The Undemocratic Nature of Asianisation
That the Asianisation of Australia will mean the end of the Australian people cannot be denied (24*). Its implementation is bringing about the destruction of our national identity and culture.
It is also a fact that the Australian people never asked for this process of Asianisation; nor were any referendums ever carried out; nor were the people - as a whole - ever consulted. The reason for this is simple: the Government knows that most Australians are opposed to the Asianisation of their country. Therefore, this policy has been carried out by subterfuge and stealth; by lying and cunning; by knowingly ignoring the wishes of the community - therefore implementing a process which is one of the most evil and undemocratic actions in Australia's history.
The undemocratic nature of the implementation of the Asianisation of Australia can been seen in the following notes:
1) Refusal to hold a referendum
There have been many calls for a referendum on the subject of immigration, but all of the major political parties have refused or ignored these calls. They know what the outcome would be (25*).
As Michael Barnard wrote in The Age in 1984,
"There is an even greater onus on the Government, once having placed its vision before the public, to put the issue to referendum. It is scandalous that any fundamental shift in national characteristic or any definitive step towards "Asianisation" should be attempted without proper public recourse to the ballot box."(26)
Note: In 1988, one opinion poll did actually ask whether "Australia should hold a national referendum on immigration policy"; the answer was that 70% thought we should.(27)
The majority of Australians did not ask for an end to Australia's traditional immigration policies, nor did they ask for a massive influx of Asians into Australia, or for the Asianisation of our nation.
2) Give little or no publicity to those opposing Asianisation
It is an established media tactic to give little or no coverage to organisations opposing Asianisation and Multiculturalism. Many media outlets follow this tactic; and in those rare instances where coverage is given, it is almost always negative.
3) The media's "conspiracy of silence"
As the editor of The Australian Financial Review once admitted, the media in Australia have co-operated with the government in maintaining a "conspiracy of silence" in relation to immigration policies.(28)
John Bennett, President of the Australian Civil Liberties Union, has revealed that
"The media has censored arguments for a return to a predominantly European immigration policy and has either ignored or berated people seeking to express support for the views of Professor Geoffrey Blainey who has said the current level of Asian immigration is too high. Reports indicating that a majority of immigrants are now from Asia are given little prominence. The failure of multi-racial and multi-cultural societies overseas is generally downplayed. People who call for a reduction in Asian immigration are subjected to character assassination and are wilfully described as inciting racial hatred while the racist immigration policies of Asian countries such as Japan, China, Malaysia and Indonesia are accepted as normal".(29)
4) The Government's "conspiracy of silence"
In 1993 The Herald Sun reported that Bob Hawke, former Labor Prime Minister, "told a Brisbane conference he found it difficult to resist a contention in a new book that the major parties had reached an implicit pact to keep immigration off the political agenda". Hawke said that
"There are no other issues on which the major parties have been prepared to act in this way, with the common cement of ACTU support, to advance the national interest ahead of where they believed the electorate to be" (that is, the major political parties have been prepared to impose mass Asian immigration upon our nation, to advance the interests of their liberal-internationalist beliefs, despite their knowledge that most Australians opposed their plans).(30)
At the same Brisbane conference, Ian Macphee (a former Liberal Minister for Immigration) said
"I think bipartisanship is crucial because immigration and multiculturalism issues are of such long-term importance".(31)
In 1997 Malcolm Fraser, former Liberal Prime Minister of Australia, admitted that
"Large-scale immigration is always a sensitive issue, but in Australia there was understanding between leaders that this was vital for the security of our children, and that therefore racial issues were off-limits in the political arena."(32)
Bob Hawke has further explained:
"the Liberal/National Party government of Harold Holt, with the support of the Australian Labour Party, began to dismantle the infamous White Australia policy. Neither Chifley, nor Holt, nor any of their successors enjoyed majority community support for what they did... Bipartisan support for a completely non-discriminatory immigration policy has been one of the great and rare distinctions of modern Australian political leadership. It has been a triumph of principle over populism, of reason over fear, of statesmanship over politics. Now all of this is at risk".(33)
What Hawke is saying is that the Australian Establishment intends to Asianise Australia, and does not "give a hoot" for what the majority of the Australian people think and want.
Professor McAllister, Professor of Politics at the Australian Defence Force Academy (University of New South Wales), confirms that the Liberal-National coalition and the Labor Party (both being part of the Australian Establishment/New Class elite) have a mutual interest in maintaining the "conspiracy of silence". McAllister stated that "there has been an implicit pact between the main parties to implement broad policies on immigration they know are not generally endorsed by the electorate" and that "This has been achieved by keeping the subject off the political agenda".(34)
The point is: Both major parties have a vested interest in keeping Asianisation off the political agenda, as this does not suit their ideological and economic aims, and they therefore have generally co-operated in keeping silent on the subject.
5) Government-approved "brainwashing"
The Sydney Morning Herald has exposed how "The Department of Immigration had a plan to feed themes sympathetic to immigrants into popular television soap operas" (35). The intent was (and is) to use television as a propaganda tool for the promotion of Australia's "Asian Future" and to try to create an atmosphere of acceptance for the increasing Asian proportion of our population.
Australians can only wonder as to what other amazing plans the Department of Immigration, and other government departments, have "cooked up" in order to indoctrinate and "brainwash" the public into accepting Asianisation and Multiculturalism.
6) "Brainwashing" via advertising and the media
Various government institutions give "positive discrimination" (a euphemism for discrimination against Australians) to Asian immigrants; and, in matters of public propaganda, often seek to have Asian ethnics portrayed in disproportionate numbers or "in a positive light".
Perhaps not unconnected is the documented usage of Asians in disproportionate numbers in newspaper photos of a generalised nature, as well as in corporate advertising. The Myer retail company has been guilty of this latter practice, and the Target retail company consistently so - particularly in regard to the disproportionate numbers of Asian children (and other coloured children) used in their retail advertising. While some companies may claim this is being done in an effort to promote multiracialism, it has been suggested by some commentators that such ads are actually a vehicle by which large companies are trying to capture the present and future spending of the "ethnic dollar" (following a similar practice by many American businesses).(36*)
John Bennett, President of the Australian Civil Liberties Union, has exposed the media practice of disproportionately focusing on Asians, and has also revealed how "TV ads and TV 'soapies' are used surreptitiously to change public opinion which is still strongly opposed to the attempt to Asianise Australia" (37). He further says that
"many TV and newspaper ads now seem biased against the white majority and give non-whites great prominence. Thus, a full page ad by Myer in The Sun, Melbourne, the largest circulation newspaper in the southern hemisphere, recently featured 7 children, only 3 of whom were white. In a society which is 95% white the use of a majority of non-whites in such ads is deliberately calculated to brainwash Australians into accepting the idea that a multi-racial Australia is both inevitable and desirable and to overlook the fact that multi-racial societies elsewhere are an abject failure. The use of multi-racial ads - a 'Big Brother' brainwashing technique - is a deliberate policy to encourage white Australians to accept large scale non-white immigration, the long term intention of which is a non-white majority in Australia".(38)
John Bennett has also exposed the extraordinary disproportionate use of Asians in The Sun (Melbourne) newspaper in "photographs and stories giving Asians a prominence out of all proportion to the percentage of Asians in the community", as well as revealing that one of Australia's leading newspapers, The Age (Melbourne), "has used its paper as a brainwashing agency to secure public support for a high level of Asian immigration and has deliberately suppressed the views of the 70% of Australians opposed to that policy" by a massively disproportionate use of pro- immigration feature articles and letters to the editor (Bennett reports that "The Sydney Morning Herald had a similar bias").(39)
The main reason for all this anti-Australian bias in the media is almost certainly to be the ideological favouring of mass immigration, multiculturalism, and multiracialism apparently held by most journalists in Australia nowadays, although an economic angle is also possible - such as in the current American practise to "hire minority reporters", "include minorities in stories in which their race, sex or ethnic background are unrelated", and whereby "editors are encouraged to include photographs of minorities and women on their front pages", because "news executives are realising that they must appeal to minority readers or risk losing them".(40)
It is interesting to note here that it was journalist Phillip Adams who was the "brain" behind the Department of Immigration's strategy to "feed themes sympathetic to immigrants into popular television soap operas". Adams is not only an influential author, broadcaster, and film-maker, but also heads one of Australia's biggest advertising agencies - there can be little doubt that he has used his influence in order to "influence" ("brainwash"?) the Australian public; in his words, to "modify a hostile or anachronistic community attitude". John Bennett reports that "The advertising millionaire Phillip Adams has great influence in the advertising industry. He has stated that his own advertising company tries to use ads which promote a multi-cultural Australian society, and avoid W.A.S.P. ads with only white Anglo Saxon Celtic Australians".(41)
The liberal-internationalist media has for a long time been misusing its position of influence and responsibility, by constantly reporting and producing information and articles in such a way so as to reflect and promote their own liberal- internationalist-multiculturalist point of view, instead of impartially reporting the truth - which is supposed to be the traditional role of the news media. This situation is not confined to Australia but is occurring in most, if not all, Western democracies. As the American commentator, Rush Limbaugh, wrote in 1992, "When people say they feel betrayed and sold out by the old-line political institutions of the country, they include The Media in the mix. The Media is now considered just another part of the arrogant, condescending, elite, and out-of-touch political structure which has ignored the people and their concerns and interests. People are beginning to view the media not as a watch dog against governmental abuses of power but as an institution which is itself engaging in the abuse of power". His words also apply to Australia.(42)
7) Covering up research results; and the suppression of intellectual dissent
On several occasions over the years, studies have been kept hidden from public view because their results were not in accordance with what the government expected.
In 1979 The Age, in an article entitled "Minister Hides Racism Report", revealed "A State Government report on racism will not be released because it is believed it could fuel the fires it was intended to put out. The report is believed to be an indictment of Victorian attitudes because it shows that a large proportion of the population is bigoted with only a small proportion in favour of immigration. The report is the basis for a $1 million Government advertising and educational campaign to combat racism... Both Labor and Liberal MPs have agreed not to release the report. It was prepared last year by the State Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Department after more than 1000 people were interviewed".(43)
A later newspaper article stated that "the report was not intended to be made public but it was leaked to a Melbourne Sunday newspaper". The article quoted Walter Jona, who was the Victorian Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs at the time when the report was commissioned: "Mr Jonah said that when he was Minister he was under strict instructions not to release the findings". The article stated that "the report showed that most of the more than 1000 second-generation Australians interviewed strongly believed in the White Australia policy. Their attitudes ranged from blatantly racist to mild or uncertain. But 78 per cent of those interviewed in the Melbourne metropolitan and Geelong areas held some form of anti-migrant attitude. The report found that 31 per cent of Victorians could be described as "conscious bigots"; 18 per cent were "unconscious bigots" and 29 per cent were uncertain. Only 22 per cent were found to have a positive attitude to migrants and believed the immigration program should continue" (the report referred to the latter group as "cosmopolitans").(44)
The newspaper also spoke to the new Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Ward, who said that the survey's findings would be used to draw up a "total community education plan" and that "a media campaign similar to the successful Life Be In It campaign and a children's program to promote understanding between different races were being planned" (more re-education/brainwashing for the masses?).(45)
In 1981 Nation Review revealed that "Phillip Adams was commissioned by the Victorian Government to carry out a survey of attitudes to Asian migrants; the result was so disturbing that the report was withheld".(46)
In 1984 Ronald Wild, in an article in Australian Society, related that
"The recent action of the Human Rights Commission in refusing to publish a major research report on affirmative action by Sydney law academic Dr Gabriel Moens raises once again the issue of censorship in contract research. Last year, on the ABC programme Monitor, I detailed several cases of contract research from La Trobe University where government departments refused to publish social research because the reports did not produce the expected results.
In 1982, for example, after Dr Rosemary Wearing entered into a $33,000 contract to research and write a report on citizenship among migrants, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs refused to publish the report and even refused to distribute it within its own department. A further case involving the Human Rights Commission showed the enormously restrictive nature of the contracts used for such research. Government departments use social science research for several purposes other than the development of policies. First, it may be used to legitimise policy decisions already made on other grounds. In other words, the research findings fulfil a window-dressing function. Second, the data may not be used, referred to, or even made public. That is, research may be censored because it either goes against political decisions or may cause embarrassment to people in positions of authority. Third, research may be used to divert immediate political pressures. In such cases, elaborate research programmes may be established whose main function is to provide time and to prevent decisions from being made.
Such approaches to contract research can have significant effects on the research problems selected, the methodology to be used, and the presentation of the results. A research programme may be tailored to the needs of politicians and bureaucrats rather than to the interests of those being studied or the interests of thorough and honest research. This is most likely to occur when a department requires results very quickly for political effect. Clearly, under such circumstances, the very problem selected for study reflects the short- term interests of those commissioning the research".(47)
In 1990, in The Sunday Age, Terry Lane wrote of "a study commissioned by the Immigration Department and the Australian Institute of Criminology into crime rates among Vietnamese migrants. The study reported that crime rates among adult Vietnamese in Victoria and New South Wales are 'much higher than among the general population'. In fact the murder rate is 'between seven and 10 times higher' than for the rest of the population. An astonishing fact, wouldn't you say?"
Lane further revealed that "The researcher who compiled the report claims that it was suppressed by the Department of Immigration. The department, however, says that it only commissioned a report into juvenile crime in the Vietnamese community. The department may be guilty of selective reporting. The report shows that juvenile crime in the Vietnamese community is lower than for the general community. That part was published."(48)
Such suppression of research can occur anywhere - within the media, universities, private corporations, and government departments. Mark Ragg, of The Bulletin, has revealed that such intellectual suppression can take various forms: research funding dries up, publications can be deliberately rejected, promotions can be blocked, careers can be sabotaged, positions not be renewed, job applications left unanswered, interviews not granted, and personal campaigns can be waged to smear or discredit dissenters - all of which can lead to an atmosphere that invites self-censorship (49).
It is also interesting to note that the results of a survey of journalists carried out by the University of Queensland showed that 41% had personally experienced "improper managerial interference" with an article (50).
Robert Manne once declared in The Bulletin that "It is rare for an intellectual to show signs of dissent". The Bulletin further reported that "When someone did break ranks, such as Geoffrey Blainey on the question of Asian immigration... they risked being marginalised (if they were strong-minded) or silenced (if they were weak)". Manne said that most Australian intellectuals belonged to cliques who shared the same world-view, such as "egalitarianism, moral individualism, feminism, sentimental multiculturalism, and so on", and - in general - engaged in "rather unthreatening dialogues with those who agree about fundamentals".(51)
The situation of Geoffrey Blainey is a case in point of what can happen to an intellectual who dissents from the Establishment's fundamental viewpoint. In 1984, when the media furore erupted over his comments about Asian immigration and multiculturalism, Blainey was attacked in the press by his "fellow academics", his classes at university were disrupted, and his public speaking engagements were demonstrated against and physically attacked. Also, a group of "academics" (led by that old liberal-internationalist hack, Andrew Markus) specifically wrote a book to denounce Blainey and all of his historical writings - a well-organised professional character assassination entitled Surrender Australia? Essays in the Study and Uses of History: Geoffrey Blainey and Asian Immigration. Hardly the reaction of true academics (who debate the issues at hand and seek answers), but rather the actions of a multiculturalist lynch mob or hit-squad. The controversy in the media was labelled "The Blainey Debate", but it couldn't truly be seen as a real debate, due to the massive media bias in favour of Asian immigration, and against Blainey. Coincidentally (?), Blainey's daughter was attacked and knifed during the media-driven "debate" over Blainey and Asian immigration (the police refused to reveal the race of the attacker - leading many to assume it was an Asian; although it was denied that the cowardly attack was related to her father's views). Ongoing attacks upon Blainey were mounted from both the media and academia, until he finally left his position with the University of Melbourne.(52)
Dr Katharine Betts, chairwoman of sociology at Swinburne University, has stated that it has been difficult to question immigration in Australia because of the "new-class ideology that links such questions with racism". Dr Betts said in 1993 that "Radical questions about the purpose of immigration had been repressed and the personal costs of attempting to raise them had been demonstrated once again, just as they had been in 1984".(53)
8) Bans on so-called "racist" immigrants
Intending immigrants are screened for so-called "racist" views. In 1987 Mick Young (then Labor's Immigration Minister) revealed that "Applicants (in South Africa and elsewhere) must provide evidence of their tolerance and flexibility. A key part of the assessment of an applicant's eligibility involves ascertaining: The applicants's understanding that the Australian community includes people of various races, religions and cultures; The applicant's acceptance of the values embodied in Australia's multicultural society; Whether the applicant holds extremist views which would conflict with Australian social values", and that "In the South Africa context, such assessment procedures are carried out with particular thoroughness. Applicants undergo a rigorous settlement assessment to screen out extremists, including racists, holding views inconsistent with Australia's multi-cultural and multi-racial society" (54). Of course, to liberal-internationalists, anyone who opposes Multiculturalism is an "extremist".
9) "Brainwashing" of students
Trainee teachers are unofficially screened for so-called "racist" views (the same often applies to other positions within the public service). Teachers are also well-trained in Multiculturalism, and are encouraged to promote internationalism; both philosophies which have only one end for Australia: Asianisation. To this end, teachers are "armed" by internal training sessions, special journal articles, and even entire books (for example, Anti-Racism: A Handbook for Adult Educators, The Prejudice Book: Activities For the Classroom, and Combating Prejudice In Schools: An Inservice Guide For Schools and Teacher Training Institutions), all of which have been developed to help brainwash students (euphemistically called "shaping students' attitudes") into the doctrine of Multiculturalism (and hence, our "Asian Future"). Many materials have been produced to this end, such as a kit called Teaching For Human Rights: Activities For Schools (produced by the Human Rights Commission), as well as a six-part TV series, The Migrant Experience, which comes with a Teacher's Guide and is regarded as "Suitable for History, English, Social Studies and topic-based Economics at a wide variety of levels" - proving that teachers seize upon the opportunity to preach multiculturalism in a whole range of classes.(55)
That liberal-internationalism is the prime ideology being pushed within the educational system is beyond doubt. A good example of this anti-nationalist mind-set being promoted is provided by Peter McGregor (from the School of Humanities, University of Western Sydney):
"The youth of today and tomorrow have no fatherland or motherland other than the planet itself. Either we build a better generation by offering them multicultural internationalism, or we mutually self-destruct in the trivia and conformity of uniforms and flags, the parochialism of patriotism" (56).
This sort of ideological clap-trap has been encouraged by education bureaucrats in many ways, such as through Victoria's 1991 Advanced Skill Teachers grading (giving teachers an increase in pay) whereby "the eligible teachers have been assessed on the basis of written applications in which they were required (among other things) to demonstrate ideological commitment to Government social justice and affirmative action plans".(57)
In the same vein, yet another example can be given as proof of the cosmopolitan- internationalist viewpoint that is being used in the indoctrination of school children, whereby politically internationalist educators mould "in their own image" their students' young minds. This is amply demonstrated in a 1997 advertisement for the Ivanhoe Grammar School (Melbourne), which gushed forth:
"Our sons and daughters are growing up in a world vastly different from that which we and their grandparents experienced as children. Communications technology and modern travel are creating an increasingly borderless world, and a major aim of modern education must be that of enabling our students to think of themselves as global citizens, to acknowledge the essential oneness of humankind, and to understand that the future of the planet will depend largely on those who can break out of tribal and regional thinking and new issues and events over a long time-period and in an international context.
"Australia, Victoria, and indeed Ivanhoe Grammar School are well situated to take advantage of our highly successful multiculturalism in preparing our young people for adult lives characterised by physical, intellectual and cultural mobility, in facilitating their growth towards being responsible citizens of the world, and in developing their confidence to be comfortable in an international context."
"Here at Ivanhoe Grammar School we are continuing to review and change curriculum with these considerations in mind, so that your sons and daughters will have every opportunity to become confident global citizens.
"R.D. Fraser, Principal"(58)
As Donald Horne has stated: "I agree with Al Grassby that one of the great battles for multiculturalism must be fought in the schools".(59)
Those who have read George Orwell's book 1984 will understand something of their motivation and tactics.
10) Willingness to ignore democracy
In order to carry out their anti-Australian policies, the liberal-internationalists of the Establishment are quite prepared to cast democracy aside in pursuit of their goals. Consider the following quote from well-known journalist Sam Lipski:
"But what about democracy? What if 75% of Australians do want, ahead of all other concerns, to slow up or stop Asian immigration... the democracy we inherited is not meant to be government by referendums... parliamentary democracy is an interwoven net of representative institutions, not populist ones... It requires nurturing, political leadership - especially from conservatives - and an occasional editorial".(60)
In other words: liberal-internationalists believe that, no matter what 75% of Australians believe regarding immigration, the self-given duty of the Establishment's media and politicians is to press on with immigration policies that are opposed by the majority of Australians.
Apparently, politicians intend to ignore the views of the majority of Australians, in regard to immigration, no matter what. Opinion polls have consistently shown majority views against mass immigration from supporters of all of the major political parties, yet they are ignored. Senator Robert Ray, whilst Labor's Immigration Minister, said of immigration: "It is very hard to define what the attitudes of our supporters are. But that is one of those issues where even if we were not entirely in line with our supporters, we can't take any other line from the one we're taking. Some people scoff at Hawke's statement that if he had to lose an election on it, he would, but I'm convinced that is his view and the entire caucus's view."(61)
Politicians treat the views of ordinary Australians with contempt, as these "leaders" believe that only their views are correct, and that the rest of us need to be "re-educated", rather than the politicians abiding by what the majority want (a democratic concept that politicians only follow when it suits them).
11) Racial vilification laws, and the silencing of dissent
"We will not allow to become a political issue in this country the question of Asianisation" - Bob Hawke, 1984 (then Labor Prime Minister).(62)
"It should be clear that in our own self-interest, if we are looking to the future of this country, it is an absurdity to allow, engage in or permit any suggestion of anti-Asian discrimination or racism in this country" - Bob Hawke, 1988 (then Labor Prime Minister).(63)
Racial Vilification laws have been enacted at both state and federal levels specifically in order to crush the opposition of Australians to the Asianisation of their country (not, as various politicians have suggested, to stop illegal behaviour against minorities - as such behaviour is already covered by existing legislation, such as laws relating to offensive behaviour, assault and battery, defacing property, incitement to riot, etc.). As Mark Uhlmann, editor of The Record, so clearly stated: "A major aim of Federal racial vilification legislation... is to complement the social intimidation which already greets anyone, particularly in public office, who dares to criticise matters connected to immigration and multiculturalism".(64)
It should be realised that the idea of "Big Brother" is not a literary fantasy, nor a sociological cliche, it is a reality (even if it hasn't taken on the all-pervading form as expressed by George Orwell); but it is a reality which can't readily be seen, because it is occurring slowly, bit by bit - taking away just one liberty at a time.
The Establishment wants to silence critics of its immigration policies, and is willing to act undemocratically in order that its liberal-internationalist ideology can be forced upon the Australian people. It is interesting to note that in the days of the White Australia Policy it was never made illegal to advocate non-European immigration, multiracialism, or opposition to the White Australia Policy itself. It is quite clear that the "New Class" (sometimes referred to as the "Traitor Class") of the self-righteous, wowser, McCarthyist, "politically correct" liberal- internationalists are - despite any protestations to the contrary - undemocratic and authoritarian in their nature, and their actions, when anyone disagrees with them outside of the general confines of their liberal-internationalist ideology (especially if a credible and serious threat is posed) - this is why this "New Class" has been described by several commentators as quasi-fascist or as "the New Nazis".(65*)
While more and more Australians are coming to realise that our right to free speech is under attack by politicians and rabid multiculturalists, what really "sticks in the throat" of many people is the fact that there are those Asians who have come to Australia, immigrating via the Asianisation policies of our traitorous Establishment, and then demand that Australians should not have freedom of speech. A case in point is Vietnamese refugee Tan Le, who says "I don't believe that freedom of speech includes the right to hurt people and to incite racial disharmony" (Tan Le was made "Young Australian of the Year" for 1998: the "Australian of the Year" awards have made a point of giving their awards to a highly disproportionate number of non-Europeans, a clear case of anti-White discrimination, but that's another story). Another example is Phong Nguyen, whose comments were reported in the Herald Sun: "The most painful thing is to hear Pauline Hanson say that the silent majority agrees with her... There is a clear distinction between free speech and racism" (66). Nguyen arrived on a Vietnamese refugee boat in 1978, and he now runs a Indochinese welfare centre in Springvale, where money is being spent on even more Vietnamese (presumably funded by the long-suffering Australian taxpayers, the majority of whom don't apparently deserve to have freedom of speech).
Graeme Campbell, the independent member for Kalgoorlie, made a telling point when he said: "If the people of a nation do not have any rights to say with whom they share their country, what rights do they have?"(67)
12) The result?
Asianisation means that Australia will no longer be a nation (in the true sense of the word), but will simply be another area on the map populated by the teeming masses of Asia (or rather, a mixture of Asian peoples - with a large number of Africans, Melanesians, and Polynesians thrown in for good measure). What Europeans there are will be quickly outbred, and within some generations it is quite possible that most of the remaining few Europeans would probably have interbred with non- Europeans (especially when one considers the effects that the Establishment will have had in the promotion of multiculturalism, multiracialism, and cosmopolitan liberal-internationalism - through media, education, and government - upon Australia's coming generations). And, to anticipate the response of many people: NO, the answer isn't to flee to Tasmania - that will be Asianised as well in due course.
Apparently, Australia is following the process of destruction being dealt out to all of the liberalistic, guilt-ridden, bleeding-heart White countries of the world.(68*)
Yes, the Asianisation of Australia is very undemocratic. However, there is no point in whingeing about the injustice of it all. Frankly, the anti-Australian traitors of the current Establishment don't give a damn. It is up to all of us to oppose the Asianisation of Australia, and - in one way or another - to support nationalist-patriotic organisations who are fighting this evil.