The issue of Asianisation may no longer be an issue of immigration. Even if we stopped Asian immigration tomorrow, we could still become Asianised–it would just take a little longer. Asianisation is a story of white genocide, it’s a story that people have forgotten about since Pauline Hanson uttered those immortal worlds “I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians”  and what howls of protest that statement did generate throughout the world and here at home amongst the multicultural elites and their empty-headed useful idiots like those who brought down the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act, commonly known as the White Australia Policy.
Our forefathers were very wise when they decided to implement ideas like the White Australia Policy. It was designed to protect the fledgling Australian society, Australian jobs and the Australian way of life. It was the faceless bureaucrats who decided to weaken the policy in the 1950s and 1960s, always fearful of the old chestnut that other countries would think badly of Australia, as if Asian countries in particular have some sort of high moral ground on which to stand against us.
What the establishment is doing is basically replacing white Australians with Asians. Both sides of government have been doing this for decades under an unwritten agreement that unless Australia becomes significantly Asian, Australia will be unable to engage with Asia economically. Business has also been urging strong engagement with Asia, as they like to have an endless supply of cheap labour and an ever growing consumer base–it’s all about the numbers. Neither government nor big business see Australia as a nation, to them Australia is merely an economic entity to exploit for their own profits.
One of the lines that pro-Asianists like to trot out is the one about Australia being part of Asia. Australia is not a part of Asia and if the multicultural apologists had been paying attention in geography classes at school, they would have learnt that Australia is actually a part of the region called Oceania. Oceania is the geographic region between Asia and the West coast of America. It consists of four sub-regions comprising of Micronesia, Melanesia, Polynesia, and Australasia. Australia and New Zealand form the basis of Australasia. I’ve never heard these people, who insist that Australia is part of Asia, call Australian Aborigines ‘Asians’.
Traditional Australia is the legacy of our forefathers
The Australia we have today is a legacy of the white Europeans who discovered, colonised, built and developed Australia into a great nation. From the earliest days of Australian history, the Europeans have always been wary of the surrounding Asian hordes. Not all early Australians were so concerned to preserve their race or heritage; capitalists looking for easy exploitation were more than happy to import Asians as cheap labour, they were prepared to give away our future for a cheap bag of sugar.
Our forefathers had a strong sense of Australian identity, of who they were, and their confidence in this allowed them to think about how they could go about preserving that identity for future generations. The most obvious way was via the exclusion of non-Europeans from Australia. Our forefathers knew that to preserve liberty and democracy in Australia, they had to find a way to preserve racial homogeneity; they knew liberty and democracy could not be upheld or carried long-term by a miscegenated rabble. In January 1888, the Attorney General of Tasmania wrote to the British secretary for the colonies in response to a British protest on the exclusion of Chinese. In part he said:
“[ it ] would create a combined political and industrial division of society upon the basis of a racial distinction. This would inevitably produce in the majority of the remainder of the population a degraded estimate of manual labour similar to that which has always existed in those communities where African slavery has been permitted, and thereby call into existence a class similar in habit and character to the “mean whites” of the Southern States of the American Union before the Civil War. Societies so divided produce particular vices in exaggerated proportions, and are doomed to certain deterioration.”
The Australians had seen the carnage and chaos of the American civil war brought on because of the American slave practice. They had seen a white underclass formed because industrialists and growers preferred the use of cheap coloured labour instead of using white labour. The Australian colonies did not want to see the formation of a white underclass or a civil war and therefore it is a testament to their wisdom and foresight that the Australian colonies were federated in 1901 without a single drop of blood being spilt.
One of other favourite lines the multiculturalists like to reel out is the one about how “Australia was built on immigration, we are a nation of immigrants”, as if such a statement could suddenly make the multicultural lie work. It’s true that Australia was built upon a foundation of immigration, whether it was by transportation or free British immigration; however, those early immigrants developed a nation of people who came to see themselves as Australians with a fierce understanding of that identity whilst still acknowledging their heritage.
Asianisation during the John Howard years
So, where are we heading with Asianisation? I guess the best place to start is with the numbers. Following on from the end of WWII, it was the Labor Party which began the mass immigration programs based on Calwell’s ‘populate or perish’ principle; from 1949, when the Liberal Party came into power, they continued with the same policy of mass immigration.
Asian immigration had been kept pretty low; from 1959 to 1965 Asian immigration was between 2.5% and 4%; however, these statistics are by country of birth, which included Europeans who were born in Asian countries, so the actual Asian component was somewhat lower. Harold Holt (a Liberal Party Prime Minister) changed the immigration rules in 1966 to allow an increase in Asian immigration, thus pushing it from 4% to 11%. Under Gough Whitlam’s Labor government, Asian immigration went from 11% to 21%. It was under Malcolm Fraser’s Liberal government, however, that we saw a real boost of Asian immigration, kept at a steady rate of between 26% and 35%. The Hawke and Keating Labor governments really booted the door open, with Asian immigration being at least 39%, but at times hitting 55% .
Under the Howard government, Asian immigration (based on country of birth) has gone from 32,585 per annum in 1994/95 to 54,763 per annum in 2004/05 . Given that John Howard’s Liberal government didn’t take office until March 1996, it shows that the Liberals have been letting in more Asians than the previous Labor governments.
Those numbers don’t look too bad until you start adding up the intervening years. Such a calculation produces a figure of over 450,000 Asians that have been brought into this country under Howard. And that is just the Asian factor; it doesn’t take into account all of the other non-European immigration. If you look at the reports produced by the Federal immigration department, they count Middle East immigration separately from Asia, and then even sub-divide Asia between various regions to minimize the visual impact of the large-looking numbers. It should be no surprise then to learn that the majority of non-Europeans in the Federal seat of Bennelong, Prime Minister John Howard’s electorate, are Asians .
As a contrast, in the period between 1979 and 1990, Japan accepted 6,957 refugees or an intake equivalent to 0.006% of their 1990 population, whereas between 1975 and 1989, Australia took in 173,823 refugees or 1% of our population at that time. Our intake was 166 times that of Japan’s, whose population was 6.4 times our population. It is little wonder then that today Japan’s population is 98.5% ethnically Japanese, with the remaining 1.5 % being other ethnic Asians, while in Australia we surrender entire suburbs to the Asiatic hordes, we would do well to take a leaf out of Japan’s immigration policy book .
The Chinese and the Confucius Institute
It’s not just the Australian establishment we have to be concerned about, it’s also the Chinese establishment. The Chinese government has started a new initiative called the “Confucius Institute” . It is touted as a program for the advancement of Chinese culture and language for the benefit and support of the Chinese diaspora as well as teaching the locals about all things Chinese. The Confucius Institute is setup within universities worldwide and is used by the Chinese government to reinforce the cultural and ethnic ties of the Chinese diaspora with the motherland. It is non-political in nature so even those Chinese who have fled China to escape political or religious persecution can join in the program on a cultural/ethnic level.
There is a Confucius Institute in most countries, including in Kenya and Nigeria. The spectacle of Africans talking in Mandarin must truly be a sight to behold. One has to wonder why Africans would have any interest in Chinese culture and language at all, but China does have some large mineral and oil exploration projects currently operating in Africa. This represents Sino hegemony at its finest. Few people have heard of the Confucius Institute, but could you imagine the uproar if there were projects like the ‘Mohammad Institute’ having the same aims of the Confucius Institute? This is one of the great dangers of Asianisation; Asians just go about their business, they don’t run about in packs gang-raping white girls, they don’t go on inter-urban Jihads, and therefore they are not the subject of media scrutiny or public attention. They just quietly breed like flies, with the result being the ethnic cleansing of white Australians by demographic colonisation.
And that demographic colonisation is becoming obvious, particularly in Sydney suburbs such as Hurstville, Burwood and Cabramatta, but also in the city of Sydney itself. Recently I took the kids in to see the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk, and there were Asians everywhere. We went into the NSW State library, and it was like being in an ants’ nest, it was full of Asians. Asians are not like us, they have a different view on life, they are different both culturally and socially. For example, in Australia and the West generally we treat dogs and cats as companion animals and have some affection for dolphins but in Asian countries they are merely a source of food.
The results of Asianisation
What are the results of this Asianisation and mass immigration? It brings with it diseases that have been eradicated for decades back into Australia, such as polio and tuberculosis (TB)  and, in the case of Africans, diseases that have never been seen in Australia before .
Australians are also put at risk by low food handling standards prevalent in Asia and then replicated by Asian immigrants here in Australia. There have been cases of consumer alerts, such as after a food worker at a sushi shop was found to have had hepatitis . Health authorities in NSW and Victoria have been fining, in some cases repeatedly, Asian food business for poor hygiene standards; in fact, a list released by a NSW council consisted almost entirely of Asian businesses who had been fined for poor food handling standards . A major sushi supplier in Sydney was also fined repeatedly, as it was found to have rats and pigeons in the food storage areas and yet was permitted to operate for a further six months before any serious action was taken .
What can we do?
So what can we do? It’s well enough to bring these things to your attention, but we need solutions. As individuals, we can do small things like writing letters to the editor, writing or calling your local Member of Parliament, refusing to shop at Asian-owned businesses, or refusing to buy goods imported from Asia. That last option may be difficult, since nearly everything we used to manufacture ourselves is now made in Asia or in some Third World country.
The other thing we can do as individuals is to come together to form a political bloc. One person writing to the local MP may have some small effect, but a million people marching in the streets will certainly have an effect, as something that large will attract the attention of our politicians, but even better would be to have a political party that is attractive to, and representative of, ordinary Australians that would be able to break into the current two party system that passes for democracy in this country.
What would such a political party set out to achieve if it had power or influence in this country? The most obvious action is the termination of all Asian immigration; in fact, I would go a step further and end all non-European immigration into Australia; such immigration should return to being a very rare exception, rather than the rule.
We should also deport all non-European non-citizens who are major criminals (for example murder, rape) from our gaols at the end of their sentence, and convicted major criminals who are citizens should have their citizenship revoked and be deported.
All illegal immigrants should be immediately deported. All Muslim immigration should be stopped straight away. The Australian government should only be paying the baby bonus where the parents are both of European descent; how stupid do you have to be to pay Arabs, Asians, and Africans to out-breed us? We should also consider the idea of providing financial incentives to non-Europeans to return to their country of origin or to a country that is compatible with their racial and cultural background–whilst they can be legally “Australian citizens”, they are not Australians, and they can never be Australians.
I’m sure there are a lot of other ideas we can discuss, but the time for action is getting short. I think we have less than ten years for white Australians to form some type of movement or political party that can have an influence on the future direction of this country. Remember that by 2020, Australia will be at least 30% Asian or higher and by then, it will be too late, the country will be lost, and our descendants will have no future as Australians. It’s time for us to unify now, if not for our own sake, then for our children’s sake, and ultimately for the sake of our nation.
(First published March 2008.)