Tag Archives: anti-white

Blog

Who Hates the Tea Party and Why

32 Comments

For more than a year media pundits and celebrities and an army of lesser-known left-leaning editorialists and bloggers have ridiculed and dehumanized Tea Party protesters as “teabaggers” and “racists”. With the recent surge in anti-White sentiment openly expressed in the “liberal” media it must be dawning on more and more Tea Partiers that the problems with their country go beyond taxes, healthcare, or socialism.

In Teabaggers Vs. Immigration Rally: A Tale of Two Americas – huffingtonpost.com, Miguel Guadalupe writes:

At the immigration rally, you saw a wide spectrum of races and ethnicities. Those attending were mostly Latino, but the rally also welcomed the participation of Whites, Asians, and Blacks who support a path to citizenship, reuniting families, and providing opportunities to students and veterans.

At the Teabagger rally, the monochromatic masses were spitting and yelling racial and homophobic slurs at Black, Latino, and openly gay congressional reps.

At the immigrations rally, the participants were expressing hope – hope that reform would reunite them with their families. Hope that they would be given the opportunity to fully contribute to society, and the hope that their sacrifices, including the sacrifices of those who have served in the military or have lost their lives defending this country, will not be in vain.

At the Teabagger rally, the participants were expressing fear – fear of a socialist nation, fear of some type of take over of individual rights, fear of some conspiracy involving the democratically elected President and a democratically elected representative majority. They punctuated their expression of fear with threats of violence.

I highlight these opposing images because soon enough, these two groups will collide. The national debate on immigration reform will come soon, and if the Teabaggers act as they have against health care reform, we can expect more vitriol, fear mongering, harassment and acts of violence. These so-called “Americans” will feel even less restrained against people they consider to be “foreign” or “illegal,” deserving even less respect than they gave to our elected officials.

In Whose Country Is It? – NYTimes.com, Charles Blow writes:

The far-right extremists have gone into conniptions.

The bullying, threats, and acts of violence following the passage of health care reform have been shocking, but they’re only the most recent manifestations of an increasing sense of desperation.

It’s an extension of a now-familiar theme: some version of “take our country back.” The problem is that the country romanticized by the far right hasn’t existed for some time, and its ability to deny that fact grows more dim every day. President Obama and what he represents has jolted extremists into the present and forced them to confront the future. And it scares them.

Even the optics must be irritating. A woman (Nancy Pelosi) pushed the health care bill through the House. The bill’s most visible and vocal proponents included a gay man (Barney Frank) and a Jew (Anthony Weiner). And the black man in the White House signed the bill into law. It’s enough to make a good old boy go crazy.

Hence their anger and frustration, which is playing out in ways large and small. There is the current spattering of threats and violence, but there also is the run on guns and the explosive growth of nefarious antigovernment and anti-immigrant groups. In fact, according to a report entitled “Rage on the Right: The Year in Hate and Extremism” recently released by the Southern Poverty Law Center, “nativist extremist” groups that confront and harass suspected immigrants have increased nearly 80 percent since President Obama took office, and antigovernment “patriot” groups more than tripled over that period.

Politically, this frustration is epitomized by the Tea Party movement. It may have some legitimate concerns (taxation, the role of government, etc.), but its message is lost in the madness. And now the anemic Republican establishment, covetous of the Tea Party’s passion, is moving to absorb it, not admonish it. Instead of jettisoning the radical language, rabid bigotry and rising violence, the Republicans justify it. (They don’t want to refute it as much as funnel it.)

There may be a short-term benefit in this strategy, but it’s a long-term loser.

A Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday took a look at the Tea Party members and found them to be just as anachronistic to the direction of the country’s demographics as the Republican Party. For instance, they were disproportionately white, evangelical Christian and “less educated … than the average Joe and Jane Six-Pack.” This at a time when the country is becoming more diverse (some demographers believe that 2010 could be the first year that most children born in the country will be nonwhite, less doctrinally dogmatic, and college enrollment is through the roof. The Tea Party, my friends, is not the future.

You may want “your country back,” but you can’t have it. That sound you hear is the relentless, irrepressible march of change. Welcome to America: The Remix.

In The Rage Is Not About Health Care – NYTimes.com, Frank Rich writes:

That a tsunami of anger is gathering today is illogical, given that what the right calls “Obamacare” is less provocative than either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Medicare, an epic entitlement that actually did precipitate a government takeover of a sizable chunk of American health care. But the explanation is plain: the health care bill is not the main source of this anger and never has been. It’s merely a handy excuse. The real source of the over-the-top rage of 2010 is the same kind of national existential reordering that roiled America in 1964.

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

They can’t. Demographics are avatars of a change bigger than any bill contemplated by Obama or Congress. The week before the health care vote, The Times reported that births to Asian, black and Hispanic women accounted for 48 percent of all births in America in the 12 months ending in July 2008. By 2012, the next presidential election year, non-Hispanic white births will be in the minority. The Tea Party movement is virtually all white. The Republicans haven’t had a single African-American in the Senate or the House since 2003 and have had only three in total since 1935. Their anxieties about a rapidly changing America are well-grounded.

In Too much tea party racism – Salon.com, Joan Walsh writes:

The tea party movement is disturbingly racist and reactionary, from its roots to its highest branches.

These views well reflect the increasingly obvious race-based double standard propounded in the media for more than a decade now: non-White aliens good, White natives evil.

The psychological device they’re using in the battle over healthcare is the same one that’s been used against anyone opposed to immigration. They call Whites “racist” for objecting to anything we don’t believe is in our best interests, trying to guilt-trip us and implying that we’re somehow morally or mentally defective. As we can see from the full-throated anti-White reaction to even the largely deracinated Tea Partiers, whether we think or speak in explicitly racial terms is irrelevant. Our “anti-racist” antagonists are hyper-sensitive to race and any conflict with their own racial interests, or as in the case of Joan Walsh, act as a self-righteous proxy for such interests. White leaders perversely reject and profess distaste for our group interests even as we see an increasing number of non-White leaders who openly and unabashedly advocate in favor of theirs.

White fears are justified. We had a country of our own and still want one, organized to our tastes and run for our benefit. What sane group of people does not? In 1965 we were told that the changes to the immigration laws would not alter the ethnic makeup of our country. Anyone who foresaw that it would was smeared as an insane “racist”. Today it’s clear that immigration has in fact radically changed the ethnic makeup of the country. Now we’re told it’s irrepressible, irrevocable, and the country is no longer ours. Anyone angered by this situation or the duplicity used to produce it is smeared as an insane “racist”.

We are being displaced and dispossessed by genocidal levels of immigration and concomitant inter-racial transfers of wealth and power. This is foisted on us by liars and hypocrites whose deceptions, self-interests, and disdain for us becomes more transparent every day. They control all the major channels of education and discourse, and thus shape the terms of debate, defining and denigrating practically anything we have to say about any of this as “hate”. Their moralizing invokes injustices decades or centuries past, while they disregard and even celebrate the injustices being done to Whites right here, right now. They project onto us and decry their own malign motives and guilty deeds, shamelessly broadcasting a never-ending stream of race-based vitriol and fear mongering from myriad well-funded, high-profile sources, attacking us for peaceably expressing legitimate political interests. We have accommodated and appeased them for too long. For decades we have demonstrated our good faith, which they have taken advantage of and not reciprocated. The harder they try now to scapegoat us and the louder they insinuate that our calls for self-determination portend violence, the more they reveal their malevolent intent.

(Snide image discourtesy of the New York Times.)

Blog

Monitoring Genocidal Immigration and Anti-White Discrimination

3 Comments

2010 U.S. Census Sample Form:

8. Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin?

* No, not of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin
* Yes, Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano
* Yes, Puerto Rican
* Yes, Cuban
* Yes, another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin — Print origin, for example, Argentinean, Colombian, Dominican, Nicaraguan, Salvadoran, Spaniard, and so on.

9. What is Person 1’s race? Mark one or more boxes.

* White
* Black, African Am., or Negro
* American Indian or Alaska Native — Print name of enrolled or principal tribe.
* Asian Indian
* Chinese
* Filipino
* Japanese
* Korean
* Vietnamese
* Native Hawaiian
* Guamanian or Chamorro
* Samoan
* Other Pacific Islander – Print race, for example, Fijian, Tongan, and so on.
* Other Asian – Print race, for example, Hmong, Laotian, Thai, Pakistani, Cambodian, and so on.
* Some other race – Print race.

Explanations provided by census.gov:

Is Person 1 of Hispanic, Latino or Spanish origin?

Asked since 1970. The data collected in this question are needed by federal agencies to monitor compliance with anti-discrimination provisions, such as under the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State and local governments may use the data to help plan and administer bilingual programs for people of Hispanic origin.

What is Person 1’s race?

Asked since 1790. Race is key to implementing many federal laws and is needed to monitor compliance with the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act. State governments use the data to determine congressional, state and local voting districts. Race data are also used to assess fairness of employment practices, to monitor racial disparities in characteristics such as health and education and to plan and obtain funds for public services.

Celebratory media reporting on the predicted demise of the White majority – Minority births on track to outnumber white births  | ajc.com:

Minorities make up nearly half the children born in the U.S., part of a historic trend in which minorities are expected to become the U.S. majority over the next 40 years.

In fact, demographers say this year could be the “tipping point” when the number of babies born to minorities outnumbers that of babies born to whites.

The numbers are growing because immigration to the U.S. has boosted the number of Hispanic women in their prime childbearing years. Minorities made up 48 percent of U.S. children born in 2008, the latest census estimates available, compared to 37 percent in 1990.

Right now, roughly 1 in 10 of the nation’s 3,142 counties already have minority populations greater than 50 percent. But 1 in 4 communities have more minority children than white children or are nearing that point, according to the study, which Johnson co-published.

That is because Hispanic women on average have three children, while other women on average have two. The numbers are 2.99 children for Hispanics, 1.87 for whites, 2.13 for blacks and 2.04 for Asians in the U.S. And the number of white women of prime childbearing age is on the decline, dropping 19 percent from 1990.

Multiracial no longer boxed in by the Census – USATODAY.com:

When Barack Obama was elected the nation’s first black president in 2008, some academics and political analysts suggested the watershed event could represent the dawning of a post-racial era in a land that has struggled over race relations for four centuries.

At the same time, growing ethnic and racial diversity fueled by record immigration and rates of interracial marriages have made the USA’s demographics far more complex. By 2050, there will be no racial or ethnic majority as the share of non-Hispanic whites slips below 50%, according to Census projections.

“It’s showing that tomorrow’s children and their children will in fact be multiracial, leading to a potential post-racial society,” says William Frey, demographer at the Brookings Institution.

“The issue isn’t just multirace,” says Census historian Margo Anderson, professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. “It’s the blurring of the very traditional black vs. white. Categories that held until about 1980 are shifting in large numbers. … The clarity is breaking down.”

The image above comes from Rise in Minorities Is Led by Children, Census Finds – New York Times.

Disparate Impact provides the legal justification to “monitor compliance”, “assess fairness”, and “monitor racial disparities”, discriminating in favor of “protected classes”:

Under Title VII of the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, plaintiffs may sue employers who discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, or national origin. Employers who intentionally discriminate are obvious candidates for a lawsuit, but the courts also allow plaintiffs to prove liability if the employer has treated classes of people differently using apparently neutral employment policies. The disparate impact theory of liability will succeed if the plaintiff can prove that these employment policies had the effect of excluding persons who are members of Title VII’s protected classes. Once disparate impact is established, the employer must justify the continued use of the procedure or procedures causing the adverse impact as a “business necessity.”

This legal theory has the effect of excluding Whites.

The Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide:

What is genocide?

The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) defines genocide (article 2) as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group…” including:

1. (a) Killing members of the group;
2. (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

All such acts are violations of human rights, and may also be crimes against humanity or war crimes, depending on the context in which they were committed. The Convention confirms that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or war, is a crime under international law which parties to the Convention undertake “to prevent and to punish” (article 1). Because it is a part of international customary law the Convention is considered applicable in all countries, irrespective of whether they have signed or ratified it.

The Convention further states the following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d ) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide. Article 4 Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals.

Mass immigration and anti-White legal theories of “protected classes” are genocidal. Whether the intent was initially anti-discrimination or not is irrelevant. The result, made plain by census monitoring, is the physical destruction of the native White population.

Blog

Genocidal Immigration and Anti-Nativism in Britain

27 Comments


Gates of Vienna: Ethnically Cleansing the English, by Paul Weston:

To become an ethnic minority in your own country over just a few decades suggests that government policy, as has recently been revealed, was indeed to ethnically cleanse the English from their homeland, although the multiculturalists who committed this wicked act of treason and betrayal never couched it in quite such plain language, preferring instead to frame mass immigration as a means of achieving social objectives.

These figures are not hysterical, nor are they the obtained from the research of paranoid periodicals. In 2007 The Guardian reported that Britain was heading toward a population of 70 million by 2031, but did not mention that the addition of an extra 10 million people whilst the indigenous population was simultaneously declining and emigrating required the importation of an awful lot more than just an extra 10 million immigrants.

Indeed, the liberals and the leftists are only too aware the indigenous population is being ethnically cleansed. In 2000 The Guardian predicted a white minority Britain by 2100, therefore tacitly admitting acceptance of population replacement, but erring only on the time frame necessary to achieve racial cleanliness.

Fjordman said…

Terms such as “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” should not be used lightly, but Paul Weston is unfortunately entirely correct here: What is happening with the native white population throughout Western Europe is a purposeful, state-sponsored campaign of ethnic cleansing. The only thing that’s unique about Britain is that key members of the ruling party openly admit this, in writing. What Andrew Neather probably didn’t realize when he said this was that he inadvertently laid the basis for a new Nuremberg process where Multiculturalism is listed as an ideology with the stated intention of the physical destruction of whites everywhere. As such it constitutes an organized crime against humanity.

NATO, led by the USA, bombed the Serbs for “ethnic cleansing,” thereby facilitating the Islamic ethnic cleaning of Christians in the Balkans. So, if the Western Multicultural oligarchs are against ethnic cleansing, I guess they must now bomb Britain, where the authorities have publicly admitted that they are deliberately destroying the native population of their country. So why isn’t that happening? Could it be because similar anti-white policies are followed in all white majority Western nations without exception?

It’s time we realize that the humiliation, dispossession and gradual destruction of whites, from Canada to Sweden, is not the accidental result of a failed policy but the deliberate result of an evil policy, the largest campaign of ethnic cleansing in recorded world history. An this is happening in the “free and democratic West.” If “democracy” means the genocide of your people then what the hell is it good for?

Fuchur said…

Terms such as “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” should not be used lightly, but Paul Weston is unfortunately entirely correct here

I cannot take someone serious who uses the words “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” in that context. Just look at the word “genocide”: “Killing” is part of the word. Now when, say, a black woman immigrates to GB and then gives birth to a child there – how is that in ANY way related to KILLING somebody??? I can only shake my head in disbelief at the vile twisted minds that could come up with such a warped comparison. Even Orwell would be baffled at that crazy attempt at Doublespeak: giving birth = killing. Ingenious.

This is racism, in it’s purest and simplest form. Period. Now, you could maybe try and make the point that racism isn’t all that bad and so on… but please don’t insult our intelligence by claiming that this isn’t racisim. Really. It’s just too ridiculous…

Paul Weston said…

@Fuchur

Curious name, curious morals.

You read an article pointing out the territorial and cultural displacement of a race of people, and your response is to make the accusation of racism.

You must hate the white race with a passion!

The UN definition of genocide quoted does not include the word “killing” and nor do I make such an association in my article.

I imagine you have an extremely short attention span, so will repeat the UN definition of genocide for you, and the UN rights of indigenous peoples.

“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part…”

“Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.”

“Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources;”

You see, no mention of the word killing…

Perhaps a simple yes or no question might be in order.

Do you think the UN declarations above should be applied to the indigenous English?

Yes or no.

Failure to respond might well lead people to think you a rather silly fuchur.

The genocidal regime in Britain, and indeed in all White countries, agrees with Fuchur.

BNP ‘whites-only’ membership rules outlawed | Politics | guardian.co.uk:

Judge agrees with human rights watchdog that British National party’s rewritten criteria for joining are still racist

In a landmark injunction at the Central London county court, a judge found that the BNP’s membership policy remained discriminatory, even after a direct whites-only clause was removed last month.

The judge, Paul Collins, ordered the BNP to remove two clauses from its constitution as they were indirectly racist towards non-white would-be members.

While one offending clause is largely an administrative matter – a requirement that all new members agree to a vetting visit from BNP officials, something the judge found could intimidate non-white applicants – the other spells out core beliefs.

This is a requirement for members to believe in the “continued creation, fostering, maintenance and existence” of an indigenous British race and action towards “stemming and reversing” migration.

Our enemies see concern for the interests of indigenous Whites as “racist”, and not being “racist” against alien interlopers takes precedence over the desire of native Whites to ensure our very existence. That they have the power to legalize their crimes does not absolve them of responsibility.

Blog

Diversity is Divisive

26 Comments

Commenter Flippityflopitty sends this link via email. Let’s Get Real About Racism: Lee Mun Wah:

Before we can truly become a multicultural nation, we must have relationships based on respect and understanding, reflection and compassion; where our differences and our similarities are embraced, valued, useful and integrated into the very fabric of our workplaces, communities, schools and governmental institutions. I come from the belief that awareness and holidays are just the beginning. What is required is an ongoing dialogue and relationship with each other, one that allows for conflict and differences, questions and curiosity. To me, that is what a healthy and intimate relationship possesses. I hope that you will join me in making this not only a better world for our children, but for ourselves – not by starting tomorrow, but beginning today.

Let’s Get Real: What People of Color Can’t Say & Whites Won’t Ask

For People of Color:

1. What’s hard telling whites the truth about racism?
2. What’s the price of telling the truth about race relations in the U.S.?
3. Why do you think it’s so hard for whites to hear the truth about racism?
4. What would you say to whites if you could tell them the truth about racism?
5. In what ways do whites keep people of color from telling the truth about race/racism?
6. How have you learned to “play the game” to appease white folks?
7. What would it take for you to feel safe enough to tell the truth about race/racism to white folks?
8. What is the difference between talking about race and racism?
9. What is the illusion about race relations in the United States?
10. Are race relations getting wors e or better in the U.S? Why or why not?
11. Can you ever envision a world without racism? Why or why not?
12. What was your most profound experience with racism? How old were you? How did it affect you and how does it affect you today?
13. What do you think it will take for whites to truly embrace diversity?
14. In order to unlearn racism, what do you need or want from white folks?
15. What can’t you say about racism? Why or why not?
16. What does assimilation mean to you? Why?
17. When you have told the truth about racism, what has been some of your experiences? How have those outcomes affected you?
18. When talking about racism, what opens you up and what close you down?
19. What do you say to folks that feel that racism is no longer an issue now that we have a black president?
20. Do you think that your children will experience racism when they grow up? Why or why not?
21. How do you think whites can be effective allies to people of color?

For Whites:

1. What’s good and what’s hard talking about racism?
2. How does guilt keep you from dealing with racism?
3. How do you think you benefit from racism?
4. What opens you up and what closes you down to talk about racism? Why?
5. What are some of your fears to bring up the issue of racism with people of color? With other white folks?
6. What do you need from people of color to feel safe to talk about racism?
7. What do you need from other whites to feel safe to talk about racism?
8. If you could say three things to people of color about racism, what would you say?
9. What do you think it will take for people of color and whites to trust each other?
10. Do you believe that racism is a learned behavior and attitude? If yes, why? If not, why not?
11. Where did most of your stereotypes about people of color come from? How did those stereotypes affect your perceptions and attitudes toward them?
12. What part do you think you play in perpetuating racism?
13. How do you think whites can be effective allies to people of color? Why?
14. What do you think it will take to unlearn racism for white folks?
15. What are some of the things that you are afraid to say to people of color?
16. What would be some questions you would like to ask people of color?
17. Why do you think many white folks don’t identify as a group?
18. When did you first experience racism? What happened and how did it affect you?
19. What percentage is your life is impacted by racism? Why or why not?
20. In what ways have you been able to avoid talking or dealing with racism?
21. Are there two Americas? Why or why not?
22. What does assimilation mean to you?
23. What does diversity or multicuturalism mean to you?
24. What do you think keeps people of color and whites apart?
25. What do you think it will take for the United States to heal from racism?

1. Why does anyone mistake this anti-White bigotry for “anti-racism”?
2. Why should Whites respect, embrace, or have any dialogue or relationship with people who blame us for all their problems?
3. How can we make them leave us alone?
4. Where can we go to get away from them?
5. If we somehow succeed in saving ourselves, how do we keep this from happening again?

Blog

Something Rotten Down Under

17 Comments

While searching for the government immigration report mentioned in Cheerleading Genocidal Immigration I ran into a recent Australian government report.

Clear-eyed report spells out the risks | The Australian:

THE government’s white paper on counter-terrorism is a landmark, a watershed, a signal moment: choose your metaphor.

What I mean to say is, it’s a very important document, and for none of the reasons you have been hearing about in the past few days.

Sometimes the press gallery and the main media commentators so spectacularly miss the point that you wonder what universe they are living in.

For example, have you heard Hezbollah terror groups are operating in Australia? It’s in the white paper, but not the media.

Have you heard the government has declared the level of terror threat a society faces depends on the size and composition of its Muslim minority? It’s in the white paper but not the media.

The other criticism of the white paper is for using the term jihadist. If it really was Rudd who insisted on this he deserves high praise. It is crucial we tell the truth. The al-Qa’ida version of jihad, like that of the Muslim Brotherhood or of many Wahabi Muslims and of the strand of Shia represented by the Iranian government, is, terribly, a minority but longstanding tradition within Islam. To pretend otherwise is to intellectually disable ourselves.

The descriptive passages in the white paper are written in calm but straightforward language and have the virtue of telling the truth clearly and unapologetically.

One weakness, or contradiction, for the government is that the white paper rightly extols the need for tight border security, yet the government’s policies have weakened border security to our north. Virtually any Middle East or South Asian Muslim who gets to Christmas Island now gets to stay in Australia permanently and ultimately gets access to family reunion. That’s starting to be many thousands of people who have not been chosen under regular Australian procedures.

The white paper is online at Counter-Terrorism White Paper: Securing Australia – Protecting our Community. It is focused on al qaida and muslims. Here are several excerpts that convey the gist.

The scale of the problem will continue to depend on factors such as the size and make-up of local Muslim populations, including their ethnic and/or migrant origins, their geographical distribution and the success or otherwise of their integration into their host society.

Future geo-political events could mean other terrorist movements with a presence or support base in Australia could become willing to engage in operational activity here. And in the future new terrorist threats could manifest themselves in Australia, either as a by-product of events overseas or as a result of a political grievance within Australia. There will always be the disaffected and disempowered, often but not always at the fringes of communities or the followers of radical ideologies, who mistakenly see advantages in the use of terrorist tactics.

The aim of Australia’s counter-terrorism strategy is to protect Australia, its people and interests from terrorism.

Australia’s counter-terrorism efforts are intelligence-led and focused on prevention.

Australia’s counter-terrorism efforts are supported by our open democratic society. There are inherent strengths in our society that make Australia resilient to the divisive worldview of al-Qa’ida and like-minded groups. However, we know from experience that the terrorist narrative may resonate with a small number of Australians. It is incumbent upon all Australians to work together to reject ideologies that promote violence, no matter from where they arise or to what purpose they aspire. We must all support and protect the values and freedoms from which all Australians benefit. By reducing disadvantage, addressing real or perceived grievances and encouraging full participation in Australia’s social and economic life, government policies can help to mitigate any marginalisation and radicalisation that may otherwise occur within the Australian community.

To be effective, Australia must pursue a principled and proportionate response that promotes and upholds the values we seek to protect.

This chapter explains how Australia will counter violent extremism by:

* building on Australia’s history of inclusion, multiculturalism and respect for cultural diversity to maintain a society that is resilient to the hate-based and divisive narratives that fuel terrorism;

Australia’s inclusive, multicultural society is one of our strengths. Australia needs to harness this strength in the face of the divisive narrative of terrorist groups. We have a key interest in not allowing messages of hate to divide our community. Maintaining a resilient society based on shared freedoms, respect and understanding of our diversity helps us achieve that.

Australia is a country that recognises, accepts and respects cultural diversity. However, Australia will not tolerate the propagation of violent extremism and hate under the cloak of that diversity. The Government is committed to promoting respect, inclusion and a sense of belonging, in ways which address issues impeding social cohesion.

Exclusion or marginalisation of any individual or group of people can affect us all. It can affect a society’s cohesiveness, economic performance and, as we have seen overseas, the security and stability of the community as a whole. There are few countries in the world where migrants have achieved the level of economic, political, social and cultural participation that they have in Australia. But we cannot afford to be complacent. We know that a small number of Australians hold extreme beliefs and some of these individuals are or may be committed to supporting or engaging in acts of terrorism.

Media, academia, and government across the West have long been cheerleading for diversity and the immigration that brings it. They have also consistently ignored, disassociated, and otherwise played down and covered up any negative consequences.

This “clear-eyed” report laying out the Australian government’s counter-terrorism priorities only pays lip service to protecting Australia and its people. It actually puts “inclusion, multiculturalism and respect for cultural diversity” first. If this were not the case the report would address the hate-based and divisive pro-diversity, anti-native, anti-White narratives which have promoted and defended genocidal immigration and multicultural policies under the cloak of double-talk about inclusion. It would point out that this has created an islamic terrorism problem where none existed before – no muslim immigrants, no islamic terrorism. It would explain that the biggest threat to an Australian sense of belonging and social cohesion is the immigration of any racial or cultural aliens, and advocate a return to the White Australia policy.

Instead we get a cross-eyed report premised on a bullshit history and orwellian future in which inclusion of diversity produces cohesion.

(The image above comes from Australia Racism Protest Photo. The threat to Australians is not restricted to jihadists. Diversity is divisive. Immigration is genocide.