Exposing the Subtle and Blatant Ways in Which the Media Seeks to Denigrate, Humiliate, and Ultimately Exterminate People of European or Caucasian Descent, One Image at a Time.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Cue Evil Music: White Australians Once Wanted to Stay White
Thanks to Scott from Australia for turning AWM on to this absurd little tax-funded documentary from Down Under, "Immigration Nation."
Cue evil music: "The commonwealth of Australia was built on a paradox." "The paradox was they were going to realize a utopia, but they were going to do it by excluding the vast majority of humanity."
Pardon, but that isn't a paradox. It's a means. There's nothing anti-utopian about being exclusive. In fact, utopias are built around the idea of an "intentional community," which involves a much higher degree of teamwork than other communities. This necessitates an in-group and out-group by definition.
What is a paradox, however, is that this documentary, which cries bloody murder any time any white person wants to form an exclusive or intentional community, was written by a jew (Sara Tiefenbrun) and commentated by a jew (Andrew Markus). We'll get to why their jewishness is paradoxical in a moment. But first, let's hear what they have to say:
Cue more evil music: "This meant tough restrictions on immigration."
What is really paradoxical is that while Andrew Markus lectures us in his intolerably smug way on how wrong it is for Australia to be white or to want to stay that way, he currently holds the Pratt Foundation Chair of Jewish Civilisation at Monash University. Hmm. Jewish Civilization? Now let's take a look at Israel's immigration policy. Hmm. What have we here? The Law of Return, an entirely race-based immigration policy that allows in only people who have jewish blood and excludes others. Nice one.
Any documentaries in the works about clearances of Palestinian land, Prof. Marcus? You lecture white Australians about their evil ways, for wanting to be explicitly white, while keeping silent on Israel's much stricter, race-based immigration policies. What a wee little, smug little hypocrite. You too, Sara.
This entire documentary is a study in faux history, duplicity, and double-standard. It constantly returns to the poor poor Japanese and Chinese, whom Australia meanly, cruelly, and fiendishly excluded. Never does it mention, however, that China and Japan currenly have, and historically have had, extremely exclusive immigration policies.
So whilst Prof. Markus lectures us like this:
he never informs us that in 1990 Japan passed its Immigration Control Act, still in effect, which allows only people who have Japanese blood to immigrate to Japan. So Japan and Israel have very similar, very strict, race-based immigration policies.
Oh so mean. So cruel. Why no outcry against the Japanese and Israelis? Why no tear-jerking photos of innocent little girls who died because they couldn't get into Japan and Israel?
What we have in this video series is blatant Anti-White Media, blatant New World Order claptrap, the protocols of which form a GLOBAL DOUBLE STANDARD:
Africa for the Africans. Asia for the Asians. White Countries for Everybody!
For more info, hop on over to WHITE RABBIT RADIO and check out the podcasts, starting with episode 1.
Or fly on over to BUGS.
Wonderful rebuttal from AWM. I just forwarded this to my Aussie friend!
ReplyDeleteThanx
A.J.
In Australia the politicans were talking about "embracing our Asian destiny" even in the 1960s. The whole thing has been planned for some time.
ReplyDeleteOne interesting thing about Australia is the seemingly greater reluctance to take in Africans compared to other countries. I've wondered whether that is due to the Chinese controllers not wanting to have to deal them when they formally take over the country in the next few decades.
Have you seen Rupert Murdoch's wife? He knows which way the wind is blowing.
ReplyDeleteGood stuff as always from AWM.
ReplyDeleteWhere though is the rest of this docu? I want to watch it so I can feel even more sick than I already am.
Here's a fun look inside Haiti from PBS of all people (it's relatively honest):
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haiti/view/
It's actually really good stuff, surprisingly forthright coming as it does from PBS. Surf through the site, there are multiple chapters.
I think that thanks to the internet, people are starting to wake up to the reality of Haiti, and understand that it is stuck in the Stone Age not because of bad government and the legacy of slavery as the New York Times wants you to believe, but because black africans just aren't that bright. They deserve the right kind of pity, not the universalist utopian egalitarian kind. James Watson was of course correct: as long as we base all of our policies on the assumption that all people are exactly equal in ability, africa and haiti will remain stuck in the Stone Age.
What these places need is a new form of colonialism, not one disguised as UN-backed aid programs.
crimesofthetimes.blogspot.com
I might have spoken a little too soon about the "honesty" of PBS's Haiti docu:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haiti/view/
Into about the 30th minute, PBS very clearly lays the blame for that nation's stone-age status on the US Government. Check it out.
It's like, the controlled media has no choice but to be a little honest, but not too honest.
PBS makes it seems like the sale of the Louisiana Purchase by Napoleon to the US (1803) was some great gracious gift to the US by Haitian africans; then they claim that the ensuing US embargo against Haiti is really why Haiti is a festering turd today.
At about minute 38, the narrator says: "In the early 1900s, Haiti had to endure 20 years of US occupation."
Endure? Those fiendish mother fuckers. During the US "occupation," 80% of the country's infrastructure was built up by the US Army.
Ungrateful munts.
crimesofthetimes.blogspot.com
Yes, you've found it, and it is atrocious!
ReplyDeleteYou can see clearly why I was so insulted, hurt, and enraged.
As are many other Australians by this.
Oh, and thanks for the credit too!
Wouldn't it be so much better though if we weren't even having to confront such things?!
Scott
Yes, it is hideous. We get the same thing in the US and Canada. "A nation of immigrants!" That language confuses things. It disposesses the founding stock of any white nation. They even say it about the UK! I have heard documentaries that make a big deal about how the Anglo-saxons were IMMIGRANTS to England 1600 years ago so today they MUST let in all kinds of foreigners without complaint!
ReplyDeleteBut the Turks invaded Anatolia in the 15th century and no one is flooding Turkey with non-turks. Monglolia invaded many nations numerous times, but no one is saying that Mongolia has to take in millions of Pakistanis and Senegalese. This logic is applied to white nations and only white nations. It's nothing short of anti-white genocide.
The second episode of this grotesque series aired on Sunday.
ReplyDeleteYet more aggressive assertations about how much we "had" to be racially/ethnically/nationally changed.
They couldn't help but state the fact...that in the 1940's Australia was 99% White and British...but this is portrayed as being "wrong', and that it just had to be changed.
They'll evade the issue, they'll paint it any other way but, they'll never accept the phrase, but that's GENOCIDE by any sane reckoning!
Scott
AWM - hope you don't mind but I posted this on my blog: http://ozziesaffa.blogspot.com/ ?
ReplyDeleteThanks for posting this.Luckily, I've managed avoiding watching this "documentary". You should hear the promotional radio ads - many, many people are angry.
"Japan passed its Immigration Control Act, still in effect, which allows only people who have Japanese blood to immigrate to Japan"
ReplyDeleteYou just don't get it, do you? This is an immigration law based on DESCENT, not on RACE. In other words, it excludes Chinese, Koreans, etc. just as much as it excludes non-Asians. The requirement is not to be of a certain ethnic group, but to be descended from an existing Japanese citizen (and this includes those whose other parent is non-Japanese ie. once again it is not about race). That is acceptable.
In contrast, the old White Australia policy was based on RACE, not on DESCENT. It excluded Chinese, Japanese, etc., but failed to exclude whites not descended from existing Australian citizens. That is its hypocrisy; it wasn't concerned with securing the land for the descendants of those who were already there; it welcomed non-descendants... but only if they were white. That is despicable.
As for Israel, it needs to be destroyed, no argument there.
hat is its hypocrisy; it wasn't concerned with securing the land for the descendants of those who were already there; it welcomed non-descendants... but only if they were white. That is despicable.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it despicable?
Of course the Brits could have decided that only whites from the British Isles could settle there.
There is a slight difference, Japan has been around for a very long time. White Australia for only 200 years.
I applaud SBS for having the guts to show this documentary. With the media being dominated by whites it is great to see a TV station employing presenters from other ethnic backgrounds. The series presents an honest depiction of Australia's ugly past for all to see and provides some evidence as to why Australia is regarded as one of the most racist countries in the world. All Australians should watch this as it is part of their 'proud' history.
ReplyDelete"There is a slight difference, Japan has been around for a very long time. White Australia for only 200 years."
ReplyDeleteWhich brings up the question: why couldn't the Brits have stayed on their islands like the Japanese stayed on theirs? Then they could have had it all to themselves. But no, they had to go round taking other people's land like the Israelis did. And then, after moving into land which didn't belong to them in the first place, refuse to allow others to move into the same land. As always: one rule when whites move into non-white lands, another rule when non-whites move into white lands. But to point out this double-standard makes me a dreaded "antiwhitewhowantstokilltheentirewhiterace".
"Africa for the Africans. Asia for the Asians. White Countries for Everybody!"
And who started it? Africa for the Africans? Asia for the Asians? Evidently someone forgot to tell that to the British Empire et al.
And then, after moving into land which didn't belong to them in the first place, refuse to allow others to move into the same land. As always: one rule when whites move into non-white lands, another rule when non-whites move into white land.
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying that democratically-run white majority countries that were founded by European colonists don't have the right to self-determination?
In your view, they don't have the right to set immigration policy however they please, as sovereign, democratic nations?
I'd like to see you justify this view. I am presuming it's based on a desire to punish these white countries because of the history of colonization. Is this right? Whites living today must be punished for the wrongs you believe were committed in the past? Is it all whites, or just whites in non-European lands. Or does your desire to punish white people for the past extend to wanting to punish whites in Europe as well?
Please explain.
"So you're saying that democratically-run white majority countries that were founded by European colonists don't have the right to self-determination?"
ReplyDeleteDoes Israel have the right to self-determination? No, they lost that right when they failed to respect the same right for the Palestinians whom they invaded. The same applies to Australia: the colonialists evidently didn't respect the right to self-determination of the natives, so how can they then demand others to respect this right for them and not sound like a jackass?
Basically, can a thief talk about his right to keep what he has stolen without sounding like a jackass?
"Whites living today must be punished for the wrongs you believe were committed in the past?"
Is it 'punishment' for a thief to be forced to return what he has stolen? Putting the thief in prison, THAT would be punishment, but we are not even talking about that, all we are saying is that the thief does not get to both keep what he has stolen and simultaneously be viewed as a respectable person. It is asinine to even suggest otherwise.
"does your desire to punish white people for the past extend to wanting to punish whites in Europe as well?"
I don't see 'white people' or 'Europe'. I only see colonialists (e.g. Britain) and non-colonialists (e.g. Norway). Non-colonialists would do well to distance themselves from colonialists by rejecting this ridiculous common label of 'white people', as it insults non-colonialists to be placed in the same category as colonialists.
The same applies to Australia: the colonialists evidently didn't respect the right to self-determination of the natives, so how can they then demand others to respect this right for them and not sound like a jackass?
ReplyDeleteWow. For anyone reading, here's a person who doesn't think white Australians should have the right to democratic self-determination. What else can you say?
I can see why you post anonymously, because if you used a name then we would be able to see your other likely similiar views in other posts and get a clear picture of what sort of person you are.
Is it 'punishment' for a thief to be forced to return what he has stolen?
Who exactly has stolen what from anyone? You mean, modern living white Australians stole Australia from someone? Talk about asinine, seriously dude, look in a mirror.
I don't see 'white people' or 'Europe'. I only see colonialists (e.g. Britain) and non-colonialists (e.g. Norway).
So I take it you are okay with say, white Swedish people or white German people exercising their rights of self-determination to set immigration policy that would keep their countries majority white?
Is that okay with you? Or are up for denying them self-determination like you are white Australians?
"Who exactly has stolen what from anyone?"
ReplyDeleteThere were people living in Australia before the British. The British settled without their prior permission. That is called stealing. What part of this do you not understand?
"So I take it you are okay with say, white Swedish people or white German people exercising their rights of self-determination to set immigration policy that would keep their countries majority white?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_overseas_colonies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_colonial_empire
Yawn.
There isn't a single living white person in any majority white country today that has stolen a single inch of land from anyone.
ReplyDeleteWhat part of this don't you understand?
Let's hear you come out and state your position clearly - you don't think any white European country with a history of colonization has the right to self-determination, right?
You've said it about Australia. You don't believe white Australians have the right to self-determination. Now let's hear you state the principle in total. Just so we know what you believe.
"There isn't a single living white person in any majority white country today that has stolen a single inch of land from anyone."
ReplyDeleteIf your father was a thief, and he left you the money he stole when he died, and then you realized that the money was originally stolen, and you kept the money anyway instead of giving it back, what does that make you? That's what it comes down to.
"Let's hear you come out and state your position clearly - you don't think any white European country with a history of colonization has the right to self-determination, right?"
That is correct. A party cannot demand any right for itself that it has failed to respect for other parties (without sounding like a jackass). That is what a "right" means.
Funny thing is - the left is all about "intentional communties" based on THEIR ideologies of "inclusiveness" or whatever - but let anyone else try to create an intentional community that they don't agree with and they fly out from under their rocks to criticize it. And.. I don't see these same people criticizing the Japanese "intentional community" or even the Chinese one - I don't see very much "inclusiveness" in those societies but they are never criticized. Why is it not ok for America or Australia to preserve THEIR culture which is decidedly ANGLO?
ReplyDeleteROOT OF ALL USA'S AND EUROPE'S PROBLEMS: A MISTAKE IN THE CONSTITUTION.
ReplyDeleteSOLUTION: BINDING SUPERSEDING NATIONAL REFERENDA
Thanks for the great website. I liked it.
Immigration is a 3rd world war going on right now against Whites-- it is the immigration bomb, designed to exterminate Whites and destroy White nations. If we do not act, whites will be a minority by 2050 in USA. The mass genocide against Whites will begin. White women will be raped and murdered and whites killed.
We must do more than sit back and complain. We must take immediate action. Do or Die!
The reason our politicians continue to import aliens despite the harm to society and the public opposition (80-90% against) is because there are no NATIONAL REFERENDA in the United States. Many other countries, including 3rd world countries, have it, but not the US! It is a shame that US, which claims to be a "world-class" advanced nation, is a mere pseudodemocracy. It is tragic that our constitution lacks the most basic and elementary human right--national referenda
The three branches have become corrupt, usurped power, and all three branches figured out that it is better to conspire, mug and terrorize the nation and totally ignore the owners, the US Citizens. So they keep imposing tyranny on us with impunity. They are on the payroll of the special interests.
But there is a solution to this govt's war on the nation. It is a constitutional amendment to allow irreversible binding superseding national referenda, so people can pass good laws in the national interest themselves. These laws will supersede laws passed by Congress and cannot be overturned except on constitutional grounds by a supermajority of both houses and a unanimous vote of the Supreme Court. The people can then still override it with a 66% vote. Some believe that this right to amend the constitution is inherently vested in the American public (the US citizens). Others suggest an actual amendment. A survey showed that 76% of the public approved the idea.
We can pass a national referendum that all laws that affect the nation as a whole, such as raising taxes, large welfare programs, foreign aid, immigration, bailouts, and raising the debt ceilings, etc. can become law only if finally approved by the people. We will solve 90% of our problems this way.
For eg., see:
http://ni4d.us/index.htm
http://www.iandrinstitute.org/National%20I&R.htm
The National Initiative For Democracy above (ni4d) is in the process of making a documentary about national referenda to bring this issue to a wider audience. They are seeking contributions.
We Americans (and Europeans, Australians) need to visit these websites, join these groups, contribute and call radio talk shows, etc. and promote this idea and get the process started soon, before it is too late or America, as we know it, will be finished.
ALL WHITE MEN MUST DIE YOU EVIL FUCKERS YOURE SO FUCKING RETARDED AND SICK THINKING THAT YOU CAN GET AWAY WITH BEING THE LARGEST ENEMY TO THIS EARTH YOU PARASITE BIRDSHIT SCUM !!
ReplyDeleteI was banned from that Channel!
ReplyDelete