“Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Boat People are used as a way to release pressure from the real immigration debate”.

It seems that recently Australia has  rediscovered its obsession with asylum seekers.  News stories now abound of how more boats are on the way, of how asylum seekers (always by boat, not by plane) are given first class treatment, shacked up in luxury accommodation while “working families” struggle to pay the mortgage.  One only has to load up the website of Victoria’s most popular rag, the Herald Sun, and sure enough the issue is mentioned, as it is pretty much every day in the more neo-conservative publications.  “Now I’ll fix the boats: Gillard “1 says the headline.  Since when has Labor taken a strong stance against boat people?  Since it’s been a popular vote grab.  The “Tampa” election showed that its a hot button issue, even bigger than environmental degradation through salinity, emissions, the housing affordability crisis and unsustainable population growth.  

When Howard was elected in 1996 he cut the planned immigrant intake to 68,000, but by last financial year he’d more than doubled it. His planned intake for next financial year is almost 153,000 – plus 13,000 under the humanitarian program. To that you can add about 24,000 New Zealanders – who don’t need visas and will be arriving to join the 470,000 of their fellow country-persons who are here.  Last calendar year was the eighth straight year of net immigration (that is, net of permanent departures) in excess of 100,000.The media slyly links ,not explicitly, but implicitly, illegal refugees with a sense of being inundated with hordes of people.  From the opinion of many of the Australian public, that seems to be working.  Many Australians seem to believe that the country will be flooded by boat people alone, and make statements about how our infrastructure is already at capacity.  Nothing clears up the air like a bit of perspective, and nothing better brings about a sense of perspective than factual data.

In 2009, 5,000 asylum claims were lodged in Australia 2.  USA & Canada have over 80,000 claims and Europe close to 300,000.  That figure of 5,000 might seem high, but in reality, it is not.  Legal immigration exceeds this every fortnight.  This is half the number of assisted immigrants than arrived at the start of the 20th century, when Australia had a much smaller population.  According to Wikipedia, “Net overseas migration increased from 30,042 in 1992-93 to 177,600 in 2006-07. This is the highest level on record.”  In two decades, that’s a 500% increase, one largely brought about by the ‘conservative’ Howard government. Howard was an expert at making his Battlers believe he shares their dislike and distrust of foreign dominance, via sole opposition to boat people. Yet in the background on behalf of big business he ran the biggest immigration program Australia had ever seen including one where the proportion coming from non European sources is now greater than 50%.

Asylum claims therefore account for less than 3% of our immigration intake, a fairly unremarkable proportion.  Yet if you were to follow the popular press, this tiny percentage is going to inundate the country, that we don’t have room for that few percent, that if the government would just crack down and secure our borders against this few percent, we’d be a lot better.  It seems a silly position, one bereft of logic and proportion, but why are Australians so worked up about boat people?  Why did Tampa demand so much attention for the handful of people on it, when the population was increasing by thousands each week from planes flying overhead?  Why is it OK to suggest that refugees be blasted out of the water, with even the opposition minister Tony Abbott stating he’ll do “whatever it takes”.  “Whatever it takes” does not exclude some form of violent action. And why is there a strange paradox in the media, where it is permissible for paid commentators like Andrew Bolt to make all sorts of grandiose statements against them, when even suggesting that legal immigration be scaled back gets one branded a racist?

How is it that Nationalist Alternative is lambasted simply for advocating a political policy where the government would assist a greatly reduced level of international students and economic refugees (i.e. The huge ‘skilled intake’), a policy which hardly is inhumane, but the same media silently and selectively allows far more vigorous comments by neo-conservatives levelled against the small intake stream comprising boat people/asylum seekers/refugees.

You will note that none of these neo-conservative commentators speaks of removing Australia from the overarching United Nations dictates (1951 Refugee Convention) that impairs national sovereignty in the first place? They simply are not serious and only wish to defer public sentiment away from the real issues.

Surely comments about blasting women and children out of the water, who many consider could quite well be in ‘desperate need of refuge’ are indicate of a less ‘humane attitude’ by liberal standards, than comments about taking in less people to study and live here from overseas, people who are generally quite well off anyway (they have money) and are coming from countries which have a reasonable to high standard of living.

This state of affairs most likely exists because of one simple factor. Money.  Economic immigrants are skilled (at least some) and have money, or the capacity to earn money.  They will buy consumer goods.  They will put deposits on houses with over inflated prices to fund the baby boomer’s retirement and therefore keep that asset bubble inflated.  They provide labour to big business, and quite often, cheaper, that is, more ‘cost effective’ labour, as an increase in the supply of labour will drive down its cost, as there are more competitors in the race to the bottom.  Make no mistake about it, big business, the Real Estate industry and even smaller business love immigration.  The ‘ruling class’ in modern western society isn’t aristocrats, dictators, feudal lords, emperors, kings or seeming not even a democratically elected government.  It is big business, the corporations.  Anyone who’s been following the events regarding the Resource Super Profits Tax would only be too keenly aware of the clout that big business and corporations have in modern society.

The Institute for Public Affairs have states that Western Australia needs more people to prosper.  A sentiment echoed by the mining industry. They IPA states  ?We are now in the largest boom in the State’s history. The challenge for the State is to make the most of the boom and getting more people to the State is the key to doing so.?  What can be gleaned from this, isn’t that population levels are crippling the state, but there is the potential for greater growth and greater economic gain (presumably only for those who are already well off), but that there simply is the opportunity for greater profits, if there were more people.

The IPA is a centre right think tank which advocates free market politics, trade liberalisation, climate change scepticism and limited government.  The attitude isn’t one of bringing in more people to fill a need, but a lamentation that there are potential further profits which could be gained if it weren’t for Australia’s restrictive immigration policy.  It is an attitude which suggests a lack of any form of restraint.  The last sentence states ?While more people will bring challenges, such as ensuring that there is adequate land for housing, schools, hospital beds and roads, it is the key to our future prosperity.?.  All that is written about how hundreds of thousands of Australians are going to cope with real and pressing issues they face each day, is mentioned in a throw away line at the end.  It’s pretty obvious that many who are calling for an increase in the intake of people, consider the trouble it causes for many Australia a negligible externalities.  Other companies benefit from skilled immigration.  Wages can be depressed by increased competition for jobs and bottom lines can be increased through finding cheaper sources of labour, and by lowering working standards and conditions.

What does this have to do with refugees?  Probably due to the fact that asylum seekers generally don’t have skills and don’t have as much money by the time they arrive onto the taxpayer’s payroll after sometimes exhausting thousands of dollars on people smugglers. An Afghan refugee isn’t soon going to be in a position to put a deposit on a house, or apply for a position in the IT industry.  In other words, they are less useful to big business.  Another big business, the media, relies on selling a product just like any other business.  The product that news media sells is not just news stories and information, but a guiding hand, a sense of representation for the average person.

It is no secret that most Australians think immigration rates are too high.  Many are concerned about how sustainable intake levels of 200,000 per annum are, how we can do this while water is becoming more scarce, infrastructure such as transport and health are bursting at the seams and competition for housing is high, with astronomical prices denying hard working young Australians the opportunity to own even a modest home

to raise a small family in.  Sentiment against misguided government policy, largely fuelled by a religious belief in ?growth? and rapacious and insatiable business who seems to resent any restraint is high.  This spills out into resentment against the immigrants themselves, though for the rates and social issues that have arisen as a result, Australians with their generous natures have been very accommodating and tolerant.  The sentiment is still there, and the media knows this and knows that it is a marketable product.  This leaves the media with a paradox.  They cannot steer Australians towards wanting lower levels of legal immigration because the media is itself big business.  Rupert Murdoch is not likely to kill off the inflow of people which is the golden goose for other plutocrats.  The Australian and the Herald Sun are not going to turn against the Real Estate industry and the mining industry, who buy valuable advertising space and milk Australia’s frustration at the unsustainable and rapid growth and change occurring.  How to use this sentiment, while at the same time maintaining the status quo?  The answer is simple.  Redirect the sentiment, which appears at face value to be exactly what the popular mainstream media has been doing.  With Australians concerned about growth, about the future of the nation and bewildered at the government constantly increasing the rate of population growth when most people believe the opposite is necessary based on their personal experiences, they want a media outlet which shares their concern.

The mainstream media has been doing this, by directing the ire, the resentment and frustration towards the most helpless and economically least advantageous immigrants.  Asylum seekers, refugees and boat people.  It’s always boat people too, as it conjures up images of dishevelled, dodgy looking opportunists scrambling ashore.   Asylum seekers who arrive by plane don’t look like they are doing anything illegal or dodgy, nor is there a stand off in mid air, so they are rarely if ever mentioned.  The spectacle with them just isn’t there.  With the mainstream media turning a blind eye to anti-refugee sentiment and never bothering to call the so called ‘racist’ dog whistle, they kill two birds with one stone.

Firstly, the papers sell.  Hyperbolic headlines with barely a scratch of truth about how refugees are arriving in vast numbers of boats and given luxury accommodation fuel the sentiment, and direct attention.  The attention is taken away from the vast number of people who use student visas as a back door, away from the large number of ‘economic’ migrants, and towards a relatively small, insignificant numbers of refugees.  The claims about luxury treatment, about harbouring terroristsand disease only serve to inflame passions, sell papers and sway government policy.  The government then sees asylum seekers as THE pressing immigration issue, and will act on that, rather than on population growth in general.  The other outcome is that the discussion moves towards the few percent of arrivals only, and not the bigger picture in general. The flow of labour and capital which serves big industry is no longer considered as part of the equation, and therefore is no longer threatened by discussion about immigration.  The immigration debate then is purely about stopping boats.  It has been effectively neutered.  The papers sell.  The Australian population think their concerns about growth are being attended to.  Growth continues unabated.

Australians deserve honest debate on pressing issues such as the environment, population growth through government policy, industrial relations and social programs.  But this debate is degraded and dragged into the gutter as a small proportion of the population twist the debate, and mislead the population, leading them to incorrect  conclusions and given them skewed perspectives.  Young Australians who may have only had one opportunity to vote in a federal election, or no opportunity deserve a better quality of discussion from the general public and the media.  This can only be done holding an accurate perspective, being honest about what is happening and not being led by hysteria.

In short, Australia cannot have any meaningful public debate about how immigration policy will shape the future of our nation if there is stage managed ‘contained hysteria’ about boat people. The media, which usually is so quick to hyperbole about parties who call for lowered immigration, turns a blind eye to anti-refugee sentiment , while grilling those who suggest that local students should be considered over cashed up foreign students or that the ‘legal’ migrant intake is way too high.  This is an absurd situation and one that Australia currently finds itself in.

There are of course legitimate questions and issues concerning asylum seekers, issues about processing, about controlling borders and how to differentiate between legitimate refugees (on Australia’s definition not the UNs..) from opportunists, but the hysteria is out of proportion to the problem.  If it is held to be humane to give refuge to someone fleeing persecution and possible death then it is by no means inhumane not to offer someone who has an education and a job, the opportunity to study here as a hair stylist to gain permanent residency so as to bring the rest of the family, simply because there is more space here, or more money to be made.

Australians deserve a better quality of discourse on this issue, especially younger Australians who will MOST be affected by these policies.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/triguboff-lets-trade-trees-for-homes/2006/10/10/1160246131958.html

1 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/new-pm-julia-gillard-vows-to-address-issue-of-asylum-seekers/story-e6frf7jo-1225887320708

In this broadcast David Ellerton speaks about what has been happening in Britain, and how Britain, which has close cultural ties with Australia, serves as a warning to Australia as to where left wing politics will lead. David Ellerton will explain how New Marxism (Neo Communism) and political correctness has been destroying  British culture, way of life and society. Australia needs to heed this warning from Britain. Otherwise, Australia will have the same terrible things happen here. Stay tuned for more episodes of Nat-Alt Radio coming out soon!

To listen to the audio, click here.

Video: Part 1

Video: Part 2

In a new addition to Nationalist Alternative we will now have an audio-broadcast program called ‘Nat-Alt Radio’ here is Episode 1 by Victor Simpson which will introduce the fundamental aspects and beliefs behind Nationalist Alternative. This will become a regular feature with Nationalist Alternative with a variety of different speakers. Stay tuned for many more episodes of ‘Nat-Alt Radio’ in the future.

To download the audio file, click here

Parts one, two and three of Episode 1 of Nat-Alt Radio can also be viewed below:

By Aldred Wulfric

Our ‘governments’ have abdicated real sovereignty to universal global institutions and govern us in a top down manner presiding over alienated atomised citizens in a geographical zone rather then a harmonious people in a nation/tribe.

Liberal Democracy, with its accompanying economic system of unfettered free market fundamentalism is the form of government that has enabled the above outcome and has managed to convince millions that it is democratic and representative of the average citizen.

Liberal Democracy works on the basis of rights before politics and emphasises the importance of the individual. There is a presumption that these ’rights’ are universally accepted or justified in their application across all peoples. However, Liberal Democracy fails to recognise and account for irreconcilable differences, which will lead to significant social tension. For example, ‘the right to life’ and ‘the right to choose’ or the ‘right to privacy’ and the ‘right of freedom of speech’.

Liberal Democracy would have us believe that it is a given that a set of universal ‘rights’ exist and that in addition, its proponents have ‘discovered’ what they are. The ‘humanitarian left liberals’ along with the ‘neo-conservative right liberals’, filled with missionary zeal now seek to enforce their discovered ‘rights’ across the globe. In doing this they obliterate all cultural and ethnic differences in their wake. This underlies the attempt at installing a Universalist Bill of Rights in Australia by various totalitarian humanists. This begs the question, who gets to define what are rights, and what are not rights?

The following extracts illustrate, ‘rights’, which themselves are not objective facts (like the law of gravity), but subjective and derived from alternative sources depending on the people group, context and history.

Professor of Politics, Richard Bellamy is quoted in Roland Axtmann’s book ‘Liberal democracy into the twenty-first century: globalization, integration and the nation-state” as arguing

“that rights must be related to, and rely upon, particular conceptions of human community and human flourishing as they emerge from the self-understanding of particular political communities” (Bellamy 1993: 54;1994: 429).

John Gray similarly posits that rights are

“ shaped by our judgements of the vital interests, or conditions of well being, of the person under consideration”

[Gray, John (1993). pg101 Beyond the New Right. Markets, Government and the Common Environment, London, New York, Routledge]

Gray further undermines the concept of pre existing ‘rights’ when he comments

“in political and in moral philosophy, the good is always prior to the right: we make judgements about the rights people have, only on the basis of our judgements of the interests central to their wellbeing” (Gray 1993: 102)

Understanding how even ‘rights’ themselves arise from a subjective process dependent upon the tribe and their conception of ‘good’, we may ponder on what if anything modern liberalism presents to us. One fact that is grounded in thousands of years of recorded human nature are that the concepts of ‘particularity’ and ‘diversity’ [ nationalism ] characterise humans more than the modern manufactured concepts of ‘the universal’ and ‘sameness’.

No amount of liberalism’s most effective tool Political Correctness can eradicate this. Political correctness is a euphemism for intellectual censorship infesting children’s textbooks, university curriculum’s and corporations HR departments.

Given that rights arise from the ‘good’ and that the ‘good’ arises from ‘particular conceptions of human community’ and ‘judgements of the interests central to their wellbeing’ it stands to reason that a harmonious society , one with an accepted set of relevant ‘rights’ will be one where the inhabitants share a common (homogeneous) definition of ‘good’. The ‘good’ is defined by the values and beliefs (culture), of shared purpose, lifestyles and direction, of common grounding and heritage.

In differentiated plural ‘societies’ or more accurately the socially engineered attempts at today’s multi-cultural, multi-racial society, division is rife and judgements about liberty and appropriate ‘rights’ become controversial evaluations leaving all groups alienated and unsatisfied.

Liberal democracies are characterised by a society torn and divided amongst itself. Parliament is full of ‘political parties’ constantly buffeted and influenced by competing subsets of interests, of minority groups and lobbies that never pull together in one direction. Political parties or most modern liberal ones, never represent the people but simply their donors, lobby groups and corporate backers over a 4 year cycle.

Contrast this with a homogeneous nation peopled by those with similar and shared ancestry, culture, ethnicity and subsequently a common definition of the ‘good’.

Liberal Democracy is also characterised by the central prominence and promotion of the activities of private individuals who are focused on the pursuit of peculiar interests. Hence in Liberal Democracy the individual is expected more or less to rely on the state for his liberty. The liberal state has ‘discovered’ and instituted his ‘rights’ and citizenship is mainly a non participatory condition to be passively enjoyed.

Contrast this to non hyphenated ‘democracy’, or real democracy, in the tradition reaching back to Aristotle and Machiavelli where in order to enjoy liberties; individuals have the duty to participate in politics to jointly determine the character of their community. In this republican tradition political activity is seen as essential to achieving self fulfilment and liberty can only be achieved and fully assured via a self governing form of community where citizenship is a responsibility happily assumed by the individual.

Further distinctions are gained through the following quotes

“The first [ democracy] makes citizenship the core of our life, the second[ liberal democracy] makes it its outer frame. The first assumes a closely knit body of citizens, its members committed to one another; the second assumes a diverse and loosely connected body, its members (mostly) committed elsewhere” (Walzer 1989:216)

“In the liberal tradition, rights guarantee freedom from external constraints; in the republican tradition, citizenship rights allows its bearers actively to engage with others in the public realm, to participate as citizens among citizens in a common practice in order to form themselves into politically autonomous creators of a community of free and equal persons on the basis of mutual recognition” (Habermas 1992b: 325-9)

“a community of families and aggregations of families [ the nation ] in well being, for the sake of a perfect and self-sufficing life”

A clear distinction emerges that Liberal Democracy is undemocratic and should be stripped of the use of the word ‘democracy’. Terminal problems with Liberal Democracy include;

• Liberal Democracy has an unclear, ambivalent manufactured set of ‘rights’ that have no foundation in a communal and consensual concept of the ‘good or ‘interests central to the peoples well being’ and that this results in alienation, no direction and debasement of all its competing sub groups.

• That this arises is part due to its social engineering experiments like multiculturalism and multi-racialism that render consensus impossible. .

• That its parliaments are unrepresentative and strangled by political parties who are in turn chained to a miasma of conflicting agendas and large cash donors.

• That it impedes personal liberty and grass-roots consensus by encouraging the disengagement of individuals from the political process and promotes man and women as ‘private’ individuals (atoms) who are unrestrained in their pursuits of purely self based interests. (unrestrained of course within the bounds set by LibDems main tool – political correctness…)

• Liberal Democracy rests on a flawed thesis that a set of universal human rights can act as foundational principles for any and all social or political order. The fatal flaw is due to universal rights having been illustrated as only pre-supposing not pre-existing a given way of life and hence the existence since time immemorial of different ways of life or conceptions of ‘human community’ amongst the earth’s peoples will generate in turn ‘different’ sets of rights.

• The fallacy of universal rights and the identification of the concept being only pre-supposed rather than pre-existing is best highlighted by the definition of ‘pre-supposition’ – An assumption, conjecture, speculation or something supposed without proof

Nationalism in contrast, is democratic and a natural condition of humankind.

• Has contained in its definition of politics the explicit recognition of a public dimension, the idea that the individual exists on a level beyond mere private concern and personal rights but also communal or group duties.

• Builds engagement by welcoming and indeed expecting citizenship to include participation in society beyond private pursuits.

• Empowers the individual by their active involvement in governance.

• Upholds the right for all peoples in the world to unite in their various homogeneities to self govern and institute rights that are not invented or transferred but find foundation in a common heritage, culture, lifestyle, spirituality and ethnicity. What Aristotle called the common interest or ‘good’ and this good in politics is justice.

• Society is far less divisive, combative and alienating and allows for the full expression of one national form/culture/spirit moving in unity.

• Government that emerges is therefore representative to a much higher degree as it is based on mutual recognition in regard to the common good of the nation it is selected from.

• A globe full of these national forms (nations) each dominant only within its own land and society whilst respecting its neighbours complete independence, truly ensures a deep diversity worldwide compared to a globe where every continent has enforced multiculturalism/racialism and over time one cosmopolitan city ‘with great shopping districts and a China town’ is much like the next regardless of which continent it is on.

Stop the Filter Rally!

today, Saturday 6th of March, 12pm in Perth, Melbourne and Brisbane.

Nationalist Alternative reviews the Australian Government’s Internet Censorship Proposal.

By Stephen Wilson

After a one year internet “filter” trial, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced on December 15, 2009, that

Australian ISP providers must block content which has been refused classification overseas. Legislation will be  introduced into Parliament in 2010 and once passed, the internet “filter” will take 12 months to implement. An  “independent body” will determine a list of Refused Classification (RC) blacklisted sites for Australian internet users.  Senator Conroy has made assurances that the filtering will be transparent, including notifying websites that they have been blocked, as well as measures to appeal blocked websites.

However one of the fundamental tenets of our society and the pillar and supposed cornerstone of Liberal Democracy, is  that of the free and robust exchange of ideas. A “marketplace of ideas” in which debate, free speech and criticism are welcome and tolerated. In fact, in a healthy “marketplace of ideas”, dissent is welcomed and those of different political/religious persuasions are permitted to engage in vigorous discourse.

Now imagine the Orwellian nightmare straight from the mind of the 1984 author George Orwell. Speech is suppressed, dissent is stifled and creativity and individualism are crushed.

In March 2002, Electronic Frontiers Australia undertook extensive research into the status of laws and  Government policy outside Australia. They were unable to find any indication that any other country broadly comparable  to Australia (in terms of democratic political systems and cultures) has introduced, or intends to introduce internet  censorship laws, particularly laws as restrictive as the existing Commonwealth legislation and proposed laws.

The internet has since its inception been utilised by persons of all persuasions for all manner of purposes. From on-line shopping, email, to communication and networking of like minded individuals. t has until recently been mostly self regulating and has on the whole, been of tremendous benefit to commerce, private and public companies and individuals. However the  Australian Governments recent attempts to impose mandatory internet filtering for “objectionable content” severely undermine one of the most fundamental rights of Man. To seek out information that may be unpopular, critical of  institutions or considered challenging. This in and of itself would be an unjust and reprehensible intrusion into a citizens  right to communicate with others and inform and entertain themselves. However given the fact that the Government is  maintaining a database that is inaccessible to outside scrutiny, is not able to be viewed by citizens and is COMPLETELY  SECRET!! The fact that this database is being maintained by the very same Government that refuses to cooperate with  freedom of information requests, harangues civil servants who leak information embarrassing to the Government and  shields itself deep within the cloak of bureaucratic invisibility, should only serve to arouse the deepest suspicions of all  freedom loving people wherever they may reside.

Indeed one would have thought that in conjunction with industry experts, interested parties and ISP’s that a series of concrete criteria and benchmarks would have been established to measure the efficacy of the blocking of “objectionable” material. On the contrary, the Department of Broadband,Communication and the Digital Economy (the department responsible for the administering of the trials) has actually stated that NO criteria were established in order to measure the effectiveness of the censorship trials. The whole process is  being shrouded in great secrecy with no-one permitted to question the motives of the Australian Government no matter how benign they may seem. The pretext that has been given for the internet censorship trials has (ostensibly) been  preventing persons from accessing “illegal” and “refused classification” material (see child pornography).

This argument is  fundamentally flawed on several different levels.

Firstly Child Pornography as reprehensible, disgusting, exploitative and incorrigible, will never be stamped out by the censorship of the internet. The reasons are complex and mostly outside the scope of this article. I n a nutshell however, the VAST majority of internet child pornography is through peer to peer networks. These are basically private file sharing networks that allow users to share content (music, files and more). However these networks are akin to an exclusive club, if you aren’t a member, you can’t gain access. These evil networks are a closed haven for like minded individuals and are generally speaking quite distrusting by nature. If you don’t know where to look, and you’re not a member, the files (pictures of children) are inaccessible. It’s an underground network beneath the internet. Secondly, most aspiring paedophiles are hardly stupid enough to type “Kiddy porn” into a search engine.

So if internet censorship will not have an impact on the very thing it has supposedly been created to  prevent, why on earth would the Australian Government insist upon this course of action? Why is the “blacklist” of  “illegal” sites kept secret? What is on this list and do you trust the Government to determine what YOU as a law abiding Citizen may view? I would suggest that the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. If we look back some 6  months ago, a minor furore erupted when a copy of the blacklist was released on Wikileaks and other areas of the internet (Ironically the internet censorship blacklist was leaked on-the internet). The list of sites that were banned were rather innocuous. A Brisbane dentist was on the list as well as several Adult bookstores, a mechanics webpage and  several fetish sites which are 100% LEGAL to view as an Australian Citizen of the age of maturity. More disturbing is the  fact that because you cannot access the list, you have no way of knowing what is and what isn’t on it.

Given the fact that  only EIGHT small ISP’s and Optus (on a limited basis) agreed to participate in the trials, there can be no statistically  significant data to be gleaned from this totalitarian exercise of thought control and oppression. Not surprising iiNet  (Australia’s third largest ISP) withdrew from the Governments internet censorship trials in early 2009, saying it could not  “reconcile participation in the trial with our corporate social responsibility”. Indeed all available data indicates that the  only effect that censorship will have on the internet is to turn it into an unwieldy (and slow) creature. Speeds will plummet, commerce and trade will suffer and costs will soar in order to pay for the ineffective filtering. Perhaps a more insidious force is at work, one that is attempting to stifle and suppress free speech, dissent and protest. When the Government is able to determine what sites you are able to visit, what you are able to post online and with whom you  associate in the digital realm, this really should ring alarm bells. Are you an anti war protester attempting to find a forum  with like minded individuals? A political activist trying to organise a meeting or simply a father sending an email to a child living overseas? How will you ever know you are restricted from accessing sites if they are simply omitted from your  search results. When “page not found” is displayed on your monitor, has the site been removed or blocked due to Government interference?

The fact that the results of the trial have been delayed and pushed back after repeated calls for  Senator Stephen Conroy to release the censorship trial data seem to be indicative of the difficulties the trial has  encountered. If things have been going swimmingly, why aren’t the results being vaunted and championed to the public  after spending 5 million dollars of taxpayers money?

Nationalist Alternative sincerely hope that the internet censorship plan dies a quiet death and slinks off into the night. A remnant of an era that should have died with the demise of the Soviet  Union and the KGB. If this plan is implemented the impact on the free exchange of ideas, political view and discourse of  all kinds will be severely impeded and crushed. I do not welcome the thought of an Australia where I fear a knock on the  door in the dead of night from the Peoples Secret Police for a blog entry or website search that aroused the suspicions of  those in power.

By Gavin James

“Religion is the opiate of the masses” is probably one of Karl Marx’s most oft-quoted and misunderstood quotes.  In its correct context we see a recognition of the need for people to turn to religion to ease their soul and to create comfort where none can be found.  It is the way in which people find order in a chaotic world and console themselves in a belief that existence itself has considered them and catered for them.  It is the cocoon against a nihilistic universe and a faith in an external awareness outside of humanity.  It is a belief system which utilises people’s strongest emotional faculties and as such, has been the most effective means of binding people to those that would exploit this for their own gains and power.

Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. – Karl Marx

In the western world, at the beginning of the 21^st century we can look back and see the decline of theocratic control in western societies.  Societies which have slowly and painfully, and not without much martyrdom, discarded the imposed crutches of faith based belief systems.  The western world has decided to stand up on its own two feet and confront the vast emptiness and meaningless of existence and understand it for what it is, for how it is, not as we wish it to be.  However, with the decline in the power of the church, we have not necessarily seen the end of religion.  New religions have emerged to fill the void.  New-Ageism, various conspiratorial cults and sects, other Eastern religions and mysticism and perhaps the most prominent of all, Political Correctness.  Political Correctness is a moral system which is used to shape language, thought, policies and social standards so as to minimise offence to selected minorities and support liberal/left wing ideals.  Political Correctness has not emerged as the result of scientific study, nor is it based on hypothesis proved correct by rigorous testing, but rather a system formulated to fulfil a political need.  It is a system of belief, based on faith.  In many respects there are parallels with Political Correctness and religion.  It behaves in many ways like a religion, fulfilling needs that religion feels and requiring the same mode of acceptance that religion requires.  To say that Political Correctness is like a religion would be incorrect. Political Correctness IS a religion.  It is quite simply a modern “secular” religion without a supernatural deity.  It is the modern, decentralised Church.  It is the religion which anyone can become a reverend or clergyman and therefore gain power over people.  It is the school of thought which one can demand that people accept without providing evidence.  It is the modern ideology which one can excommunicate people from not only the religion, but society for not making the same baseless assumptions.

To adopt the moral system which Political Correctness prescribes is to make moral decisions based on articles of faith, not fact.  It is to accept the morality of the “high priests” of Political Correctness as gospel without question, or criticism.  Political Correctness has its own doctrine, its own high priests, its own original sin, inquisitors and heretics.  It’s faith based because it works on underlying assumptions which are made without any evidence to back them up.  It defines what ideals are progressive and which are regressive and just assumes this to be true, relying on adherents having faith that this being so.  It is yet another attempt to find order where none exists and create a safe cocoon where humanity has a definite destiny, where nature is accommodating and respectful rather than indifferent.  Political Correctness, like many other religions, prescribes a world view where the universe and life on Earth itself, including the Human species, was tailored to accommodate wishful thinking.  It gives one the impression that humanity would be in its naturally designed state of harmony and peace, if one would only follow its doctrines.

Original Sin

Genesis begins with Adam and Eve, God’s two creations in the garden of Eden.  The serpent persuaded Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The serpent did this with little difficulty, and so according to the scriptures, man fell due to disobedience to God.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come. - Romans 5:12-19

The sin committed by Adam condemned future generations for all eternity to death, despite their behaviour, despite any effort they may make to remain sinless.  There are no propitiations one can make to break the chain, to remove the stain of original sin.  Guilt is automatic and inherited at conception, almost as if there was a gene for Original Sin.  Humans are destined to go to hell and only certain actions can save one from this fiery demise.  It is not enough to remain sinless.  It is not enough to be just, compassionate and generous.  It is not enough to have a golden heart.  Only that which is prescribed by the religious doctrine can provide salvation.

The concept here is a powerful one. Firstly, widespread propagation and inculcation of these religious beliefs onto people creates masses of people who have accepted, or been forced to accept a belief that they are going to face an unimaginable outcome upon death.  There will be masses of people will wish to avoid this fate.  Secondly, you and only you can offer the way out.

A person cannot extricate from this situation, as they are stained from birth. They have no choice in the matter, no means by which to avoid carrying original sin.   This is the moral equivalent of creating indentured servants who inherit a moral debt from birth.  A debt of infinite quantity which can never be paid off.  The church acts as the intermediary between the debtor and creditor and thus enjoys the position of power.  While the Christian doctrine of Original Sin refers to man sinning against God and not to other men, many have taken upon themselves to act as debt collectors on behalf of God.  The moral debt at birth enslaves individuals to another who can utilise this belief system for their own benefit.

The benefit of spreading such a belief is too obvious to require restating.  Financial debts can be paid off, freeing the debtor from the creditor when the debt is settled.  Their descendants are also free from this debt as it no longer exists.  Original Sin provides no such escape.  There is no way to escape the creditor, as the debt created from Adam’s sin cannot be repaid.  The terms of repayment are permanent and will be inherited by every generation.  Generation after generation therefore believes they are born with this sin, an article of faith.  The theocracy can then claim to offer the only means of salvation.  The question of whether it is moral for someone to inherit the ’sin’ of their ancestors cannot be questioned, as that would be heresy.

White Guilt

The term “Original Sin” refers to the very first transgression of humans against God’s will. While the term refers quite specifically to the first sin, and to a tendency for man to commit sin due to the fall, the power in this concept lies in its perpetual nature. Original Sin is a stain in the bloodline. Original Sin doesn’t have to actually exist to hold power over people, nor does it need to be pre-dated by a period of absolute innocence. The very fact that one believes the stain of sin from the ancestors in sufficient.

White guilt quite simply is the guilt felt by Westerners of Anglo Saxon and European heritage of mistreatment of other ethnic groups by Whites (though rarely mistreatment of one White ethnic group of another White ethnic group).   People either feel this guilt voluntarily, from learning about past events they believe are unjust and feeling a sense of compassion and empathy towards the victims, or have White guilt thrust upon them, by being indoctrinated into accepting that ‘Whites’ (generally) have oppressed non-whites or other minorities.  For the former example, those who come to this conclusion of their own volition, many seek atonement and desire for White people, as a whole, to make any reconciliatory measures necessary.  Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that like all the Christians who took on the guilt of Adam and Eve for their transgression against God, no one who feels White guilt actually personally committed any transgression.  Exceptions are rare.  The relationship between ‘White guilt’ and Political Correctness is strikingly similar to the relationship between ‘Original Sin’ and the theocracies of old.  Political Correctness has exploited this for similar nefarious purposes.  It promotes this idea as a means of creating further indentured servants. White people who have adopted the “debt” of their ancestors sins, are willing to make any repayments necessary to those who were wronged with the Politically Correct “priests” as the debt collectors.  The debt is repaid through servitude, and adopting the morality that Liberalism requires you to adopt.

For an ideology which exposes the idea of treating people according to their individual deeds and character, rather than the race they were born into, ‘White guilt’ is a striking exception to this rule that provides the religion of Political Correctness much power.  Like Original Sin, where one cannot choose not to be human born into a fallen state, one cannot choose not to be born of a particular ethnicity.  For the average White Australian, who had no choice as to what ethnicity they were born, they are automatically burdened with the “dreadful” sin of colonisation and apparent subjugation of the Aboriginal people.  Despite the fact that they have committed no crime themselves, they become indentured servants to Political Correctness. This involves a leap of fair. However, one  must first accept the moral position that one can even be responsible for wrongs committed in the past.  To question this, just like questioning the doctrine of original sin, is heresy.  What’s more, Political Correctness doesn’t focus on the individual acting benevolently and compassionately towards Aboriginal people, but rather demands that the individual follow Political Correctness and accept wholeheartedly and blindly any Politically Correct doctrine. The Politically Correct theocracy, the intellectuals, politicians and other self styled leaders who claim to represent this religion of justice, tolerance and harmony demand first and foremost, obedience to their own doctrine and their own edicts.

People who resist the call to feel guilty and subjugate themselves to the wishes of Liberalism and left wing Political Correctness incorrectly focus on the nature of the so-called crimes.  Much effort is made to try and diminish the severity of the nature of the historical events in question, or to justify it.  Some may even argue that Aboriginals are better off post colonisation or that Africans who were brought as slaves into the New World are also better off, live better lives now than they would have, had their ancestors not have been brought over.  Others try to play down the Jewish Holocaust, revise other events or generally defuse left wing or anti-Nationalist accusations by trying to prove them untrue, or at the very least, exaggerated.  These attempts are nothing more than attempts to destroy the “Original Sin” of white guilt by challenging the sin itself. The so – called ‘racist crimes’ which supposedly only White people should be guilty of, have in reality been committed all over the world by all manner of races and creeds throughout all history. One can argue as to whether certain events were wrong or not, and perhaps in some cases doubt can really be cast on whether a true crime against others had taken place, but again, this is beside the point.  Such atrocities are a hallmark of human behaviour rather than one particular  group, but this point is irrelevant anyway.  What many fail to realise, is that it is not the crimes (committed universally) which matter, but whether it is moral to suggest that someone who never engaged in such activity, should carry any guilt in the first place.  What the opponents of Political Correctness fail to realise, is that we are not dealing with a moral system objectively derived from evidence and historical precendent, but a moral system based on faith.  One must accept without reason that one can be guilty of “the crimes of the father” in the first place.  While the basis for Original Sin can be found in the New Testament, the Old Testament says something to the contrary.

“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.—Ezekiel. 18:19-20

This statement is the more moral one and lies closer to the heart of Western ideals. There is no basis in which to make descendants guilty of the crimes of their ancestors, or supposed crimes.  The arguments over the nature of what occurred and who transgressed who, and by what quantity is irrelevant. Consider the events which led to the so-called Aboriginal ’stolen generation just or unjust, necessary or unnecessary, but whatever the conclusion the burden or lack thereof of moral indebtedness does not lie with those whose only connection with the people involved is bloodline. The real issue is whether it is moral to even suggest that one should feel guilty simple because they are Westerners, or White or Anglo-Saxon.  To accept that people, simply because of their ethnicity, inherit non-hereditary and non-transferable aspects of previous generations, is in a way racist in itself!  The call for Westerners to obey and subscribe to certain ideologies because of the ‘guilt’ or moral indebtedness they carry, is simply a call for faithful obedience.  It simply empowers certain people by stupefying others.  Ironically, it is obedience to a religion which seeks to destroy the very people who become its adherents.  Quite simply, Political Correctness is a religion which demands that people, because of the identity they inherited, destroy their own identity.

The way to break these shackles is to simply recognise the Politically Correct racket for what it really is; a racket.  A means of creating ‘moral debt’ by immorally demanding and tricking people into believing they share some guilt.  It is tried and true huckster-ism, and because there is no ‘God’ figure, it is not recognised as a crooked religion which was designed to give the few power over the many.

Controversy regarding Muslim dress standards has again arisen in Europe.  With Europe’s significant and growing Muslim population, we could probably expect this issue to become more and more prevalent. 

 In a similar vein to the proposal to ban head-scarves in France, Gianluca Buonanno, the mayor of Varallo Sesia has banned the burkini, a ‘cover-all’ swimsuit which allows strict Muslims to bathe while keeping the rather strict standards of modesty, that their interpretation of this religion requires.

http://www.news.com.au/travel/story/0,28318,25955595-5014090,00.html

As predictable as always, such an issue has caught the attention of both the Politically Correct liberal left, ever keen to display their tolerance to the world, and others who see this as minorities encroaching on their freedoms.  Gianluca Buonanno states

“We don’t have to be tolerant all the time, imagine a Western woman bathing in a bikini in a Muslim country. The consequences could be decapitation, prison or deportation. We are merely prohibiting the use of the burkini.”

For many commenters on the news.com.au site, their comments reflect this sentiment.  A double standard? Are we in the West overly tolerant?  The PC brigade has little to say on the issue.  They largely state that a woman should be free to wear what they like.  They are actually right, in a superficial sense.  In the Western world, we have come a long way since ‘cover-all’ swimwear was required, though strict remnants remain, such as the Amish; a historical curiosity to the Western world, rather than an emerging phenomenon. 

Theocracy is not part of the governmental process, with the modern Western world slowly following the example of the USA, a new nation created specifically keeping the oppressive Christian churches separate from the state and keeping their power under control and one that does not define the nation.

Now women are free to choose their clothing, as to what suits them best, and what is most comfortable.  Perhaps the women walking around Friday nights in stilettos and short skirts during blustery winter weather have not made the most intelligent choice, but the choice nevertheless is there.  Much in the same way political activists may want to freely adopt the ‘black block’ look because they desire to remain anonymous.  There is no religious or cultural requirement to cover up excessively, to wear clothing which has no room to breath or ventilation in hot days or to hides one visage.  One is free to choose appropriate attire in public, free from having to bend to irrational superstitions, religion and the wishes of theocrats.  Granted one cannot choose to wear nothing, or clothing functionally close to nothing, nevertheless, the freedom is there. 

The superficial similarities of the burkini to those worn by divers and the Australian Olympic swimming team are also pointed out, often as a rather desperate means of normalising the burkini and make one believe that it is really no different.  However one would then have to ignore the vast difference in being able to choose cover-all swimwear for practicality, and one being used because no other is permitted.  The issue is further complicated by Muslims who do not believe the religion forces such clothing requirements and that a ban on the burkini is a direct attack on Islam in general.

The dress requirements are debatable as the Koran does not specifically prescribe any particular garments, though does command:

“They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary.” (verse 31 of sura 24). 

It’s interpretation is open to abuse, something common to all religions.  The interpretation however reflects the morality of the people, perhaps even more than morality is a reflection of the teachings of the Koran, with people taking from holy texts that which supports their moral world-view, and ignoring that which doesn’t.  A corollary can be seen with various Christian denominations, with various denominations using a pre-existing moral compass to determine which scriptures to accept, which to reject, and how to interpret that which is open to subjective interpretation.  The stricter Islamic denominations would be influenced more by an existing cultural view, than the Koran itself.  As with all three of the Abrahamic monotheistic faiths, the religious teachings and cultural adaptation of them are intertwined and inseperable.

Our western values respects individual choice on what clothes they wear, a choice which is made by and large, free from theocracy, from cultural coercion and from potential retribution.  This is in stark contrast to some of the more extreme Muslim nations, where such expressions of freedom would involve corporal punishment, or even worse.

However, the multiculturalists preaching tolerance are missing one vital point.  Do many of the women who wear the burkini, or the burqa really HAVE A CHOICE??  While they might mention correctly, that women are free to choose appropriate clothing, the statement completely overlooks the important point, that these women aren’t necessarily free to exercise such choice!  There are some Muslim women, who through respect for their religion, culture and relatives, might choose to wear such clothing, such as the hijab though they could prefer not to.  But this wouldn’t represent all Muslim women.  It certainly wouldn’t be representative of women living under strict Muslim theocracies, who must wear body covering clothing revealing only the eyes, under threat of corporal punishment for disobeying this edict.  Does a woman who walks the streets of Melbourne or Sydney in a ‘black ninja outfit’ also have this choice?  Is she free to wake up on a warm balmy morning and think “Sod it, it’s a warm day today,  I think I will wear shorts and a T-Shirt”.  Is she free to decide to walk around in public, and allow people to see her face, to see her facial expressions, her distress, joy or troubles?  Is she really free to make a decision to enjoy the cool breezes at the end of a warm day, and make true face to face contact with people outside of her house?  Not only this, the clothing must impede movement and make certain physical activities more troublesome.  There is much debate amongst Muslims as to whether such clothing is necessary, with a large number believing it unnecessary.

Our laws don’t prohibit this, but are we really supposed to believe that her husband or father or other male relatives would be perfectly OK with this?  Are we supposed to believe that religious upbringing and inculcation of beliefs doesn’t result in coercion?  Instead, it’s made out as if this is purely free choice, made without coercion, without indoctrination, made rationally and for the benefit of the individual making the decision.  We are led to believe that we are oppressive, in taking freedom away by banning clothing which has become symbolic of oppression of women.  Some liberals will even try to argue there are no “Australian” or “Western” values.  A position of such stupendous ignorance, that it is almost impossible to conceive how one could entertain such beliefs without being completely oblivious of British and European history.

For those who seek to fight any perceived ‘racism’ to fuel their own moral righteousness, in order to promote their belaboured viewpoint, twist this issue into one of a woman’s ‘right’ to wear the burkini, thereby distorting the issue at hand, from one of allowing foreign and oppressive cultures in which to practice ideals contrary to western ideals within our nation. They, by sleight of hand, turn it into the WEST imposing dress standards on others.  This trickery makes those who oppose misogynistic practices appear to be the ‘bigots’!  The real issue is far from this.  However many have not recognised this, and even Mr Buonanno uses the simplistic double standard argument, though perhaps he framed his argument in a manner which might be more acceptable to liberalism.

The Politically Correct Heirarchy

The fact that the Burqa which is a visible representation of Islamic control of women is neglected, is quite telling.  In the religious doctrine of leftist Political Correctness, there is a distinct hierarchy.  As they often have values which contradict each other, there is need of a hierarchy where some leftist causes take precedence over others.  This way when two leftist causes contradict, they just support the one higher up on the hierarchy.  For instance, the “ethnic discrimination” cause trumps both “sexism” and “environmentalism”.  So where a conflict of interest arises, such as the environmental damage done to Australia due to rapid population growth, the “left wing” simply consult their hierarchy and determine that their environmental causes must be ignored if the solution involves something they would jump on as ‘racist’, (such as a sensible immigration policy).  In this simplistic view ‘ethnicity’ and ‘religion’ are one and the same.

In this instance, ‘religious tolerance’ overrides ‘feminism’, as it’s higher on the hierarchy, therefore ‘tolerating’ the importation of misogynistic practices trumps women’s rights.  The rights of the women to enjoy the freedom that Western culture brings and liberation from irrational beliefs and theocracy don’t rate highly enough.  The ‘tolerance’ card trumps them, so quite ironically, we are asked to tolerate and condone behaviour which is contrary to our values.  Worse still, we are supposed to accept this as part of our culture and nation.  Should Australia decide to implement anti-blasphemy laws such as those the UN is proposing, it would make it law to tolerate practices.[1] This non-binding resolution titled “Combating the Defamation of Religion” was designed to address speech which criticises religion.  However religious groups wish to make this a binding resolution.  It seeks to combat defamation of religion and incitement to hatred, however defamation laws are often misused and can be used as a form of protection.  It further undermines free speech by making legitimate concerns and observations punishable.

Tolerance isn’t always a virtue.

Appeasing to Political Correctness breeds failure

Mr Buonanno’s comments didn’t address these issues, but rather seemed more like a low rent justification appearing to make a point against the Burkini, and therefore Islam, without addressing the real issue head on.  Mr Buonanno says

“The sight of a ‘masked woman’ could disturb small children, not to mention problems of hygiene”.

Perhaps this is true, but it doesn’t address the inevitable cultural regression that would occur in ‘tolerating’ cultural practices which contradict ours.  The fact children could be scared sounds like some kind of weak mask for a different underlying motivation.  It would be more honest to simply state there is a conflict between Islamic and Western values, and that being a European nation, by default the Western values should triumph.  Perhaps to take such a position is to be too politically incorrect, as it would be too exclusive, too Eurocentric.  But this watered down position is logically untenable.  Perhaps this is what Mr Buonanno really believes, but it is clear that attempts to avoid being politically incorrect can make ones position logically weak, by not stating the real, underlying issues.

The Nationalist Alternative Position

 It is not necessarily minorities who ‘impose’ their beliefs on we westerners which causes this division, but the tolerance of many of the vocal liberal minority who allow this assault on our culture and silence those who object.  While many, including the media, will frame the argument as one of whether a women should be ‘allowed’ to wear these clothes, this is completely beside the point.  The danger here comes from endorsing the establishment and propagation of cultural and religious practices which are clearly contrary to those which make Australia, the rest of the Anglo-sphere and Europe enviable societies.  Countries which ironically, many followers of Islam want to move to!

Women are not necessarily free to wear the Burqa/Burkini or not, they have little choice and it’s a requirement based on ungrounded centuries old beliefs.  It certainty wouldn’t be true that every case of a women wearing a Burqa in a western nation is purely of free will with no coercion or indoctrination involved.  To frame the argument as one of ‘choice’ is dishonest and misleading.  The real issue is not the dress, but the acceptance of a greater diversity of unenlightened religious practices into our society.  To accept this as part of our nation is to accept this as part of a modern western country, something that Australians, as well as the rest of Europe and European built nations must consider carefully.  Such double standards, where one culture within our nation is somehow exempt from the cultural norms of the rest of the nation can only lead to division and conflict and a degradation of our cultural conventions.

There is also the double standard of people being allowed to wear in certain places concealing clothing because of their religion, which other people from a different religion or ethnic group, would not be allowed to wear in such places.  It also completely goes against one of the main tenets of western thought and western society, the idea that one law, and one law only, applies to all citizens.

[1] http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=9b8e3a6d-795d-440f-a5de-6ff6e78c78d5

by Carla O’Hara

The traditional family unit, now considered clichéd is 2.1 children, a house (with over-inflated mortgage), quarter acre block, a dog, a cat, and everything else that encompassed ‘keeping up with the Jones’s’. This passé stereotype has forced the celebrity class to distinguish themselves and their wealth from the rest of us. Celebrities indulge in drug abuse, sexual debauchery, cosmetic surgery and lavish, outlandish lifestyles, which, for the most part, is unusual and abnormal. In recent times, the celebrity class has gone one step further and sought another way to distinguish themselves; in addition to having biological children, they adopt children from the third world.

Celebrities guilty of this vice include Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Meg Ryan, Joely Fisher, Ewan McGregor and James Caviezel. Superficially, they are adopting for reasons of philanthropy and altruism; in reality it is a way to justify child poaching. As a way of distinguishing themselves for the rest of society, they have themselves a new kind of pet – the third world child.

Perhaps I am being unfair to compare adopting of a third world child to the buying of a pet. However, the question should be asked, how could a person of high moral character go to an orphanage of a poor country, ask the children to be paraded and then “pick” the lucky one? The concept is reminiscent of a pet store, with puppies and kittens in the window. It has a lot to do with the Politically Correct idea that ’sacrificing’ your own children to help more disadvantaged children is considered a virtue. Celebrities are financially far more capable of doing this (as adoption is costly). By adopting third world children, they can get positive PR by being at the cutting edge and by being seen to be leading a ‘progressive’ new phenomenon.

These celebrities adopt from the third world, not to help the third world, nor to help children. Otherwise, why then do they not adopt or even consider fostering children of their home country?

Once adopted, these “child-pets” have their own nanny to take care of them in their day to day activities. Every now and then, the celebrity pulls out their “child-pet” to perform for media cameras. As Sarah Silverman (the notoriously politically incorrect Jewish comedian) once said;

“I think if you adopt, you really have to go brown with it because otherwise you don’t get the credit.”

Perhaps it is more accurate to compare these third world adoptees not as pets, but to slaves brought to the West by the African slave trade. During the 16th century, buying people from overseas was effectively as simple as it is today. Only this time, we allow our purchases to sit at the table and eat a meal with us and our biological children.There also seems to be little discussion of how those in the third world consider the adoption of their children and use of them as tokens by celebrities. Liberals would be distraught to hear the following comments by Somalian blogger Bashir Goth in a 2006 post regarding his failed adoption as a child by an American nurse.

“I cannot but admire my father’s wisdom in following his parental inclination of no other love or material comfort ever equalling that of a father looking at his own child growing before his eyes and passing down to him his people’s culture and history. I wonder if my culture and my village would have a home in my heart if I were raised abroad.”

He confirms the importance of parents bringing up their own children within the context of their people and associated culture and history.

Voltaire said “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere“, it is doubtful that the adoptees themselves realise that they are in shackles. Are they free to return to their home? Are they free to live with their own people, with their own culture? What will be the effect on the psyche of the child when they find out they were taken half way around the world from their true identity so their adopted parents could appear more PC and trendy? Alienated and used, like a commodity along with the perfumes and clothing that grace the magazines their celebrity parents appear on the front covers of.

“I love it. It makes me feel like a woman. It makes me feel that all the things about my body are suddenly there for a reason.”

And compare such words with those of Sarah Silverman’s about only getting credit if they are brown.

Angelina Jolie is renowned for the diversity of her adopted brood. She says that each child is taught their biological language. Angelina’s adoptees, who learn their biological language amongst a foreign land and culture, cannot be compared to children able to live amongst their own people and culture.

For Jolie to suggest that money can provide the adoptee with a better economic future, without realising it, she has actually placed a value judgement on the culture and people of her third world adoptee. Such behaviour pushes Western and Imperialist ideals onto non Westerners, whilst simultaneously suggesting that other non Western value systems are not valid or worthy. It is supremacist in its very nature, as it parallels historic assimilation of the heathen peoples of Africa, and a return to the psyche of White man’s burden.

The white man’s burden is responsible for the alleged kidnapping of over 100,000 Aboriginal children from their parents who were then subsequently placed in religious institutions. La Trobe University’s  prominent Jewish Professor Robert Manne declares:

“It was not from harm that the mixed-descent children were rescued, but from their Aboriginality”.

Professor Manne is more apt in his description than he realises. Whether or not the Aboriginal Stolen generation suffered harm at the hands of their own people is largely irrelevant, what is poignant are the long term psychological impacts to those children raised by White Australians. In our efforts to help, to educate, and provide a better future for Aboriginal children, we are now suffering the burden of an invasive protective policy.

In February of 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the Australian Aborigines

“especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.”

Yet, in November of 2008 it was revealed that one in six Aboriginal children in NSW was in the care of the State, a total of 4000 Aboriginal children, compared to 1000 in 1969.

The true cost of assimilation of third world adoption and the removal of Aboriginal children from care has and continues to be the White man’s burden, in essence, an absence of nobility for all involved. If we really care for ourselves and for the third world and the indigenous populations, we should simply for good and for bad, let them be.