Learning To Speak Up and Save Lives

Posted by Drew Fraser on July 12, 2005, 03:04 AM | #

“Whatever you do start with your family, and move outward.”
Easier said than done, unfortunately. A couple of weeks ago the local throw-away “community newspaper” made me choke over my cornflakes with a cover story built around the photo of a 3 year old Sudanese pickaninny born in Oz and the accompanying banner headline:NOW MY PARENTS ARE AUSSIES JUST LIKE ME. Inside there was another story about the efforts of the government and refugee advocacy groups to deal with the “social problems” expected to follow from the creation of a large black African colony in Western Sydney.  The solution, apparently, was to look to our “commonality” as Australians!

This was a bit too much to bear so I sent the following letter to the paper:

“The Path to National Suicide

Now that a large number of Sudanese refugees have been settled in the Parramatta-Blacktown area, Anglo-Australians are once again expected to acquiesce in the steady erosion of their distinctive national identity. 

Australia, it seems, can no longer remain the homeland of a particular people.  Instead, it must become a colony of the Third World.

Thirty years ago, no one in the world had any difficulty identifying an Australian.  Today, if the headline in the Sun is to be believed, black Africans and Muslim Afghanis “are Aussies just like” the descendants of the Anglo-Celtic pioneers who settled and built this country.

Community Relations Commissioner Stepan Kerkyasharian declares that “Australians…have a responsibility” to help those on the losing side in Third World civil wars to settle here, wherever and whenever it suits governments and the ever-expanding refugee industry.  He assures us that the ethnic and religious conflicts endemic to every other part of the world will be magically dissolved by the state-enforced “commonality of Australianism.”

That utopian fantasy is particularly likely to unravel as local African tribal groups grow in size and confidence.  Experience practically everywhere in the world tells us that an expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems.

The fact is that ordinary Australians are being pushed down the path to national suicide by their own political, religious and economic élites.  Shutting our eyes to that fact will not make it go away.”

Much to my surprise, not only did the paper print the letter but ran a cover story on it under the headline: KEEP THEM OUT-Academic Demands a Whiter Australia.  As well, they ran an editorial denouncing me, but, hey, they spelled my name right!

Besides a complaint to my employer, I received some positive feedback from the public.  But my family? My wife sniffed that it was a “stupid racist” rant and my 27 year old daughter (working on her 3rd degree) declared that she was embarrassed by it.  Just a tad demoralising to say the least.

Posted by Geoff Beck on July 12, 2005, 03:19 AM | #

> Easier said than done, unfortunately

It is a fight for survival now. With our backs to the wall - can we strike back?

Do we, those who are awake, have a choice?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 12, 2005, 04:20 AM | #

“Community Relations Commissioner Stepan Kerkyasharian declares that ‘Australians ... have a responsibility’ to help those on the losing side in Third World civil wars to settle here, wherever and whenever it suits governments and the ever-expanding refugee industry.  He assures us that the ethnic and religious conflicts endemic to every other part of the world will be magically dissolved by the state-enforced ‘commonality of Australianism.’ ” (—Drew Fraser)

What about having them get magically dissolved by the state-enforced commonality of ...

... Armenianism, Stepan? ... I think the Bantus would go for that, yes, I do ...

Can we send unlimited amounts of Sudanese Bantus to ...

... Armenia? 

Don’t the Armenians, Mr. Kerkyasharian, also have a responsibility to ...

“help those on the losing side in Third-World civil wars to settle in Armenia? 

I mean ... correct me if I’m wrong, but ... it can’t be only the Australians who are saddled with that particular responsibility ...  You know—“sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander” kind of thing? ... Fair play, fairdinkum and all that? ...

I mean, they lost the civil war over there, so isn’t it time to ship them to ... (pssst! ... what was the capital of Armenia again? ... quick, I forget ... Yerevan, is it? ... something like that ...) ... isn’t it time we shipped them all to ... Yerevan, sir?

Mr. Kerkyasharian? ...

Sir? ...

Are you still there, sir? ...

Stepan? ...

(Gee, it’s awfully quiet around here all of a sudden ...)

No one out there? ...

(You can hear a pin drop ...)

... Looks like Stepan Kerkyasharian suddenly got called away ...

(Could someone e-mail me the minute he comes back?  I’m sure he wants to resume our conversation, on the subject of how many Sudanese Bantus Armenia plans on taking in ... I’m certain he’s dying to get back to that topic ...  Right away ... just as soon as he walks back in ...)

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 12, 2005, 08:20 AM | #

Ethnic leaders like Mr Kerkyasharian would surely be dying to send millions of Sudanese refugees to their home countries. After all, they sound so convinced of the benefits of multiculturalism why would they want to deny their own ethny the wonders of being replaced by someone else?

I think it’s a bit selfish that we Anglo-Australians are hogging all the benefits of diversity and multiculturalism, so we should start loudly demanding our right to “share” the riches of balkanisation with Armenia. All out of charity and kindness, of course.

Posted by Tournament of Champions on July 12, 2005, 01:14 PM | #

One-on-one conversions alone are futile since the Jewish owners of mass media indoctrinates and lies to tens or hundreds of millions at a time. We need to create real mass media channels, without it we are doomed.

Posted by Geoff Beck on July 12, 2005, 01:32 PM | #

> We need to create real mass media channels, without it we are doomed.

We are doomed then.

The very parties you cited are working hard to clamp down on the internet, we will never get on the ‘idiot box’.

Do you live in the USA? Then you must know that criticism of Bush, the War, and unpatriotic news is unthinkable! 

Paul Craig Roberts
http://weekendinterviewshow.com/audio/roberts.mp3
Nat Hentoff
http://weekendinterviewshow.com/audio/hentoff.mp3

Use the tools available, while we have them. We ought to be studying how the secret press operated in the USSR.

Posted by Geoff Beck on July 12, 2005, 01:35 PM | #

TOC,

but you can get all you want of Washington Soap Operas:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162227,00.html

and celebrity news.

Posted by Stuka on July 12, 2005, 01:43 PM | #

Even if we had pro-white mass media, we would still be faced with the white population’s reluctance to speak up. Actions like Geoff’s are rare. Most white people won’t say or do anything. Which is unfortunate, because it doesn’t have to be confrontation or aggression. Sometimes even a friendly attempt at conversation, like GW or Geoff, will suffice. The power elites can censor or shut down pro-white mass media channels. They can’t stop whites from having private conversations.

Posted by Geoff Beck on July 12, 2005, 03:21 PM | #

BTW, Americans…

Take a look at Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2005 (Introduced in House) HR 2662

Is your congressman on this list? Mine is.

Posted by ben tillman on July 12, 2005, 03:44 PM | #

Just a tad demoralising to say the least.

Well, you have my admiration.  That was an excellent letter.

Posted by Svigor on July 12, 2005, 08:58 PM | #

One-on-one conversions alone are futile since the Jewish owners of mass media indoctrinates and lies to tens or hundreds of millions at a time. We need to create real mass media channels, without it we are doomed.

I don’t see how that’s the case.  The media is powerful in a vacuum only.  It suffers from weak arguments.  Wake some one up from that matrix and its for life.

The movement of information is going to increase in volume, and the war for censorship will be one opposed by many sectors of society, not just WNs and paleocons.

The media barons know they aren’t trusted.  If every awakened white converted at least two unawakened whites, we’d find ourselves back in control of our destiny within a generation.

Posted by Svigor on July 12, 2005, 09:11 PM | #

Besides a complaint to my employer, I received some positive feedback from the public.  But my family? My wife sniffed that it was a “stupid racist” rant and my 27 year old daughter (working on her 3rd degree) declared that she was embarrassed by it.  Just a tad demoralising to say the least.

Women aren’t exactly the target audience for racial activism.

Kudos on the letter.

Posted by Mark Richardson on July 12, 2005, 11:12 PM | #

The task right now is to begin to attract a small section of the political class away from liberalism.

In other words, we have to break up the pattern by which those people disaffected by left-liberalism simply adopt a right-liberal alternative, based on support for free-market economics, high immigration combined with assimilation, and an abstract “freedom”.

It’s possible to begin this process via the internet or through magazines - both this site and Lawrence Auster’s have built up a significant readership already.

I think we have to see this stage through, before even a medium size media becomes possible, let alone a mass media.

Posted by Zach on July 13, 2005, 12:11 AM | #

“Women aren’t exactly the target audience for racial activism.”

That seems to be the case, but it still kind of surprises me. I would think that women, with their urge to protect their young would be even more racially aware than men. Maybe it is simply the way the issue is frames that causes women to not respond as well.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 13, 2005, 02:02 AM | #

“ ‘Women aren’t exactly the target audience for racial activism.’ That seems to be the case, but it still kind of surprises me. I would think that women, with their urge to protect their young, would be even more racially aware than men. Maybe it is simply the way the issue is framed that causes women to not respond as well.” (—Zach)

Zach, you know, when astronomers look at the sky through telescopes they see the stars, galaxies, and what not, and when they look at the same patch of sky using radio telescopes (those big parabolic dish antennas) they see stars and galaxies that are different from what are seen through the light telescopes, and they also see the same ones but having different appearances.  Thus, they see two different skies ... depending on whether they look through telescopes or radio telescopes.  This is because one kind of telescope sees light while the other sees radiation having wave-lengths different from those of light (radio-frequency waves).  Light and the radio-frequency waves are both out there.  You see a different sky depending on which one you look with.

Women don’t see the same “sky” men see because they and men are looking through different kinds of telescopes.  Women are looking through a “relationships/love/marriage/babies/dieting/shopping” telescope so see things manifesting as those.  Races and nation-states don’t manifest as those so women can’t see them any more than a light telescope can see the radio waves bursting out of a supernova explosion.  There are women’s lib type women who claim to look at the sky through men’s telescopes but, women’s lib or not, they can’t, because women haven’t got the neurons, brain circuits, or hormones for it.  These women’s libbers think they’re looking through men’s telescopes but they’re not.

None of the above is a criticism of women.  They’re supposed to be as they are, women not men.  The criticism comes when they get into the voting booth.  They have no place in there unless it be to vote the way their husbands do( * ).  Any nation that lets its women into the voting booth signs its own death warrant—it’s just a matter of time before that nation gasps its last dying breath.
______

( * Yes there are exceptions:  the Michelle Malkins, the Ilana Mercers, the Phyllis Schlaflys, the Bryanna Bevenses, the Novaryanas, the Ummjacks perhaps ... not that they see race—probably none of these women can—but that they in some way sense how not to go screwing things up in the men’s world through irresponsible behavior in the voting booth and elsewhere in society—they have enough respect, sense, femininity, seriousness, personality, and female-type intelligence and instinct to tell them when to stick their nose out of men’s stuff which they know strictly naught about and leave that stuff to the men.  These are women, by the way, who know how to get the good husbands for themselves.  The others haven’t a clue.)

Posted by Mark Richardson on July 13, 2005, 02:08 AM | #

Zach, I think what you say has some merit. The only time my wife expresses sympathy with my politics is when she is confronted by groups of young immigrant men. She definitely doesn’t want to go near areas with ethnic gangs, as she doesn’t feel safe.

(Nor does this only apply to immigrants - she “freaked out” once when we went to Broken Hill and we unknowingly strayed into an Aboriginal part of town and had to walk the gauntlet of groups of unfriendly
young Aborigines hanging around the footpaths.)

The things is, though, that once she is safely back home her concern for such matters switches off. Then she begins to resent the time I spend on politics.

Posted by Mark Richardson on July 13, 2005, 02:25 AM | #

Good post, Fred. The way I often think about it is that women have “closer horizons” than men. They are more fully present in the attention they give to their families, particularly to their children. Men’s minds tend to wander off to further horizons.

It seems to me that this makes sense in terms of the roles that men and women have filled. It’s been men’s job to create a protected space for women in which women could bear and tend to their children. So women have been in the centre of a circle, whose outer perimeter men have had to defend.

Women could safely give their attention to their immediate relationships, but men had to look outward and take a larger view of things.

Posted by Steve Edwards on July 13, 2005, 11:54 AM | #

What do you guys think of Margaret Thatcher?*

*This is not an attempt to dodge, weave and obfuscate, as the answer could encompass more than just politics.

Posted by Mark Richardson on July 13, 2005, 09:28 PM | #

Steve,

In terms of the above argument about women and politics I think Margaret Thatcher is a genuine exception - in other words, her attitude to politics resembles the masculine one.

I don’t think she was a traditionalist conservative, though. I’ve explained why here. I think Melanie Phillips is closer to representing a female traditionalist conservatism in Britain as I have outlined here.

Posted by ummjack on July 15, 2005, 06:26 PM | #

Those of us married to men also married men who wouldn’t tolerate us or their children *sniffing* at their public positions.  For heaven’s sake, if you can’t control your womenfolk how do you expect to be taken seriously?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on July 16, 2005, 02:25 AM | #

That ummjack ... what a woman!  It’s always nice to be reminded real women are still out there ... You younger men who are still looking, don’t settle for second best—you’ve got your proof right here, the good ones are findable!

Posted by Svigor on July 16, 2005, 10:58 PM | #

I think we have to see this stage through, before even a medium size media becomes possible, let alone a mass media.

The next generation of information technology is currently in the works; look for broadband p2p content to be the next big mass medium.

The trick is how to market the thing so people even know it exists, and ensure that all barriers to viewing are minimized (i.e. no nutcases or violent rhetoric).

Posted by Svigor on July 16, 2005, 11:08 PM | #

I would think that women, with their urge to protect their young would be even more racially aware than men. Maybe it is simply the way the issue is frames that causes women to not respond as well.

I think racial defense is naturally a man’s role.  Our evolutionary job is to protect and provide for women.

The exceptions to the rule though can be devastatingly effective.  Ever read CarolontheWeb?  She’s a batty one, but she can get away with far more inflammatory rhetoric than a man.

This is so precisely because she’s an exception; people don’t expect racial aggression from women so it gets their attention.  Plus men are highly vulnerable to female calls for defense of home and hearth.

I didn’t intend to suggest that women have no place in the movement.  An articulate woman WN is worth her weight in gold.

Posted by An Aussie on January 04, 2006, 11:26 AM | #

With the recent outbursts in the Sydney suburbs here in Australia, Drew Fraser must feel some sense of vindication. Its about time someone pointed this out. No more than 6 months after Drew’s original statement and what he predicated has come true in the recent weeks.