are also heir to shameful deeds as well. Good and evil are not the exclusive properties of particular groups, however much we may falsely romanticise some peoples, and demonise others. Demands for apologies for specific historical events tend to disguise this fact, and distract attention away from injustices that members of a formerly victimised group may now be inflicting on others. For instance, as a Jew, I am conscious that Israel's treatment of Palestinians over the past fifty years leaves a great deal to be desired. It is a leftist fantasy that a history of oppression somehow collectively ennobles a people or group."

As a follower of Blainey, Howard does not accept the "black armband" theory. He may also be deterred by evidence, from such sources as Geoff McDonald, in Red Over Black: Behind the Aboriginal Land Rights.Bullsbrook,W.A.,1982) that Communists have been behind the "Land Rights" claims, trying to establish an Aboriginal Republic under Communist control.

Part of their tactics have been to denounce the whites as "invaders".

Yet books such as Rodney Liddell’s Cape York:The Savage Frontier. Redbank, Queensland, self-published, 1996, show that, despite the claim that the Aborigines at time of white settlement, were the original inhabitants, these Aborigines were themselves "invaders". Rodney Liddell cites evidence that the earlier inhabitants of Australia were Papuans, who came down from New Guinea, at a time when there was a land bridge connecting New Guinea and Australia. They also went far south and were pushed into Tasmania. Liddell says that these Papuans "were brutally massacred by the Pre-Dravidian invaders, whom we now erroneously refer to as the "Aborigines of Australia" but who in fact were the "Aborigines of South India and Ceylon". (Liddell, p. 1)

Liddell cites some anthropologists who have presented this evidence, to show the invasion of Australia by the Aborigines, including Professor Haddon, who published The Races of Man in 1909; A.P. Elkin, Emeritus Professor of Anthropology, University of Sydney, mentioned the wiping out of the Papuans or Negritos, in his book, The Australian Aborigines; E.R.Gribble’s book, A Despised Race. Liddell, pp. 2-3.

Anthropologists such as this tried to reveal the truth that the "Aborigines of Australia" were in fact the "Aborigines of India", that they invaded Australia in recent times, were accompanied by the Indian native dog now called the dingo, which earlier mariners called the "Indian jackal".

"These genuine academics", Liddell states, "wanted nothing more than to speak the truth, but are silenced or ridiculed by those in authority, (the politically correct) who have too much to lose if the truth were accepted by the public." (p. 3)

Another myth is that of the long occupation of the present race of Aborigines in Australia, sometimes given as 40,000 years or more. In fact, Liddell suggests a recent origin, and cites English explorer, William Dampier, who visited Australia in 1688 and 1699-1700. He described the Aborigines as having "hair curled like the Negroes" which suggests a Papuan race. This was 70 years before Captain Cook arrived. "By the time European man had arrived most of the Papuans had already been exterminated by the Australoid invader." (p. 3)

So if we accuse the whites of "invasion", why not extend the same term to the Aborigines who "invaded" and "terminated" the previous Papuan race? It is another example of the bigoted, one-sided, hypocritical use of political correctness to hide the truth.

Neither Blainey nor Windschuttle are revisionists in the sense promoted by Barnes or TBR but they all, in their way, seek the truth about Australian history instead of subscribing to the robotic thought control of the "politically correct". The scream of "racism" is by now a permanent fixture, but there are still historians in Australia capable of challenging it and seeing beyond it and still individual patriots who want to do the unfashionable thing and "bring history into line with the facts", as TBR intends.

The rise of the black armbanders and their cronies in Australia has been fought at various levels. A politician called Pauline Hanson fought, unsuccessfully in the end, to press for proper democratic representation of the electorate, instead of the current social engineering. Paul Sheehan’s Among the Barbarians (9) and a book by David Flint called "The Twilight of the elites. (10)

David Flint mentions the elitist manufacture of the "guilt industry" for the hoax that all whites today have a huge collective guilt for all the evils visited upon the Aborigines, leading to such aberrations as a "Sorry Day" for the oppression of the Aborigines. There was no "Sorry Day" for white settlers whose families were killed by Aborigines and no "Sorry day" for the massacre of the previous Papuan aborigines by the Pre-Dravidians.

The implications of this distortion of the race issue have great implications, not only for the study of history in Australia and elsewhere, but for promoting a distorted anti-white attitude which continues to discriminate against whites in today’s Australia.

Some important references:

1. Kevin MacDonald. The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement In 20th Century Intellectual and Political Movements. (published 1998 by Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, USA. Paperback edition. Since published in 2002 by 1st Books Library (Author House);

2. Patrick J. Buchanan. The Death of the West:How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization. New York, St Martins Press, 2002;

3. Robert Hughes. The Fatal Shore:Aborigines, Immigrants and Convict Society. London, William Collins, 1988;

4. D.R.Hainsworth. The Sydney Traders:Simeon Lord and his Contemporaries, 1788-1821. Melbourne University Press, 1981;

5. Brian Fitzpatrick. British Imperialism and Australia, 1783- 1833. London, Allen & Unwin, 1939;

6. Rodney Liddell. Cape York,The Savage Frontier. 1st ed. Published by author. Redbank, Queensland, 1996;

7. J.W. Bleakley. Aborigines of Australia;their history, their habits, their assimilation. Brisbane, Queensland, Jacaranda Press, 1961;

8. F.R. Gribble. A Despised Race:The Vanishing Aborigines of Australia. Sydney, Board of Missions, 1933;

9. Paul Sheehan. Among the Barbarians,the Dividing of Australia. Milsons Point, NSW, Random House, 1998;

10. David Flint. The Twilight of the Elites. North Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, Freedom Publishing, 2003;

11. John Bayley’s Daylight Corroboree; a first-hand account of the ‘Wanda Koolmatrie’ hoax. Adelaide,Eidolon Press,2004.


 For a world perspective on Geoff Muirden's expressed concerns for Western civilisation, of interest is C Wayne Macleod, Dynasophy. An Ideology for the future, Trafford, 2004, Victoria, BC, Canada.

The author views the general western cultural decline, which is a decline of European culture, from a  global perspective. He proposes that the European - white - has lost the energy to be assertive and creative and thus Western society is in retreat. All the large issues are raised that Raspail grapples with in his The Camp of the Saint, or are analyzed in depth by Oswald Spengler in Decline of the West.

Anyone wishing to know more about Macleod's approach, please contact the author directly at dynasophy@hotmail.com

Top of Page | Home Page

©-free 2005 Adelaide Institute