Oppressive vilification laws in the Australian State of Victoria

Posted by Mark Richardson on September 09, 2006, 12:06 AM | #

JJR, a good post. However, I disagree with the final line about reviving the spirit of Bruce Smith. Smith was a classical, free market liberal who was a prominent advocate of open borders in 1901.

The last thing we need are more small-souled businessmen who put the free movement of labour ahead of a larger loyalty to their own people.

Posted by Daedalus on September 09, 2006, 07:08 AM | #

No-one should ever condone racial vilification. It is completely unacceptable in Australian society to vilify anyone on the basis of their racial background.

Why is White Australia completely unacceptable?

Posted by Al Ross on September 09, 2006, 07:47 AM | #

In a sane White society we would be able to speak freely about non-Whites whilst enjoying legal protection (with deportation penalties) from the pests who engage in anti-White vilification. There, that wasnt so hard.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 09, 2006, 10:41 AM | #

No-one should ever condone racial vilification. It is completely unacceptable in Australian society to vilify anyone on the basis of their racial background.

Vilification of individuals on account of their race (or their species), color, religion, or nationality is of course wrong, which no one here would dispute:  we favor basic politeness, hospitality, and humaneness, as gentlemen the world over do and always did.  Explicit opposition to forced race-replacement immigration and stealth genocide is, however, another matter entirely, having strictly naught whatsoever to do with any conceivable violation of the rules of politeness, hospitality, or humaneness.  It’s perfectly polite and humane to oppose the outright annihilation of longstanding nation-states, races and ethnocultures or their unwanted, irreversible alteration in ways not desired but forced on populations by governments under the manipulation of uncaring and/or actively hostile special interests who not only refuse to consult the people in honest ways but actively slander, criminalize, and suppress those objections that get voiced spontaneously.  Opposing that has naught whatsoever to do with being impolite or vilifying anyone on account of his race.

Posted by Alex Zeka on September 10, 2006, 06:20 AM | #

Fred, you could have just said: it isn’t impolite to tell a robber to stay out of your home.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 10, 2006, 09:06 AM | #

Alex, thanks for hitting the nail squarely on the head in few words!  You’ve summed it up exactly.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on September 10, 2006, 09:48 AM | #

Incidentally, one reason (presumably just one among many) John Ray is unalarmed at what I and some others see as creeping race-replacement of Oz whites with yellows and Hindus might be Australia’s size:  it’s easier to ignore race and nation (nation in the racial/ethnocultural sense) when other races and nations aren’t right on your doorstep the way they are in, say, the Balkans.  When your country is too big you can start to feel bored by it, by its race, and by its ethnoculture and may sort of get the feeling the supply of all that is inexhaustible, to the point where you see no threat whatsoever in the importation of “variety” or at least see not enough wrong with it to actively oppose it.  The countries suffering from excessive bigness include the British North-American ones of the United States and Canada, the old Soviet Union, the new Russia that has emerged therefrom, and Oz of course.  I wonder if growing beyond a certain physical size doesn’t weaken certain racial/ethnocultural centripetal forces holding traditional nation-states together.  My suspicion is that it does indeed, which is a reason I don’t know that I agree with PatrickZ so much when he says he wants to see the recuperation of the whole U.S. from the non-white invaders, not just some fraction with another fraction ceded to Mexicans or whomever.  A racially European and physically smaller U.S.A. (or whatever name the new North-American Anglo nation gives itself after waking up and extricating itself from the present mess) might be less likely to repeat the same race-replacement mistake in future.  I can see a physically smaller country as being “leaner, meaner, and stronger” than the big, unwieldy, far-flung, flabby, uncaring, distracted U.S.A. that complacently allowed what were mainly Jewish activists together with a group of their allies to maneuver the 1965 bill into law behind the back of the people.

There may be an optimal maximum physical size for nation-states which the U.S., Canada, and Australia exceed—optimal in the sense that beyond that size centripetal racial/ethnocultural forces weaken and centrifugal forces pulling the country apart are felt more.