Catholic News: May 25, 2009

http://www.cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=13944

Polish-born Australian sociologist and friend of the late Pope John Paul II, Jerzy Zubrzycki, also known as the “Father of Australian Multiculturalism”, has died in Canberra aged 89.

Zubrzycki was the founding professor of sociology at the Australian National University and is also widely recognised as a founding member of the Pontificial Academy of Social Sciences, a Vatican research institute, Christian Today reports.

He played a leading role in the development of multiculturalism policy during the 1970s and was an adviser to the Whitlam, Fraser and Howard governments, Christian Today says.

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser described him as a man of “remarkable foresight”.

“He recognised the problems associated with a narrow, Anglo-Saxon society which Australia had been – up to, if you like, the Second World War,” Mr Fraser was quoted by The Australian.

“He believed passionately that people should be treated as equal, and that being a good Australian didn’t require people to give up their country of origin.”

So Jerzy Zubrzycki, good Catholic boy, decided that Australians of Anglo-Saxon stock and culture should be problematized if not pathologized, and set out to solve them by means of multiculturalism (which would mean people didn’t assimilate like previous waves of White migrants), with the support of one Anglo-Saxon Prime Minister after another.

He had great success.

In The Australian, “Death of a leader of cultural revolution Jerzy Zubrzycki”:

Mr Fraser said the fact that multiculturalism now enjoyed bipartisan support was in part due to Professor Zubrzycki’s work.

“John Howard didn’t like the word multiculturalism,” Mr Fraser said. “He talked a different sort of language. But you’ve only got to walk down any street in Melbourne and Sydney to know that it’s already too late – we are, in fact, a multicultural society.”

That’s true. The language changed expediently, but the policies brought consistent, irreversible alterations – presumably good ones, in the eyes of someone who thought Anglo-Saxons were a problem that government needed to solve?

We don’t have to guess. Jerzy Zubrzycki lived to see the result of his work, and he had the opportunity to change his mind and say sorry, if he wanted to. But…

Sydney Morning Herald, “Time to confront failures, not ignore them”:

In an interview on Radio National this week with Emeritus Professor Jerzy Zubrzycki, credited with being the architect of Australian multiculturalism, Adams said: “It reminds one of the apocalyptic threats, predictions of Enoch Powell [a British Conservative politician noted for a controversial 1968 speech that immigration threatened national unity].

“At the time we all decried him, we howled him down, as we should have, but at least some of those predictions are coming true.”

So: uniform academic “holing down” and decrying of a rare, brave truth-teller – and of course that was the right thing to do, even in retrospect.

This is the sort of career that if a Jew had had it would confirm everyone’s worst fears about Jews.

So Lesson 1 is: history isn’t that neat. Humanity isn’t that neat. It is important to praise or condemn individuals for what they personally did, regardless of their race or religion.

(Alternately, those who say that the Catholic Church in its modern form is a problem have some more facts to support them.)

Lesson 2 is: if you thought there was an anti-Anglo-Saxon conspiracy in Australia, as we now know there was one in the UK, you were right.

It may be contrary to our culture to be paranoid about racial and cultural enemies, but there are those who are really out to get us.

– Daybreaker

After the Japanese defeat, they were no longer aggressive toward us, and I don’t know of any great diplomatic issue with Japan about our pro-White immigration policies, though America’s remained solid to 1965 and ours to 1975.

We haven’t attacked the Japanese diplomatically over their policy to stay Japanese either, because we are not aggressive toward them.

This isn’t the only test of friendliness or hostility, but I think it’s a good one: your friends aren’t offended by a restrictive immigration policy, because they like you fine how you are. Any foreign country or ethnicity that insists on you opening yourself up to mass immigration has to be suspected of being aggressive toward you.

– Daybreaker

People cannot always be psyched up to insist on what they want, but elite sentiment, the lobby of businessmen who want to import all the cheap labor they can with no regard for consequences beyond the next financial statement, and other moneyed interests are tireless. Times changed, money was more important, activists counted for less, and people got complacent. More dangerously both major political parties began to collude to take race and immigration off the table, leaving those who opposed changes nobody to vote for. (That is, politicians who went contrary to the interests and will of their constituents couldn’t be punished.) The White Australia Policy was abolished in 1975, Malcolm Fraser brought in Multiculturalism in 1984, and his successor Robert Hawke continued it, and later went on record that the collusion that I spoke of above was the truth, but that he had not troubled the voters with this knowledge while he was in office.

The winning team for mass immigration, multiculturalism and enforced political correctness is still there. Basically it’s money (including but by no means limited to the cheap labor lobby), mass media, academia, and above all the will in the political class to hold the line, forgoing the votes to be had by challenging the bipartisan line. (Anyway, the votes to be had are less than they were, as the population changes.)

The key thing to understand is that this was orchestrated back-stage in silence, and imposed top down, at a time when politicians were way out ahead of public opinion in doing this, and it was more than your political career was worth to admit you were in on … I don’t know what to call it but a conspiracy, though a conspiracy of the consciously high-minded.

If you could restore the law as it once was today, and also the popular will that forced it to be implemented, the same coalition would start to unravel everything the day after.

It’s because of this that I don’t see any sense in getting masochistic about how we Australians were the authors of our own ruin. No we weren’t, except for those of us with vast influence on politicians and the money and will to organized them quietly to lie to the public and cover each other across party lines while implementing an agenda contrary to the public will and a central policy accepted by the nation’s founders.

– Daybreaker