Discuss Australian politics and other general stuff
HomeHome  RegisterRegister  Log inLog in  



Go down 

Posts : 864
Join date : 2018-07-15


The great majority of Western populations have been allowed remarkably little input into the policies of multiculturalism, policies that will affect their lives and their futures. 
Nothing has contributed more to the breakdown of social cohesion in Western societies than multiculturalism. Yet anyone with the courage to challenge the appropriateness of this misbegotten social engineering experiment has been condemned, censured and sneered at.
The British Labour government deliberately flooded Britain with millions of immigrants.
In the ultimate indictment of the supreme arrogance of the British ruling class, The Telegraph sensationally reported in 2009 that the ruling Labour Party had purposefully flooded Britain with several million immigrants, without consulting its citizens, in order to socially engineer a “truly multicultural” country.
The huge increases in migrants over the previous decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt to radically change the country and to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity,” according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Prime Minister Tony Blair. 
He said mass immigration was the result of a deliberate plan, but ministers were reluctant to discuss this for fear that it would alienate the party’s “core working-class vote.”

Lord Maurice Glasman – a personal friend of the Labour Party leader – stated in 2011, “Labour lied to people about the extent of immigration… and there’s been a massive rupture of trust.” 
He admitted that the Labour Party had sometimes been actively hostile to the white natives. In particular, they tended to view white working-class voters as “an obstacle to progress.”
Although most of the blame for the massive, and largely uncontrolled immigration was sheeted home to Tony Blair, it was his Minister for Asylum and Immigration during Blair’s first term, Barbara Roche, who engineered the transformation of immigration policies. 
While the Prime Minister was concentrating on other matters, Roche changed every aspect of the British government’s immigration policies.
Under Roche, all people claiming to be asylum-seekers would be allowed to stay in Britain – whether they were genuine or not. Roche thought that restraints on immigration were “racist.” Whenever there was any criticism of her policy, Roche dismissed it as racist.
Over her period in office, she repeatedly stated her ambition to transform Britain. What she and a few others around her sought was a wholesale change of British society. 
The activities of Roche and a few others support the claim that theirs was a deliberate policy of societal transformation: a culture war waged against the British people using immigrants and the much-feared word “racist” as battering rams.
Based on investigative reporter Tom Bower’s recent book, Broken Vows: Tony Blair – The Tragedy of Power, Britain’s Daily Mail characterized the episode as a “cynical conspiracy to deceive the British people and let in 2 million migrants against the rules.”
Multiculturalism was introduced into most Western countries with little or no consultation with the citizens and has now become firmly entrenched.

Mafia involvement in the introduction of multiculturalism into Australia
Before the 1970s, Australia had a very successful immigration policy based on assimilation and integration.
Migrants were generally welcomed and accepted by the populace. All three levels of government (federal, state and local) provided a variety of migrant services to help the “New Australians,” as they were called, to feel welcome and to settle in.
In the late 1960s, a group of social activists, embracing the ideology of multiculturalism, began a concerted campaign to introduce multiculturalism into Australia. 
Members of the group inveigled their way on to advisory groups reporting to government where they were able to influence government policy. With intense lobbying, their ideas were gradually accepted as government policy.
This major shift in immigration policy, which was ultimately to have a major impact on Australian culture, came in through the back door with minimal public consultation and minimal media scrutiny.

When the Whitlam Labor government swept into power in the 1972 federal election, the newly appointed Minister for Immigration, Albert “Al” Jaime Grassby, found he presided over this drastic change in immigration policy that he knew little about. 
However, Grassby soon embraced the policy and promoted it (along with promoting himself) and he came to be known in Australia as “the father of multiculturalism.”
But there was a dark side to Grassby. He was on the payroll of the Calabrian Mafia. With Mafia money, he won the “unwinnable” seat of Riverina, centered on the town of Griffith in central New South Wales.
A branch of the Italian Mafia, L’Onorata Società, or Honoured Society, had established itself in Griffith to organize the marijuana and heroin trade for which Griffith would later become notorious.
In 1977, Griffith furniture store-owner Donald Mackay, who had campaigned against the rampaging drug production and distribution in the area, was murdered on the orders of the Mafia. 
One senior member of the Society, Gianfranco Tizzoni, turned police informer and detailed to authorities Grassby’s involvement with the Mafia. 
In submissions to the authorities, he provided evidence of the favors Grassby performed for the Mafia in return for the money he had received.
Incredibly, Grassby never faced a jail sentence for his crimes. The only feasible explanation appeared in an article in the May 9, 2005 edition of Melbourne’s Herald Sun under the headline, “Grassby crimes cover-up: Outspoken MP hid 40-year links with Mafia syndicate bosses”:
The detective who arrested controversial Federal MP Al Grassby 18 years ago claims the National Crimes Authority bowed to political pressure not to fully investigate his mafia links.
Retired NCA senior investigator Bruce Provost said he had no doubt the Whitlam Labor minister was paid to commit crimes and do favors for the Calabrian mafia.
Speaking publicly for the first time about the NCA’s inquiry, Mr. Provost said Mr. Grassby was firmly in the Mafia’s pocket. He said there was more than enough intelligence on Mr. Grassby to warrant a full investigation, but he was held back by the NCA.

To be continued.....
Back to top Go down


Posts : 627
Join date : 2018-07-17


Quote :
No value in sham diversity that stifles honest debate
January 2, 2019

This time of year there’s a bit more headspace to reflect on our social ecology. Yesterday, educationist Kevin Donnelly drew a useful distinction between sometimes vapid “values” and the enduring wisdom of virtues. On Monday, Campion College co-founder Karl Schmude marked the rise of moralism in our politics. These trends are present — and not just in Australia — when religion (especially Christianity) has never been less welcome in the public square.

Cultural diversity as a value is no help to the campaign against female genital mutilation, just as it would have been a hindrance to stopping the old Indian practice of suttee, whereby a widow would sacrifice herself on her husband’s pyre. Diversity can be code for narrow political opinion — non-progressive ideas are unwelcome — or it may mean nothing, like a mission statement. Equality as a value does not help us balance the right to non-discrimination on the basis of sexuality with freedom of religious conscience.

As Dr Donnelly points out, the study of virtue in pursuit of a good life goes back to Plato and Aristotle. Familiar virtues such as moderation and courage predate Christianity, although that religion had a big influence on the notion of individual human rights that characterises the Western tradition. It makes sense to approach voguish values with scepticism and it would be odd if we had nothing to learn from 2500 years of experience, thought and reflection. As a multicultural, pluralistic society, Australia has good reason to cultivate civic and political virtues.

Mr Schmude acknowledges that issues such as climate change and asylum-seekers contain a moral element but they must be resolved in the political domain, where moralising and character assassination make it difficult to negotiate a compromise outcome that most people can live with. Like today’s in-favour values, moralising tends to pose as politically neutral while in practice delegitimising positions at odds with progressive orthodoxy. After all, how could any intelligent person of good faith fail to accept the moral rectitude of a refugee policy that comes badged as “compassionate”? And surely Treasury’s coffers and the legislative muscle of the nation-state are there to be enlisted in the unremitting campaign for “fairness” and “equality”. Moralising activists do not like civil society with its unequal achievement, off-colour jokes and surprising friendships.

Identity politics increasingly decides what you can get away with, and what will earn you career damnation and expulsion from the social media paradise. In a sense, politics has always been about identity. The trouble arises when society in all its diversion and disorder is recast as a grim and endless conflict between designated victim and oppressor groups. Four legs good, two legs bad; white male oppressor, coloured female victim.

This presumed tribal loyalty allows group guilt and sin to be attributed to individuals, whatever their own conduct, opinion or circumstances may be. The charge of “white privilege” can be used to make redundant any engagement with a competing point of view. Last year, foreign editor Greg Sheridan spoke about his sons when disagreeing with fellow panel guests on ABC television’s The Drum about racial profiling and counter-terrorism. One panellist seized on the boys’ presumed race as reason to invalidate Sheridan’s argument — except that he had assumed, wrongly, that like their adoptive father, Sheridan’s boys were white. In the same vein, a Swedish writer is not supposed to try to bring to life characters from the time of the Mexican revolution — it’s worse still if he does so while wearing a multi-coloured sombrero.

But of course the act of imaginative empathy is a virtue to be encouraged. It’s implicit that an attempt may fail, just as those in public life sometimes unthinkingly will say something hurtful. Yet in today’s ugly mood, even a sincere apology can fail to rescue a reputation or career if progressive piety has been offended. All this makes it harder to have the honest discussions that are necessary to do justice to complex and contentious topics, and to try to talk around those tempted by bad ideas or bigotry. Instead, an ever-wider chasm opens between public groupthink and private doubt, dissent and resentment. That way lies an extremist reaction.

This was an editorial in The Australian....  to me it makes little or no difference to the debate and hardly makes a relevant point.  But apparently they think it does...  so I added my own comments to their article...  it can be seen that many straight talking Australians can use simple language and examples to disagree with multiculturalism.

Some good comments can be found here...
Back to top Go down
Back to top 
Page 1 of 1

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
AUSSIEPOLITICS :: Australian Politics-
Jump to: