The Jewish War on White Australia: Refugee Policy and the African Crime Plague, Part 3


From a television news report following the Moomba riots

Part 1
Part 2

Australia’s elites double-down on the multicult

Despite the trail of traumatized victims left behind by Australia’s (still comparatively small) African population, the country’s Jewish-dominated intellectual and media establishment have scorned all doubters and doubled down in their monomaniacal (essentially theological) commitment to the virtues of mass non-White immigration and multiculturalism. Australians must open their hearts, minds (and especially their borders) to everyone in the whole world because, rampant non-White criminality, terrorist threats, welfare dependency and White displacement aside, “the lived experience of decades since the White Australia policy was abandoned has been overwhelmingly positive.”

The African crime epidemic, rather than representing a calamitous failure of immigration and refugee policy, is instead dismissed as “a calamitous law enforcement failure.” Thus, White police are held to be ultimately responsible for Black criminality. Instead of arguing for an urgent review of Australia’s immigration and refugee policies, Jewish state MP David Southwick has instead urged the Victorian government to fund more frontline police to tackle the exponential rise in violent crime. Rather than ascribing higher rates of African offending to innate racial traits observable across all times and places, the crime writer for The Age, Cameron Houston, attributes the phenomenon to “social disadvantage, domestic dysfunction, poor employment prospects, addiction issues, or just plain old fashioned boredom.” White Australians therefore need to do more “to get these kids involved in their local communities and improve their prospects.”

White Australians are also held to be responsible for the abysmally low educational performance of African children. White flight from inner-city public schools with high enrollments of Africans and Muslims has been blamed for the woeful educational standards of these “sink schools” which have been “drained of affluent families and high-achieving students.” The Age quotes Abeselom Nega, an Ethiopian refugee and community leader who is “alarmed” by this trend. “The white parents don’t send their kids to these schools because all they see is black kids,” says Nega, who sits on the board of the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission. “They may not view it as racism, but it is. … You can sugar coat it, and put it differently, but I won’t.”

Dr Arathi Sriprakash, a lecturer at Cambridge University who is researching racial politics in Australian schools, claims that “We don’t have the White Australia policy any more, we are not talking about explicit or overt racism that you might recognize from the past, but racism exists in more coded ways. It occurs in school choice, in the way parents decide what is a good, bad or risky school.” According to Victoria University adjunct Professor Richard Teese, wealthy families have the “privilege” of being more selective with their children’s schooling, and claims that “If we start educating people separately, we run the risk of creating ghettos, and the formation of hostile social attitudes.”       

White parents with the financial means to avoid these “sink schools” are thus held responsible for African educational failure and face moral censure for refusing to sacrifice their children’s welfare on the altar of political correctness. Of course, unlike working class Whites, Jews in Australia are totally exempt from dealing with the pernicious daily consequences of the decades-long social engineering of their community leaders. Australia’s wealthiest ethnic group can avoid having their children’s education sabotaged by low-IQ Africans and Muslims by utilizing their extensive network of lavishly resourced (and ethnically homogeneous) Jewish day-schools.

As a result of the mass-importation of low-IQ migrants and refugees, educational standards in Australia have plummeted. The OECD recently expressed alarm at the nation’s educational slide. Education chief at the OECD, Andreas Schleicher, “slammed Australia over its declining results in international student assessments (PISA).” The Sydney Morning Herald observed that “Where once Australia kept up with South Korea, now our east Asian neighbors are streaking ahead on tests that compare the academic ability of 15-year-olds around the world. Students from Poland and Vietnam are now outperforming Australia’s teenagers. … The warning signs have been there for over a decade. Australia’s PISA results have been on the slide since 2003.” Academics have scrambled for reasons (other than the obvious fact of the changing racial make-up of the student body) to account for this sudden decline. Some ascribe the decline to inadequate resourcing of schools — despite the fact that government funding of education in Australia is at an all-time high.


The reason for plummeting educational standards in Australia is a complete mystery

Any idea of protecting the Australian community by actually deporting members of Melbourne’s violent street gangs back to Africa is dismissed by refugee activists as “inherently racist,” “deeply disturbing” and “akin to apartheid.” Cucked human rights lawyer Anthony Kelly maintains that, “these are our young people. They go to our schools, they are brought up in our Australian communities, they buy video games in our department stores, they learn from Australian society like everybody, so to call for a deportation or keep focusing on their backgrounds or ethnicity is disingenuous or cowardly. The Australian community is not taking responsibility.”

Kelly, in brazen defiance of the facts, claims using existing laws targeting criminal gangs to deport African criminals would be “inherently racist because it implies that race or ethnic background is a causal factor in their offending when we know that not to be true.” In Kelly’s warped mental universe “There is no correlation or link between a person’s race or ethnicity and their propensity for criminal activity.” For this preening moral paragon, the race of violent criminals and their victims is irrelevant and just “confuses the issue, rather than clarifies it.” The only reason it would even be mentioned is because “we live in an extraordinarily racist society. It’s really as simple as that.”

Unlike in the United States, the “legacy of slavery and segregation” cannot be invoked in Australia to account for the rampant social dysfunction of Africans migrants and refugees. The failure of most of them to become productive members of Australian society, despite being lavishly supported by White Australian taxpayers, can only be because, in the words of Kelly, “we live in an extraordinarily racist society.” The truth, or course, is that the races are not equal, and the expectation that Africans will conform to White behavioural norms is to expect them to be something other than what they are. Blacks and Whites are not the same and Blacks have never been able to even approximate White academic behaviour in any historical or geographical context.

Contrary to Kelly’s fantasy world, police statistics prove that, in the real world, Africans are vastly overrepresented as criminal offenders. Back in 2011 it was revealed that “Sudanese-born Victorians are the most violent ethnic group in the state.” Assistant Police Commissioner Tim Cartwright actually apologized to African immigrants in 2012 as he released figures showing that “Sudanese and Somali born Victorians are about five times more likely to commit crimes than the wider community” — a trend that must, he warned, be addressed to prevent Cronulla-style social unrest. The most common crimes committed by Somali and Sudanese-born Victorians were “assault and robbery, illustrating the trend towards increasingly violent robberies by disaffected African youths.”

Back in 1997, in response to surging crime rates (four to eight times higher than average) among Sudanese youth, then immigration minister Kevin Andrews announced that Australia would take fewer refugees from Sudan because “some groups don’t seem to be settling and adjusting into the Australian way of life as quickly as we would hope.” Andrews was screamed down by the intellectual and media class. The Labor Party denounced Andrews as a “racist,” and The Age slammed him for making “inflammatory” remarks designed “to arouse a predictably base reaction from those sensitive to immigration on racial grounds,” and went on to indignantly ask: “Precisely how ‘quickly’ should ‘we’ expect people who come from such severe deprivation to adjust to the so-called Australian way of life? We take our refugees as we find them, which is not to absolve any group of civic responsibility.”

Encouraged by sickening apologists like Kelly and the media Left, since the Moomba riots, Sudanese community members have condemned the media for having eschewed their usual policy of suppressing all news of African gang violence. The South Sudanese Community Association released a statement condemning the “damaging” media coverage of the Moomba riots. “The media headlines and police spokespersons have screamed ‘Sudanese ethnicity’ and linked it to this group of wild youth,” the statement said. “This is significant damage to our ethnic identity. Time over and time over, we suffer from this endless game of blaming our ethnicity.”

Straying from the politically-correct line on refugees will not be tolerated

In the context of an election campaign, the Australian Immigration Minister Peter Dutton recently enraged anti-White elites by daring to state some facts: that some refugees end up taking low-end jobs otherwise available to Australians, and that others (the vast majority) are functionally illiterate and innumerate in their own languages (let alone English), and will consequently impose an ongoing (often lifetime) financial burden on taxpayers. His comments were in response to news that the opposition Labor Party was planning to double Australia’s refugee intake from the current 13,750 per year (alongside Canada the highest per capita intake in the world), and that the extreme-Left Greens Party supported lifting this to at least 50,000 a year.

The Sydney Morning Herald, a principal mouthpiece of the Jewish-dominated cultural-Marxist establishment, reacted with furious abuse, labelling Dutton’s factual statements “a naked appeal to base prejudice” and an “outrageous slur against refugees” that should “have no place in political debates.” Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, who has otherwise expressed his deep obeisance to the multicult, had supposedly “displayed a remarkable lack of faith in the country’s academic institutions” in failing to condemn Dutton’s remarks, and had “given succor to dark instincts that betray Australia as an egalitarian society.” The debate set off by Dutton was just a “feral outbreak,” and Dutton was guilty of “seeking to create and fan irrational fears.”

Roger Cohen, the long-time Jewish foreign correspondent for the New York Times added his voice to those condemning Dutton’s “Donald Trump-like” comments in particular, and the Australian government in general, for “their pointless cruelty” and “progressively dehumanization” of asylum-seekers. Cohen, who frequently writes about “the Holocaust,” accused Australia of following the “textbook rules for the administering of cruelty” by keeping asylum seekers in offshore detention. Parroting the rhetoric of Jewish activists in Australia, Cohen claimed Australia’s history included “the long and unhappy chapter of its White Australia policy under which a vast landmass was portrayed as under threat of invasion by uncivilized ‘natives’ from across Asia. Politicians like Dutton are playing scurrilously on similar fears.” Not surprisingly, Cohen has never criticized Israel’s refugee and settlement policies for “their pointless cruelty” and “progressive dehumanization.”

Roger Cohen

Roger Cohen

The chief executive of the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre in Australia denounced Dutton for his “racist fearmongering” and for “using a narrative that belongs to the days of the White Australia policy.” Making false equivalences between Australia’s post-War intake of mostly skilled refugees from northern and eastern Europe, and those arriving today from the Third World, he enjoined Australians to see “the opportunity refugees offer our country” and “imagine if we saw the potential rather than bought the lie of burden and threat.” One letter writer chided Dutton for his apparent “ignorance” of the fact that “in a number of African cultures, there is only an oral tradition” and consequently “no written languages for these people to be illiterate in.”

The predisposition of many Anglo-Australians toward this kind of extreme moralizing that followed in the wake of Dutton’s unremarkable comments is, to a significant extent, a sociocultural legacy of the Australia’s English origins. The traditional English class system with its hypocrisy, smugness and snobbery has been grafted onto the regnant Jewish-dominated intellectual and political establishment, with the result that having the correct Jewish-approved political opinions, generally imbibed through the academy, is now the main way (alongside wealth) to elevate oneself socially above the despised lower classes of suburban “rednecks” and “Hansonites.” Existing social prejudices are thereby channeled into pro-Jewish and anti-White directions. Andrew Fraser observed the same phenomenon at work in 2005, when he noted that:

Unlike other racial, ethnic or religious groups well-equipped to practice the politics of identity, white Australians lack a strong, cohesive sense of ethnic solidarity. As a consequence, ordinary Australians favouring a moratorium on non-white immigration cannot count on effective leadership or support from their co-ethnics among political, intellectual and corporate elites. On the contrary, our still predominantly Anglo-Australian rulers take pride in their active collaboration with the Third World colonization of Australia. None of the major parties, indeed not one member of the Commonwealth Parliament, offers citizens the option of voting to defend and nurture Australia’s Anglo-European identity. The problem, in short, is clear: the Australian nation is bereft of a responsible ruling class.              

Writing for The Australian, the conservative journalist Chris Kenny has similarly noted the yawning chasm between the political/media class and average Australians on the issues of immigration and refugees. He observed how Australia’s Leftist elites “consider themselves superior to the masses” and love to “lecture and hector the mainstream.” Worse than this, they

try to dictate what facts can even be discussed. They seek to silence dissent. They have compiled an informal list of unmentionables, facts that should not be uttered: the truths whose name we dare not speak. One of these, as we saw last week, is the lack of education and employment prospects for many refugees who are settled in Australia. … Apparently we should not mention such things because it will incite the ignorant masses. … It is all about moral vanity, public gesture and the politics of identity. Certain facts or views will disrupt the picture these people have of themselves. It is difficult for them to display their tolerance and sophistication except by condemning those who don’t measure up. They look to take offence and public shaming becomes virtue signalling. This week, Dutton and the facts were sacrificed so thousands of others could display their superiority.

Observing the same phenomenon at work in the US, where Donald Trump is despised by the same clique, Kenny notes that “their disdain fuels his popularity.” Kenny could have been talking about The Age journalist Michael Gordon who, lamenting the breakdown of the cross-party politically correct consensus on refugees, insisted that “the national interest is advanced when both issues [immigration and refugees] are the subject of bipartisan consensus, as they were before 2001.”

The origin of political correctness has been traced back to communist ideologues who would not tolerate any deviation from the party line. Everybody must follow that line or be ruthlessly crushed. When you’re not allowed to call things what they are, the correct identification of words and reality, your perceptions and thoughts and morals are degraded, and with them your body politic. To live according to reason, you need to be able to use the correct terms. Political correctness is an attempt, with the backing of the state through laws like Section 18C, to force everybody to go along with a bogus, Jewish-empowering conception of the world. Jews come up with the frames, the loaded terminology, and the acceptable arguments for understanding the world, and anybody who, like Professor Fraser, departs from this line, is treated like a wayward cult member.

For Jewish activists, and those non-Jews who derive personal and financial advantage from furthering the Jewish agenda, the mere hint of any departure from the notion that the integration of Africans into the Australian community is morally good and entirely feasible is inconceivable, and any alternative is unthinkable as government policy. The only political disagreements that are permitted are within very narrow parameters — debate among options that equally further Jewish ethnic interests and harm White interests. The only good options for White Australians, those that further their group evolutionary interests, are off limits because they are “sick” or “evil.”

For Australia’s traitorous elites, the lies of Boasian anthropology must be accepted as the basis for government policy no matter what the social cost. Of course, Boas spread the lie that race doesn’t exist in order to empower his own race, and Jews overwhelmingly support the mass importation of Africans into Australia: not because they genuinely believe they have the same capacities as White Australians, but because their presence serves Jewish interests by disrupting the settled White society that looms, in their fevered imaginations, as a proto-Nazi threat to their very existence. This policy of social disruption through alien immigration and the fetishizing of “diversity” is a strategy that Jews have pursued everywhere they have resided in the West — but not, of course, in Israel. Jews always move into a situation that is more or less settled and where they comprise a conspicuously alien group. Beginning in the early twentieth century with Boaz et al., accelerating after World War II, and achieving dominance since the 1960s, they have unsettled these societies by disingenuously dismissing the importance of obvious group differences and, on this basis, start transforming the society through displacement-level non-White immigration. With the current African crime plague, White Australians are paying a horrific (and often deadly) price for ceding control of the demographic destiny of their nation to a hostile, self-interested ethnic minority.

27 replies

Comments are closed.