Global White Population to Plummet: Time for a White Policy

[Windsor]

Global White Population to Plummet to Single Digit—Black Population to Double

As a percentage of world inhabitants the white population will plummet to a single digit (9.76%) by 2060 from a high-water mark of 27.98% in 1950.

The study was conducted by William H. Regnery, Mark Stradley, Dean Stradley, and the NPI Staff. The methodology is described in a footnote.

Using 2010 as the base reference the big gainer in the population derby will be blacks or sub-Sahara Africans. This group will expand almost 133% to 2.7 billion by 2060. By the middle of this century blacks will represent 25.38% of world population which is up dramatically from the 8.97% they recorded in 1950.

The other groups measured in the study were the Central Asians (Indians), East Asians (Chinese and Japanese), the Southeast Asians, Arabic (North Africa and the Middle East) and Amerindian-Mestizo (Mexican and Central America). All these groups will experience a population growth. The Chinese/Japanese and Indians will trade rankings and the relative global presence of the other groups will remain more or less constant.

The big population story of the 21st Century is shaping up to be the status reversal of whites and blacks and the Indian baby boom. A side bar will be the single digit minority role that whites will assume. Of the 7 population groups studied only whites are projected to sustain an absolute decline in numbers.

In 1950 whites and blacks were respectively 27.98% and 8.97% of world population. By 2060 these figures will almost reverse as blacks surge to 25.38% and whites shrink to 9.76%. From 2010 the white population will decline while blacks will add 1.2 billion to their numbers. In this time frame the the Indian subcontinent will gain 1.2 billion people. These groups and their governments will be looking for elbow room and the diminished presence of whites in Europe and especially in the relatively wide open spaces North America will provide such an opportunity. Specifically countries like Canada, the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and Russia can expect to be pressured to accept collectively hundreds of millions of refugees from India, and sub-Sahara Africa.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives...l_white_po.php

NPI: Global White Population to Plummet to a Single Digit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6pzPp1Q2ew

Asia Migrants Flock to Australia
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives...migrants_f.php

BBC News, January 29, 2009

Australia’s Asian population is soaring as immigrants from across the region—particularly China and India—enter the country, official data suggests.

Asia is fast becoming a rival to Europe as the dominant source of arrivals, analysis of the latest census showed.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics said almost one-fifth of the new arrivals in Australia between 1996 and 2006 came from China and India.

The data also showed that 4.4 million people in Australia were born overseas.

This represented a 2% increase from the time of the last census in 1996.

Until 1973 the former British colony had a “White Australia” policy, restricting immigration to Westerners.

While migration from Europe has continued, the ABS report, entitled Portrait of a Nation, said the overseas-born population had “featured a major increase in Asian immigration”.

The United Kingdom was still the most common country of origin, with 24% of foreign-born residents (92,000) arriving from there between 1996 and 2006, census data suggested.

However, six of the 10 most common birthplaces were now Asian countries with China accounting for 9.5% (62,000) of new arrivals and India with 8.4% (54,100).

Other Asian countries where migrants were coming from included Malaysia, the Philippines, South Korea.

The report said that the Asian population has now eclipsed that of indigenous Australians.

Multiculturalism in Australia: An Asian Perspective

Since the nineteenth century, Asians have been immigrants to Australia. In 1861, they comprised nearly 3.5% of the Australian population (Price, 1983). However, with the White Australia Policy, the Asian component of the Australian population had dropped to 0.4%. This percentage was to remain at a low level until the mid sixties when the barriers against the entry of skilled non-Europeans and part-Europeans (those of mixed descent) was relaxed. The aim then was to only allow low numbers of middle-class non-Europeans into Australia. Their numbers were kept small to make them socially invisible and subject to the availability of preferred White immigrant groups (Castles, 1993:56).

Today, Asian Australians who migrated to Australia comprise about 4.1% of the Australian population. 2.2% of the population (377,751) come from Southeast Asia, which comprises of, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. 1.2% of the population (199,288) come from Northeast Asia, which comprises of, China, Hong Kong, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Macau, Mongolia and Taiwan. 0.7% of the population (110,811) come from Southern Asia, which comprises of, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~yeule...australia.html

Rethinking the White Australia Policy

http://www.vdare.com/misc/050926_fraser.htm

In a wonderful passage, Fraser states that he has no objection against African and Jewish groups pursuing their interests in making Australia into a multi-racial society—

"But they must understand that, as Australia becomes a multi-racial society, it is inevitable that Anglo-Australians, having observed the self-interested activities of other racial, ethnic and religious groups, are bound to become more conscious of their own distinctive racial identity. Many white Australians already feel that they are losing their ancestral homeland to a massive influx of Third World migrants hostile or indifferent to the ethnic interests of the host society. … The simple fact is that a multi-racial immigration policy is not obviously and necessarily in the best interests of white Australians."

http://www.vdare.com/macdonald/09051...ntion_bill.htm

The Realists: http://therealists.com.au/

ALOR - Homepage: www.alor.org/

[Windsor]

Rethinking the White Australia Policy
By Andrew Fraser - posted Wednesday, 28 September 2005

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=128

This is an edited extract of Associate Professor Andrew Fraser's paper entitled Rethinking the White Australia Policy. The paper in full can be found at http://users.bigpond.net.au/jonjayray/fraser.html.

Andrew Fraser calls for the re-establishment of the White Australia Policy on racial grounds.

192 Comments: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/th...sp?article=128

Over the past 30 years, Australia, along with just about every other Western society, has been transformed by a revolution engineered from the top down by the leading echelons of the corporate welfare state. “New Class” cadres of managers, professionals, politicians and academics have dismantled the foundations of Australian nationhood. The arbitration system, the protective tariff and the White Australia Policy: all have gone in order to facilitate the free flow of capital, technology and labour in a globalist economy.

The most revolutionary, by far, of these radical changes has been the decision to open Australia to mass Third World immigration. Since the end of World War II a strange alliance of Communists, Christian churches, ethnic lobbies and other pressure groups working through the corporate sector and within the centralised apparatus of state power has set out deliberately to flood the Anglo-Australian homeland with a polyglot mass of Third World immigrants.

Chief among the ideological weapons deployed in that campaign have been the interwoven myths of equality and universal human rights as enshrined in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. According to that document, “any doctrine of superiority based on racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally condemnable, socially unjust and dangerous”. There can therefore be “no justification for racial discrimination, in theory or in practice, anywhere”. Those who subscribed to the doctrine of racial egalitarianism were bound to oppose a colour bar on immigration to Australia as being both immoral and pointless.

Racial egalitarianism flies in the face of the more realistic premises of the White Australia Policy. The founding fathers of the Australian nation regarded racial differences as a fact of life and racial conflict as the inevitable consequence of a multiracial society. In their view, ethnic homogeneity was one of the great strengths of the Australian nation, one that ought not to be thrown away in pursuit of utopian visions of universal harmony in which lions could be re-educated to lie down with lambs.

Advances in genetics, paleo-anthropology, psychology and medical science are placing the universalist doctrines of racial egalitarianism under serious pressure. A vast range of studies in a number of disciplines has revealed real and important differences between the races in cognitive and athletic ability, behaviour and temperament. Faced with such intellectual challenges, defenders of the ruling orthodoxy are resorting to social ostracism, legal repression and even the sort of physical coercion deployed against members of the One Nation Party some years back. The time is clearly ripe for a courageous and well-informed reappraisal of the White Australia Policy and the decision to dismantle it, but Keith Windschuttles’s recent book, The White Australia Policy, is a disappointment.

Windschuttle’s rehabilitation of the White Australia Policy is premised on a familiar tenet of neo-conservatism: he maintains that the operating premise of Australian society is the proposition that all people are equal in principle and in potential. Windschuttle contends that the White Australia Policy, far from being the reactionary spawn of an irredeemably racist nation, grew out of a long-established, progressive program aiming “to extend both the freedom and the dignity of labour”.

Windschuttle insists that mainstream Australians have never subscribed to biological theories of race. He is struck by the ease with which opponents of the White Australia Policy were able to overturn it.

For decades, there was no effective political opposition to the revolution from above in immigration law and policy. Among the managerial and professional classes, a complacently “cosmopolitan” consensus reigned supreme; the political equilibrium was not upset until the meteoric rise of the One Nation party in the late 1990s. Then, for a brief, shining moment, the patriotic instincts of the more “parochial” outer suburban, white Australians found a political voice.

As a committed racial egalitarian, Windschuttle desperately wants to drive a stake through the heart of racial realism. He worries that residual forms of racial identity might someday reawaken in the hearts of white Australians. For that reason, Windschuttle happily joins the left in its attack upon race as “an unscientific category”, as a thoroughly modern, bad idea “engendered by the new social sciences and brought to maturity by the evolutionary biology of the 19th century”. Windschuttle resolutely denies that differences between “races” have a biological or genetic foundation. For him, the evident differences between the various races of mankind are the malleable product of their cultures and the particular stage each may have reached in the long ascent from savagery to civilisation. Somewhat imprudently, Windschuttle suggests that to take any other view on this question “is to betray one’s ignorance of the subject”.

There is still room for debate on the precise genetic contribution to any given racial difference in, for example, intelligence, temperament, criminality and athletic ability. But, that such racial differences do exist and that they have a biological basis is no longer open to serious scientific question. As Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele put it, “the case for race hinges on recognition that genetic variation in traits that affect performance and ultimately survival is the fuel on which the evolutionary process runs”. Without that “functional genetic variation, there can be no adaptive evolution”.

In fact, Sarich and Miele suggest the range of genetic variation between different races of Homo sapiens is much greater than for any other species, including domesticated dogs. They observe that commonly used genetic tests can determine with great precision not just an individual’s race but also “the percentage of racial background in people of mixed ancestry”.

Race exists, and it matters across a wide range of public policy issues. It is of particular relevance to any analysis of immigration law and policy. Windschuttle does recognise the seemingly insuperable cultural barriers alienating mainstream Australians from other racial groups, particularly the Chinese. Nevertheless he asserts that it is a fundamental error “to slide from the concept of culture to that of race”. Cultural differences are not inbred and immutable.

But what if Windschuttle is wrong? What if racial differences are, in large part, biologically or genetically grounded? What if even culture is not simply a social construct but, rather, a phenomenon with a substantial biological component? Windschuttle does demonstrate that explicitly racialist ideologies have had little appeal to opinion leaders in Australia. But that may mean only that Australians, like other ethnic groups tracing their ancestry to northwestern Europe, are predisposed to individualism, exogamy and small nuclear families and, as a consequence, display a relative lack of ethnocentrism.

What Windschuttle describes as a creedal commitment to racial egalitarianism may actually be a defining characteristic of a distinctive European racial identity not shared by other peoples. Kevin MacDonald explains Western “cultural” traits as an evolutionary adaptation to the rigours of life in cold, ecologically adverse climates. Natural selection worked there to favour the reproductive success of those individuals capable of sustaining “non-kinship based forms of reciprocity”.

For instance in England, over time, individualistic social structures encouraged the emergence of the common law of property and contract and, later still, the emergence of impersonal corporate forms of business enterprise, all requiring co-operation between strangers. The distinctive culture that emerged from the interaction between the genotype of the English people and their environment can be understood as what Richard Dawkins calls “an extended phenotype”. Like the spider’s web or the beaver’s dam, the extended phenotypes of Western civilisation are part of a biocultural feedback loop linking our genes with our environment over countless generations. The extended phenotype produced by the English people found its greatest political expression in the phenomenon of nationhood.

Other races have produced their own distinctive extended phenotypes: these may not mesh easily with the biocultural interest that Anglo-American societies, in particular, have in the survival and enhanced vitality of their historically unique civic cultures. Black Africans, for example, have been present in large numbers in America, the pre-eminent civic nation, for almost 400 years without successfully integrating into the common culture of white Americans.

As well, thousands of years ago, the Chinese took an evolutionary path favouring the growth of centralised, authoritarian regimes. Not surprisingly, the Chinese today place a premium on clannish behaviour and downplaying the worth of individual creativity. The result has been a people marked by higher average intelligence - but more conformity and hierarchy - than northwestern European societies, as well as rampant xenophobia and ethnocentrism.

As the Chinese colonies in Australia grow in size, wealth and power, even their Australian-born members may be reluctant to dissolve their ancient collective identity into an individualistic society of strangers owing allegiance to nothing beyond a modern paper constitution, now divorced from its own ancestral roots.

A multiracial society forces white Australians to bear other, more subjectively painful social, economic and political costs. At the high end of Australia’s immigrant intake, a growing cognitive élite of East Asians threatens to become similar to “market-dominant minorities” such as the overseas Chinese in South-East Asia, Jews in Russia or Indians in East Africa.

Faced with competition from a growing East Asian population, white Australians will find themselves outgunned. Western-style “old boy” preference networks are only weakly ethnic in character, and thus permeable, making them no match for the institutionally-directed, in-group solidarity or “ethnic nepotism” practised by other groups. Endowed with an edge in IQ and a temperament conducive to rigorous régimes of coaching, rote learning and stricter parental discipline, young East Asians already dominate the competition for places in universities and professional schools. Within two to three decades, it is not unreasonable to expect that Australia will have a heavily Asian managerial-professional, ruling class that will not hesitate to promote the interests of co-ethnics at the expense of white Australians.

At the low end of the market for Third World immigrants, tensions are already appearing between white Australians and the growing numbers of black, sub-Saharan Africans settled here by the transnational refugee industry. One can safely predict that, no matter how large this particular Third World colony becomes, black Africans will never become a “market-dominant minority” in Australia. On the contrary, experience practically everywhere in the world (pdf file 534KB [ http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/s95race04.pdf ]) 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 (pdf file 399KB). Unfortunately, experience also demonstrates that any such suggestion will produce nothing short of a hysterical reaction among Australian journalists and academics.

For Australian intellectual and cultural elites, it does not seem to matter that support for such observations can be found in countless academic and official sources. After all, it is hardly news that violent criminals of any race are likely to be people with low IQs who display poor impulse control. Nor is it difficult to establish that, on average, black sub-Saharan Africans score around 70-75 on IQ tests while white Europeans have a mean score of 100 and East Asians about 105. It is equally well-known that young black men have higher levels of serum testosterone - often associated with impulsive behaviour and poor judgment - than whites or East Asians.

Australians will ignore these racial realities at their peril. Windschuttle, confident that immigrant groups will lose their distinctive racial identities as they become assimilated into the individualistic norms of Western culture, sees no cause for concern in the ethnic replacement of white, Christian Europeans by Chinese or Muslim newcomers. Like his former academic colleagues, Windschuttle looks upon both “racial prejudice” and “religious intolerance” not as essential ingredients in collective identity but as embarrassing social diseases.

Given the relentless and revolutionary assault on their historic national identity, white Australians now face a life-or-death struggle to preserve their homeland. Whether effective resistance to their displacement and dispossession can be mounted is another question. Unlike other racial, ethnic or religious groups well-equipped to practice the politics of identity, white Australians lack a strong, cohesive sense of ethnic solidarity. As a consequence, ordinary Australians favouring a moratorium on non-white immigration cannot count on effective leadership or support from their co-ethnics among political, intellectual and corporate élites.

Unfortunately, so long as the postmodernist boundary between fact and fiction remains in the eye of the beholder, the truth about the threat of open borders becomes a mere matter of opinion. Organised social and political life in the Western world is largely driven by the psychic power of carefully crafted illusions. It may take a serious systemic breakdown to free us from the self-destructive taboo against discussion of innate group differences.

The orthodox doctrine that race is only skin deep is only one of the official fictions underpinning the transnational system: more fundamental is the myth of endless economic growth. Seen through the eyes of the managerial class, Australia is an economy, not a country. Nevertheless, a folk memory still survives of a time when Australia was the homeland of a particular people of British stock with their own particular way of life. Should the globalist economy first falter and finally fail, régime change may yet become possible for this and other Western countries. It may well be that only a miracle can save us now. All the more reason, then, to recall that God helps only those who help themselves. The capacity to act remains the key to our political salvation.

[Windsor]

The Misguided Advocates of Open Borders

https://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine...f-open-borders

Diversity has been associated with reduced democracy, slowed economic growth, falling social cohesion and foreign aid, as well as rising corruption and risk of civil conflict. Any policy is suspect that threatens a country’s ecological sustainability, increases diversity or tends to subordinate the core ethnic group. Ethnic diversity is also associated with reduced public altruism or social capital, evident in falling volunteerism, government welfare for the aged and sick, public health care and a general loss of trust. Ethnic diversity is second only to lack of democracy in predicting civil war. Globally it correlates negatively with governmental efficiency and prosperity.

Kevin MacDonald: Frank Salter on Stupid Open Borders Arguments

Kevin MacDonald: Frank Salter is a giant in the intellectual defense of White identity and interests. His book On Genetic Interests is a breakthrough in providing a rigorous conception of ethnic interests based on evolutionary theory and modern research in genetics and the social sciences.

Salter has just published a wonderful article in Quadrant, an Australian neocon publication (“On misguided advocates of open borders“). It is a masterpiece of elegant argumentation and a complete trashing of his professorial opponent, the unfortunate Mirko Bagaric, who seems almost ludicrously unaware of the most basic academic literature bearing on the issue. The good news is that it’s an excellent introduction to Salter’s thinking–much recommended.

Prof. Bagaric believes that all the world’s ills could be solved if the poor people were allowed to immigrate to places like Australia. Instantly world poverty would be solved! What’s not to like?

Salter lists the downsides to this idea–all of which apply equally well to other Western societies similarly bent on open borders self-destruction.

Diversity is associated with reduced democracy, slowed economic growth, falling social cohesion and foreign aid, as well as rising corruption and risk of civil conflict.

Ethnic diversity is also associated with reduced public altruism or social capital, evident in falling volunteerism, government welfare for the aged and sick, public health care and a general loss of trust.

Ethnic diversity is second only to lack of democracy in predicting civil war. Globally it correlates negatively with governmental efficiency and prosperity.”

Critically, he points to “invidious ethnic stratification” as an inevitable result: “No one likes to be ruled over by a different ethnic group or to see his own people worse off than others. The result is resentment or contempt, depending on the perspective taken.”

Ethnocentrism is not a White disorder and evidence is emerging that immigrant communities harbour invidious attitude towards Anglo Australians, disparaging their culture and the legitimacy of their central place in national identity.

Sound familiar? These are all the things that Westerners can look forward to as they become minorities in the societies they built and dominated for hundreds of years. This resentment and contempt will produce enormous unrest in Western societies, and ultimately it will result in violence directed at White people perpetrated by ethnic groups with deep historical grudges against their erstwhile benefactors.

Salter also emphasizes the general point that everyone has rights and interests. People who argue for open borders argue solely from the rights and interests of people who (naturally) want to go to a place where they have a higher standard of living. They never take the perspective of the natives. Egocentrism writ large. As Salter argues, the open borders movement is profoundly immoral.

The other consistent strand of Salter’s thinking is that this horrifying state of affairs has resulted from the domination of elite forms of discourse by advocates for open borders among academic, media, and political elites.

The egregious standard of analysis behind open borders advocacy is not an aberration. It is deeply embedded at the elite level of Australian political culture. The problem lies with an influential tradition well established within the universities and intellectual class as a whole.

The rapid transformation of Australia by mass Third World immigration has been a top-down revolution in which exclusivist politicised circles within academia have been complicit by commission and omission.

There are other factors as well. For example, Salter points to a collusion of self-censorship on immigration by self-interested politicians bent on obtaining support from immigrant constituencies.

But the role of elite academics should never be underestimated. Not one Australian academic stood up to point out the shoddiness of Bagaric’s arguments. The revolution in the academic world that toppled Darwinian social science in favor of erecting the culture of critique is critical to the demise of White nation states. In my view, this revolution was at its core an ethnic revolution, resulting from the rise of a Jewish intellectual elite, Jewish ownership and influence in the media, and Jewish influence on the political process. It is not surprising that the revolution that caused the impending increase in ethnic hatred and conflict in Western societies was itself the result of ethnic hatred and conflict.

The power and rigor of Salter’s ideas are a huge asset in combating the suicidal tide sweeping all White countries.

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=2256

Society
The Misguided Advocates of Open Borders

Frank Salter

https://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine...f-open-borders

The poor quality of analysis behind Australia’s abandonment of traditional assimilationist immigration policy reached its apotheosis recently in a spate of articles by well placed commentators. The proposal of the moment was open borders, immigration unrestricted by consideration of all factors save for security.

Most Australians will reject the proposal as absurd. Unfortunately the analytical basis for policies followed by federal governments since the 1970s has not much differed apart from economic criteria.

Prof. Mirko Bagaric (SMH, 7 April 2010, p. 15[i]), professor of law at Deakin University, argues for unrestricted immigration from the poorest to the richest countries as the best means to reduce Third World poverty. Initially his article came as a pleasant surprise to one who applies biological concepts and methods to the study of human society. Prof. Bagaric opened by stating two truths about human ethnocentrism: “[M]ost still prefer people of their own type and find different cultures jarring”; and “It is in the human DNA.” [ii]

However from that point the article provided almost no hint that humans are an evolved species with an interest in survival. Prof. Bagaric superficially discusses three interests that could be affected by open borders – material prosperity, national security, and cultural tradition – more of which later. This leaves many interests unmentioned.

Unrestricted migration would harm Australia’s national interests in ways documented by scholars in economics, sociology and related disciplines. Much of the harm is predictable from what is known about the dysfunctions of diversity. They include growing inequality in the especially invidious form of ethnic stratification. No one likes to be ruled over by a different ethnic group or to see his own people worse off than others. The result is resentment or contempt, depending on the perspective taken.

Diversity has also been associated with reduced democracy, slowed economic growth, falling social cohesion and foreign aid, as well as rising corruption and risk of civil conflict.[iii]

The loss of social cohesion bears emphasis. Disapproving of birds flocking together is beside the point; it is a biological fact that needs to be taken into account.[iv] Rising diversity within human societies tends to drive people apart, causing them to take sanctuary in individual pursuits and ethnic communities. The practical consequences are reduced public altruism or social capital, evident in falling volunteerism, government welfare for the aged and sick, public health care[v]and a general loss of trust.[vi] Ethnic diversity is second only to lack of democracy in predicting civil war.[vii] Globally it correlates negatively with governmental efficiency and prosperity.[viii]

Thus the thrust of accumulating research in several disciplines indicates that unrestricted mass immigration would be disastrous for wealthy countries. Some of this research has been well publicised; some has been published in Australia.

There are also philosophical issues that deserve comment.

I found the single-minded concern with Third World poverty puzzling, especially coming from a declared moral universalist. It is true that poverty would be reduced for those immigrating to the wealthy West, but do not the populations of industrial countries also have interests – in ecological sustainability and national continuity – that would be injured by the influx of millions of foreigners? Should not global problems be solved in ways that optimize interests instead of benefiting one population at the expense of another? Should we not be aiming at win-win outcomes?

From the global perspective, humanity as a whole stands to lose from overpopulation. As the late Garrett Hardin pointed out, allowing poor countries, which generally have high birth rates, the expedient of offloading excess population on low-birth rate regions reduces the incentive to solve their own population problem, for example by tackling the poverty and under-education of women. Global overpopulation can only be solved one country at a time, not by rewarding profligacy.

Another philosophical issue is Prof. Bagaric’s equating parochialism with morally repugnant “racism”. Surely that is not true, firstly because “racism” has no agreed definition and has been deployed for ideological and ad hominem purposes. It is more an instrument of abuse than of reason. If its use cannot be avoided it should be reserved to describe ethnically aggressive statements and acts, not the peaceful expression of pro-social sentiments common to humans everywhere.

Secondly, the notion that preference for one’s own people is immoral ignores the universal interest we all share in particular affiliations. All humans share parochial interests that give rise to social preferences. It would be maladaptive not to prefer people of our own type, beginning with kin. And in general this preference is moral. Bearing and caring for our own children, choosing friends on intuition, and having a special affection for our own country cannot be equated with hating others.[ix] A liberal society that allows free expression of these moderate preferences is hardly the moral inferior of one in which the elite scolds and punishes the people’s aspirations to have a country of their own.

The universality of parochial interests contradicts Prof. Bagaric when he states: “For most of human history there have been few migration limits. . . . A relevant reason [for restricting immigration] cannot be a person’s birthplace. This is merely a happy or unhappy coincidence.” The anthropological reality is the precise opposite: until recent decades almost all human society have sought to prevent permanent mass migration. Hunter gatherers and primitive agriculturalists, farmers and herders have all laid claim to a territory and fiercely defended it. Marriage partners have been found almost exclusively within the ethnic group, encompassing the local dialect. The psychological motivations for this are well established in such predispositions as social identity mechanisms, collectivism, assortment by similarity, innate cognition of human kinds, and rational choice.[x] Evolutionary origins of territoriality and ethnocentrism are indicated by their being human universals as well as being found in apes. And from the evolutionary perspective, which acknowledges the limited carrying capacity of all territories and of the world itself, it is maladaptive to allow one’s lineage – family, clan, or ethnic group to be replaced by others.[xi]

The vital interest all societies have in controlling a territory also falsifies the assertion that national security consists solely of defending individual citizens from attack by vetting immigrants for terrorist connections as is already the practice with tourists. Unlike tourists, immigrants affect the receiving country’s identity and cohesion. Societies have a corporate interest in retaining national sovereignty, which entails control of a territory, which in turn implies the will to defend against displacement in that territory. Inviting the world to a country as prosperous as Australia would result in the displacement of the Australian people inside their historical homeland.

The final philosophical point I shall discuss is the claim that open borders are somehow consistent with liberal thinking, that everyone in the world has the same rights. The problem with arguing from rights is that they can conflict, as implicitly admitted in the disclaimer that no one should infringe on others rights. Arguments based on interests have the same problem, but also the advantage of undercutting a mountain of abstractions. More to the point, the father of modern liberalism, John Stuart Mill, though generally a universalist who set his disciples on a course away from the natural sciences, was sufficiently acquainted with the real world to support liberal nationalism:

Where the sentiment of nationality exists in any force, there is a prima facie case for uniting all the members of the nationality under the same government, and a government to themselves apart . . . One hardly knows what any division of the human race should be free to do if not to determine with which of the various collective bodies they choose to associate themselves.[xii]

Mill also wrote:

Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist.[xiii]

Mill is not the final word on these subjects but he does show that basing an argument on rights does not logically entail open borders.

The calibre of open-borders arguments raises questions. How could the research documented above be ignored – not even hinted at – by a professional academic in the age of google? Individual scholars are technically responsible for covering the literature bearing on their research. But in this case there is the mitigating circumstance of the general state of the social sciences in Australia and overseas. Three weeks after Prof. Bagaric’s article appeared I have not come across one academic rebuttal. The SMH has not published a reply by another professor pointing out the obvious empirical fallacies, the failures of scholarship, the sloppy and inflammatory language. Neither has there been a storm of denunciation by colleagues or the media; no multiply-signed letters sent to newspapers defending the credibility of Deakin University or the humanities and social sciences. Nothing on radio or television. The online comments were overwhelmingly critical and were generally cogent but none of these authors identified as an academic. It seems that ordinary citizens have retained their common sense, while intellectuals are ominously silent.

Mike Steketee, a senior journalist at The Australian newspaper (10 April 2010[xiv]), appears to disagree with Bagaric. He also takes issue with Chris Berg,[xv] a research fellow at the Institute for Public Affairs, who advances a similar case for unrestricted immigration. Steketee writes that advocating open borders is “well intentioned” but would cause “chaos”, without describing the latter state. Well intentioned? He agrees with Bagaric and Berg that opening the floodgates would be ethical and that it would reduce Third World poverty. It would be the liberal thing to do in light of universal human rights: “[W]e believe individuals have the same rights, wherever they live”. But alas democracy would get in the way. Voters would reject the dissolution of the nation state and the installation of a world government. They continue to support (immoral) tough treatment of boat people. Mr. Steketee thinks that despite the proven benefits of immigration the Australian people wish to retain “control of their destiny”, implying that a rational electorate would let go and accept a much larger immigrant intake.

It seems that Mr. Steketee cannot fault Mr. Bagaric or Mr. Berg on social or ethical grounds. Indeed, he agrees with them that the free movement of people across borders is ideal. His disagreement, such as it is, concerns public relations and the pace of transformation that is politically feasible.

Berg’s article strikes a radical libertarian stance that also fails to discuss collective interests. Instead he focuses on moral claims, namely that all humans have equal moral worth regardless of where they live (p. 1). He also emphasises the benefits of immigration to immigrants. The following provides the gist of the remainder of his argument:

But immigration is good for the developed world, too. It’s good for the economy—immigrants end up being entrepreneurs and shopkeepers; employees and employers; and consumers and producers. More people mean more creativity, more opportunity, and more culture. Migrants bring skills, knowledge and international connections (p. 3).

As Mr. Berg does not distinguish immigrants by education or origins, every sentence of the above quote is either outright false according to available research or contentious. Immigrants from impoverished countries do not provide overall benefits to advanced economies, though they help some employers by reducing wages.[xvi] Inequality rises. In the United States Third World immigration increases the size of the overall economy but reduces per capita incomes. It is the latter that affects living standards. Immigrants from different cultures differ dramatically in their educational performance and entrepreneurship for several generations.

Prof. Bagaric writes off the nation as essentially racist. Mr. Berg thinks that “[t]here’s really nothing that special about national borders or the nation itself.” This is a strong claim but it becomes clear that Mr. Berg thinks that a nation is a state, failing to make an elementary and important distinction.[xvii] A nation is at its core an ethnic group living in its homeland, with shared elements of culture and means of communication. A nation can exist without its own state, an example being the Kurds. And most states are not limited to one nation’s territory. All nation states are built around a founding ethnic core.[xviii] However even without this distinction Mr. Berg is wise to state that: “A nation is the most convenient mechanism by which the institutions of liberty can be delivered.” (p. 4) True enough, but is that not a good reason for libertarians and all who treasure civil rights to defend national integrity?

The intellectual void surrounding the concept of the nation becomes most apparent when Mr. Berg wonders why an otherwise consistent libertarian, Murray Rothbard, thought that culture is worth defending by restricting immigration (p. 6). He quotes Rothbard’s reason thus: “[A]s the Soviet Union collapsed, it became clear that ethnic Russians had been encouraged to flood into Estonia and Latvia in order to destroy the cultures and languages of these peoples.” Not a bad reason. It could be supported by other examples of regimes that have used the demographic weapon, such as China in Tibet or Indonesia in West Irian. The extraordinary thing is that Mr. Berg offers no comment after quoting Rothbard. It is as if the concepts being used, “ethnic” and “destroy the culture and languages” failed to register. But they are real. Australian policy makers should bear in mind that ethnic nationalism is still a powerful force that tears countries and empires apart and creates new nations. Recent examples are the dismemberment of the Soviet and Yugoslavian empires in the 1990s. When people are allowed to choose they vote for policies that make or keep them as the ethnic majority. The result is that spreading democracy creates relatively homogeneous small states with heightened social capital and its flip side of social stability, efficient government, low corruption, more democracy, and higher economic growth.[xix] Why would a libertarian want open borders? Why would anyone want to become a minority in his own country?

By the way, one can add to Rothbard’s excellent reason for defending the cultural integrity of nations. All the benefits of relative homogeneity (and thus of assimilation and prudent immigration) documented above belong to nations, not to multi-ethnic states. One can also extend Rothbard’s reasoning. The Soviets attempted to Russify Estonia and Latvia as a means of controlling those territories. They assumed that the ethnic-Russian minorities would maintain their identity distinct from that of the target nations. As these national communities shrank in relative size they were meant to become just another competing ethnic group, national unity would be replaced by a multi-ethnic state, and the capacity of the original Estonian and Latvian nations to strategise on their own behalves would be diminished. This is what Rothbard was getting at. And who would put it past the Soviets to have reckoned that if demographic transformation could be continued long enough, the original nation would die. Another might arise in its place but that would take a long time and would not replace what was lost to the original nation.

These two pieces, one by a senior press commentator, the other by a researcher with a respected think tank, confirm the impression that the egregious standard of analysis behind open borders advocacy is not an aberration. It is deeply embedded at the elite level of Australian political culture. The problem lies with an influential tradition well established within the universities and intellectual class as a whole.

How have so many scholars come to ignore accessible knowledge about human nature and interests? Australia’s 39 universities employ thousands of lecturers and professors in relevant disciplines. Any one of them should be able to expose elements of the case for open borders. A first year student of social anthropology should know that borders have always been closed to replacement-level migration. Students of government and sociology should know in outline the cases for and against diversity. How can bold assertions such as those in the three articles examined here go unremarked? What is being taught at our universities?

A century ago the social sciences began suing for divorce from the biological sciences.[xx] Reconciliation began in the 1970s but sociology, political science, large sections of anthropology and much of the humanities remain aloof. Add to that the political straight jacketing of these fields, an important reason for their doctrinaire rejection of biology, and it is not surprising that we see utopian socialism of the most naive variety emanating unchallenged from the professoriate. The world of ideas is one arena in which diversity is an unalloyed benefit, where homogeneity demonstrably degrades standards.

The evidence refuting the case for open borders also applies to the scale and diversity of existing immigration policy. Any policy is suspect that threatens a country’s ecological sustainability, increases diversity or tends to subordinate the core ethnic group. Such a trend was already in place for several years before historian Geoffrey Blainey warned that immigration from non-traditional Asian source countries was outrunning its welcome in the mid 1980s.[xxi]

Ethnic stratification is taking place. Aboriginal Australians remain an economic underclass and some immigrant communities show high levels of unemployment. Anglo Australians, still almost 70 percent of the population, are presently being displaced disproportionately in the professions and in senior managerial positions by Asian immigrants and their children.[xxii] The situation is dramatic at selective schools which are the high road to university and the professions. Ethnocentrism is not a White disorder and evidence is emerging that immigrant communities harbour invidious attitude towards Anglo Australians, disparaging their culture and the legitimacy of their central place in national identity.[xxiii]

The democratic process has been prevented from correcting our maladaptive immigration policies due to bipartisanship – a long-term deal between the major political parties to keep immigration issues off the table at election time. The collusion began responsibly enough as a measure to facilitate assimilation during the massive post-WWII immigration program from Europe. By the 1970s bipartisanship served to shield both parties from majority objections while they profited from multicultural politics, garnering votes from immigrant communities in exchange for immigration favours. Arguably this collusion would have been difficult to sustain if a substantial number of academics and commentators had spoken truth to power.
Instead, the rapid transformation of Australia by mass Third World immigration has been a top-down revolution in which exclusivist politicised circles within academia have been complicit by commission and omission. Political leaders and citizens alike look to intellectuals for the facts and analysis needed to make wise policy. In technical matters we have been well served, but not with regard to issues of population and diversity. The policy failure is not limited to the present federal government. It goes back decades, as does the failure of the nation’s brain trust. Correction will necessitate tackling the intellectual and ideological corruption of the humanities and social sciences by reintroducing some intellectual diversity and free speech, the only way to reestablish open-minded scholarship and teaching.



Frank Salter is an Australian urban anthropologist and ethologist based in Europe who studies organisations and society using the methods and concepts of behavioural biology. He consults to business and government on human relations and ethnicity. His publications are listed at his website here...


[i] http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...0406-rpaf.html

[ii] Salter, F. K. (2008). "Evolutionary analyses of ethnic solidarity: An overview." People and Place 16(2): 15-25.

[iii] Re. corruption and growth: Mauro, P. (1995). "Corruption and growth." Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(3): 681—712.

Re. economic growth: Alesina, A., R. Baqir, et al. (1999). "Public goods and ethnic divisions." Quarterly Journal of Economics 114(November): 1243—1284.

Easterly, W. and R. Levine (1997). "Africa's growth tragedy: Policies and ethnic divisions." Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(November): 1203—1250.

Re. foreign aid: Masters, W. and M. McMillan (2004). Ethnolinguistic diversity, government, and growth. Welfare, ethnicity, and altruism. New data and evolutionary theory. F. K. Salter. London, Frank Cass: 123-147.

For overview see: Salter, F. K. (2004). Ethnic diversity, foreign aid, economic growth, social stability, and population policy: A perspective on W. Masters and M. McMillan’s findings. Welfare, ethnicity, and altruism. New data and evolutionary theory. F. K. Salter. London, Frank Cass: 148-171.

[iv] McPherson, M., L. Smith-Lovin, et al. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology. K. S. Cook and J. Hagan. Palo Alto, California, Annual Review. 27: 415-444.

[v] Sanderson, S. and T. Vanhanen (2004). Reconciling the differences between Sanderson’s and Vanhanen’s results. Welfare, ethnicity, and altruism. New data and evolutionary theory. F. K. Salter. London, Frank Cass: 119-120.

[vi] Salter, F. K., Ed. (2002). Risky transactions. Trust, kinship, and ethnicity. Oxford and New York, Berghahn.

Salter, F. K., Ed. (2004). Welfare, ethnicity, & altruism: New data & evolutionary theory. London, Frank Cass.

Leigh, A. (2006). "Trust, inequality and ethnic heterogeneity." The Economic Record 82(258): 268-280.

Putnam, R. D. (2007). "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize lecture." Scandinavian Political Studies 30: 137-174.

Healy, E. (2007). "Ethnic diversity and social cohesion in Melbourne." People and Place 15(4): 49-64.

[vii] Rummel, R. J. (1997). "Is collective violence correlated with social pluralism?" Journal of Peace Research 34(3): 163—176.

[viii] Alesina, A. and E. Spolaore (2003). The size of nations. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.

[ix] Cashdan, E. (2001). "Ethnocentrism and xenophobia: A cross-cultural study." Current Anthropology 42(5): 760 - 765.

[x] MacDonald, K. (2001). "An integrative evolutionary perspective on ethnicity." Politics and the Life Sciences 20(1): 67-79.

[xi] Salter, F. K. (2002). "Estimating ethnic genetic interests: Is it adaptive to resist replacement migration?" Population and Environment 24(2): 111—140.

[xii] Mill, J. S. (1960). Chapter XVI: On nationality. Representative government. Three essays by John Stuart Mill. J. S. Mill. London, Oxford University Press: 380—388, p. 381.

[xiii] Ibid., p. 382.

[xiv] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/poli...-1225851739011

[xv] Berg, C. (2010). "Open the borders." Policy 26(1): 3-7.

[xvi] Borjas, G. J. (2004). "Increasing the supply of labor through immigration: Measuring the impact on native-born workers." Center for Immigration Studies Backgrounder. [http://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/gborja...rs/cis504.pdf]

[xvii] Connor, W. (1978). "A nation is a nation, is a state, is an ethnic group, is a . . ." Ethnic and Racial Studies 1(4): 378-400.

[xviii] Smith, A. D. (1986). The ethnic origins of nations. Oxford, Basil Blackwell.

[xix] Alesina, A. and R. Wacziarg (1998). Little countries: Small but perfectly formed. The Economist: 63-65.

[xx] Degler, C. (1991). In search of human nature: The decline and revival of Darwinism in American social thought. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

[xxi] Blainey, G. (1984). All for Australia. North Ryde, Australia, Methuen Haynes.

[xxii] Wilkinson, P. (2007). The Howard legacy: Displacement of traditional Australia from the professional and managerial classes. Essendon, Australia, Independent Australian Publishers.

[xxiii] Zevallos, Z. (2005). "'It's like we're their culture': Second-generation migrant women discuss Australian culture." People and Place 13(2): 41-49.

[The Aesthete]

“These groups and their governments will be looking for elbow room and the diminished presence of whites in Europe and especially in the relatively wide open spaces North America will provide such an opportunity”.

It is no wonder they strongly criticize us if we cut our intake numbers of immigrants or refugees.

“Until recent decades almost all human society have sought to prevent permanent mass migration”.

“Evolutionary origins of territoriality and ethnocentrism are indicated by their being human universals as well as being found in apes”.
“
Diversity is associated with falling social cohesion”

That is undeniably true.

“The founding fathers of the Australian nation regarded racial differences as a fact of life and racial conflict as the inevitable consequence of a multiracial society. In their view, ethnic homogeneity was one of the great strengths of the Australian nation”.

It was our greatest strength

“At the high end of Australia’s immigrant intake, a growing cognitive élite of East Asians threatens to become similar to “market-dominant minorities” such as the overseas Chinese in South-East Asia, Jews in Russia or Indians in East Africa”.

This is already happening I have a friend who lives in a country town who said every doctor there is Asian.

“An expanding black population is a sure-fire recipe for increases in crime, violence and a wide range of other social problems. Unfortunately, experience also demonstrates that any such suggestion will produce nothing short of a hysterical reaction among Australian journalists and academics”.

“The rapid transformation of Australia by mass Third World immigration has been a top-down revolution in which exclusivist politicised circles within academia have been complicit by commission and omission”.

As a university student I can vouch for this.

[paraplethon]

Ethnocentrism is not a White disorder and evidence is emerging that immigrant communities harbour invidious attitude towards Anglo Australians, disparaging their culture and the legitimacy of their central place in national identity.[

"Evidence is emerging...", what - that people other than whites can and do discriminate??? That always seems to be such a revelation when it's commented on publicly.

Whatever other criticisms are raised of the Howard Government (of Australia 1996-2007) - the introduction of the "baby bonus" one has to admit played a part in raising our birthrate from well below replacement levels to roughly being an even par at about 1.9-1.95. Who can forget Costellos words at the schemes outset encouraging people to have "One for the father, one for the mother and one child for the country."

[CharlesMartel]

Today we live in a world-society that doesn't favor Whites. Hence, we're dying out. If it isn't the universal, non-White hatred for Whites inherent to globalism that mitigates against us, it's our collective preference for materialism over reproduction that reduces our numerical strength. Either way, the world has become a disadvantageous battleground for Whites, and there's no relief in sight.

[Windsor]

Today we live in a world-society that doesn't favor Whites. Hence, we're dying out. If it isn't the universal, non-White hatred for Whites inherent to globalism that mitigates against us, it's our collective preference for materialism over reproduction that reduces our numerical strength. Either way, the world has become a disadvantageous battleground for Whites, and there's no relief in sight.

White Anger: http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?cat=65

There are signs [ http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=3082 ] that the left is beginning to be aware that the utopian transformations they have in mind are not going to be easily achieved in the long run and that there is a backlash brewing from dispossessed Whites.

White Racial Anxiety
http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=3082

Attempts at erecting utopias will ultimately result in huge psychological tension as people are expected to swear allegiance to universalist abstractions even as they see their neighborhoods invaded by non-Whites, even as their jobs are outsourced to foreign countries or taken away by immigrants, and even as they see the political and cultural power of their own group declining — in a word, displacement. In these circumstances, the more selfish and particularlist emotions centered around family and ethnic group inevitably bubble to the surface to compete with the universalist abstractions. In the contemporary world these abstractions are being imposed on us by elites—including the Jewish component of the elite which manages to aggressively promote moral universalism in the Diaspora in the West while also aggressively supporting its neo-fascist ethnostate in the Middle East. Indeed, as noted previously, promoting multiculturalism as a moral imperative in Western societies (but not Israel) is reasonably seen as a Jewish ethnic strategy. No moral universalism there–just the facade. http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?cat=42

By all accounts, particularlist anger is welling up in White Americans [ http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?cat=65 ] — especially among the middle and working class — outraged at the changes they see; they are also the ones are are more negatively affected by these upheavals. (It’s always easier for elites to pledge fealty to moral abstractions when there a no costs to them personally; they seem blissfully unaware of their ethnic costs.)

There are certainly legitimate doubts that this anger will be productively directed given the record of elites in the Republican Party. Part of what we need is an intellectual revolution that challenges the unique Western proclivity toward moral universalism and fratricidal aggression against morally defined outgroups. We’ve got to stop thinking like the Puritans and base our attitudes on a foundation that is in tune with biological reality. All the data show that multiethnic societies are prone to conflict and to less of a sense of civic responsibility, among other things. http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?p=2256

The good news is that culture can trump biology [ http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/EffortfulControl-PsyRev.pdf ] (see also here [ http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/WhiteEthnocentrism.pdf ]). The conflict between the universalist strands and the particularlist strands of our ethnic nature as Westerners may be resolved if we realize the folly of a universalism that results in the dystopian nightmares we are seeing form before our eyes. Culture and our rational thought processes can indeed suppress biological urges — including our urge to wage holy war on behalf of abstract principles. And right now we have to realize that it is entirely rational to suppress our biological urge toward moral universalism. Our survival is at stake.

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/tooblog/?cat=65

[Windsor]

Joe Webb: “Nearly half of children born in the U.S. are minorities.” “Tipping Point” a racist term?

Thursday, March 11th, 2010

http://theoccidentalobserver.net/too...cat=53&paged=2

Joe Webb: Progressive Komrads! Today’s SF Chronicle states that within the next 40 years minorities will become the majority in the US and that within the next couple years, minority babies will outnumber white babies, thus “tipping” the baby balance.

Always alert to the unconscious racism of otherwise compliant liberals, usually White, we revolutionary anti-fascists and race-aware anti-racists who claim that race is a White intellectual construct which oppresses the World’s Peoples (Death to White Racists!) note that the usage of “tipping point” is a racist slur on our People of Color brothers and sisters.

In White English usage, the term “tipping” is,usually associated with phrases like “tipping over”, a boat “tips over”, a drunk is “tipsy”, the automobile crashed and “tipped over”, etc. At best, it is a term used for the inegalitarian and oppressive condition of “service” people who are “tipped” for their waiting on rich White people.

Revolutionary alertness, especially that alertness pioneered of late by Feminists who have discovered hidden and oppressive terms like “women” (and subjected that particularly abusive term to revolutionary rehabilitation with the reconstructed spelling of “wymyn”), and various other vicious patriarchal terms like “girls”, “feminine”, “wife”, “homemaker”, and “housewife”– all have been discovered and relegated to the dustbins of History. From the revolutionary year One, when more babies of color are born than White babies, Herstory and Revstory begins. Meanwhile, The Struggle Continues.
Returning to the current issue at hand, the use of the term “tipping”, we here at the Revolutionary Council on Equality and Racial Equality demand that the Press be advised to liquidate the term “tipping” as negative and counter-revolutionary and substitute some more positive term for describing the brilliant rainbow Future Which Lies Ahead, when Whites will no longer be the majority within the country that they piratically and oppressively stole from the noble savages who once occupied this land and lived peaceably with one-another, loved the animals, and lived sustainably with Mother Nature.

Here at the Revolutionary Council of Equality and Racial Equality, (RCERE), we suggest to the Press Corps who have already been instructed in the ways of the Future Non-Racial Order but apparently need more instruction on the subtleties of language, that they consider replacing the word “tipping” with some term that suggests Victory of the People.

Thus, the Demographic Majority Multiple Oppressions (DMMO) of the Occupying Whites will be replaced by the Rainbow of World Peoples, with the Whites reduced to the Last People in compensation for centuries of their Oppression of First Peoples….People of Color. We thus suggest a term to replace “tipping”. It might be “People’s Victory” (PV for short, thus: more black and brown babies PVing the white babies), or “Brown eyes Better than Blue eyes (BEBTBE), something like that. We leave it to the Press Corps to come up with a suitable replacement for “tipping” as they are the folks most acquainted with psychology and behavior modification, having spent much time in Criticism and Self-Criticism, as part of their training for Revolutionary Truth.

The People’s Revolutionary Council of Equality and Racial Equality.

The power of the People will never be Defeated!

Joe Webb (email him) is a free lance writer.