DADDY, WHERE DID MULTICULTURALISM COME FROM?

'Where did it come from, Daddy?'
'Well, from the Jews Honey.'
'Why?'
'Well you see, right from the very olden days, everywhere the Jews went people were bad to them.'
'Why?'
'Because the Jews always did things that other people didn't like.'
'What did they do?'
'They changed things to suit themselves but which didn't suit the people whose countries they changed.'
'Is that all?'
'No. You see Honey, the Jews are very smart. They've always known how to separate other people from their money.'
'But Daddy, you still haven't answered my question.'
'Which question was that Sweety?'
'Why did multiculturalism come from the Jews?
'Why don't you ask your mother?'
'She said to ask you.'

 

Daddy doesn't really have much of a clue but at least he's essentially on the right track which is more than can be said for around 98 per cent of the population. In Australia, the ideology that led to multiculturalism was largely an imported disease but fingerprints of the usual suspects can be found on the local version. Walter Lippman, a Jew, is credited with being the leading activist in firing up Australian multiculturalism. Lippman succeeded in becoming a borer from within of the Australian Council of Social Services (ACOSS) which was an umbrella organisation under which grouped around 500 different  organisations of social advocacy. At a biannual ACCOSS conference held in 1968, Lippman's concern for migrant welfare led to his having it included on the agenda. With this one foot in the door, the creation of Lippman's and his fellow proto-multiculturalists' own Joint Committee on Migrant Welfare, an ACCOSS standing committee, followed. This was base-camp 1 from which Lippman could sustain a lobbying campaign on government. "Lippman exploited these strategic and logistical advantages and made his ACCOSS committee the hub and command centre of proto-multiculturalist activism." (1)

Although arse-clown, crook and sartorial fuck-up, Al Grassby, Minister for Immigration in the ill fated Whitlam Labor government of '72 to '75 would puff up like a pigeon with a hard-on at the sound of the words, "Father of Australian Multiculturalism, the man who had considerably more claim to the title was Jerzy Zubrzycki. It was Lippman though who was the first multiculturalist to pursuade Grassby that multiculturalism was the way of the future. Grassby, in fact not having much of a clue himself about which way to go, was putty in the hands of zealots like Lippman.

However, being hailed as the true king of Australian multiculturalism, it was only fitting that Zubrzycki was the first to spew the pernicious lie that "all Australians except the original ones are ethnics". Born in Poland, Zubrzycki wasn't a Jew but the sociologist Emile Durkheim who he claimed as one of the greatest influences on his life was.

In 1963 Zubrzycki travelled to the US to associate with and become heavily influenced by leftist sociologists who were now carrying the baton handed on to them by the Frankfurt School pioneers of cultural criticism. The central pillar of Frankfurt School thinking was that the cultural hegemony established by the capitalist ruling class produced "false consciousness" in the body politic. This hegemony needed to be dismantled by way of relentless critique, hence the 'critical theory' of the Frankfurters who had fled the German National Socialists. Being both neo-Marxists and Jews, this was an eminently sensible career move. Germain to the present argument, the need for a nation's racial homogeneity was seen by these ideologues as a spin-off of false consciousness. Pluralism was the antidote. While in the States Zubryzcki befriended Milton Gordon who was writing Assimilation in American Life. They spent hours together discussing the need for, and ways and means of disposing of the melting pot model into which American immigration was processed.

After returning to Australia, Zubryzcki, a demographer by trade decided to switch to Sociology. He became a founding member of the Sociology Department at the Australian National University. In 1964 he produced a field study of migrants living and working in the coal producing area of the Latrobe Valley entitled Settlers in the Latrobe Valley. Being an immigrant himself, it was exceedingly easy for him to empathise with the subjects of his study and sympathise with their problems. He also extolled Anglo Saxons who also sympathised with their problems. This perhaps was a subtle way of putting into a negative light the majority of the host population who didn't sympathise.  Also subtly presented were a few anti-assimilation sentiments. He wasn't about to begin rattling the cage too loudly just yet. Within a few short years though the tentative whispering here, aided significantly by expressions of discontent about the white Australia policy coming from countries to our north - a case of the pot calling the kettle black considering their own racialist policies -  would become a confident and unmistakable call for action. 

 

As cultural pluralist ideas as promoted by the likes of Lippman and Zubryzcki began to ebb and flow about academe and government circles the intelligentsia began taking a liking to them. Through the ages people who have thought of themselves as superior types have always looked for ways to distance themselves from the hoi polloi. Signing up to these new ideas becoming fashionable was just such an opportunity. "Anti-racism, anti-parochialism and cosmopolitan values, often expressed in terms of appreciation of migrants and migrants' cultures, became a means by which tertiary educated professionals as a status group set themselves apart from those who did not appreciate the 'finer' and 'more colourful aspects of life. This adherence to certain values helped define a person's status and claim and claim to social respectability."(2) It could be said moreover that even people lacking in education could make up for this deficiency, or at least appear to, by subscribing to these same ideas.

Parallel to this welcome chance to signal one's superiority for those who wanted to, was a dawning realisation that Australia and Australians were in serious need of a complete make-over. "In addition to being racist, the 'typical Australian' was negatively stereotyped as parochial, narrow-minded, materialistic, suburban, culturally inferior and in need of improvement."(3) With a rap-sheet like that, we were fortunate indeed to be allowed to continue living.

It is in no way possible or legitimate to view the early stirrings of Australian multiculturalism in isolation. If rebellious rumblings hadn't been heard years earlier and leading to American pluralism, it would be reasonable to assume that we would never have been afflicted with the condition. But of course they were. And America, being a country containing a large black population, was eminently vulnerable, particularly after fighting a war against a country whose preeminent evil amongst a basket of alleged evils was institutionalised racism. Returning to their own country of  racial segregation about to also become known as institutionalised racism, Americans were led to confront an apparent monumental hypocrisy with which it was almost  impossible to continue living. Doing the leading were of course Jewish dominated liberals who were quick to widen a societal crack into a chasm that would split the nation. However, racial segregation when seen from the perspective of today's black/white relations and the epidemic of black on white violence may not have been such a bad thing. As proof that Jews are world champions at the divide and conquer game thus furthering their own interests it's worth noting that the NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People was founded and staffed by Jews.

And guess who had been agitating for liberalised immigration policy, that is, from non-traditional sources, since the latter part of the nineteenth  century. Unlike Australia with an almost negligible pre-WW11 Jewish population, the US had been the destination of Jews, predominantly since a particularly nasty pogrom in Russia in 1881. This though of course wasn't something Jews hadn't experienced before. Pogroms went with the territory, it being difficult to be the enemy of the rest of humanity without expecting some blow-back now and again. Because of a peculiar blindness though, Jews prefer to view this reaction as irrational hostility - psychopathology no less. It has absolutely nothing to do with what's written in their holy books about Gentiles being simply cattle - their own words - or more aptly, sheep to be shorn. How else could they think? If a monotheistic people claim the one god as exclusively their own, then logically no gods are left for anyone else. So godless, with no means of obtaining a soul, what else can these unfortunates be but non-humans - animals? A corollory of their self-appropriated status as the only true humans is their system of dual morality. Essentially this meant an in-house moral code loosely in line with the Christian code: don't steal, don't kill blah, blah, blah, and a second code to be applied to all non-Jews which is, as known in Australia as 'Rafferty's rules' or 'open slather', roughly translated meaning no rules at all. Against the Goy, it is perfectly legitimate to steal, kill and the complete reverse of all the blah, blah, blah. This of course is tempered by the pesky civil laws that apply in the countries called home by Jews, even in Israel where world opinion sometimes means just a little bit more than nothing at all. However there was that case a few years ago when an Israeli soldier let loose his Uzi at some innocuous Israeli Arabs for no apparent reason. Not only escaping any real punishment, he became an instant equivalent of a rock star.

This dual morality also operates on a global level. For example, for western countries, Jews promote multiculturalism, mass immigration and anti-nationalism with opposition to this rainbow pot of enrichment being evil and beyond the pale, but for Israel, it is perfectly fine to oppose these weapons of mass destruction which they know perfectly well themselves to be their true nature.

The US was the perfect home away from home after that home had burnt down. It seemed the perfect shelter from the mysterious hatred and violence they had feared for thousands of years. No national religion, but indeed freedom of religion - perfect! A constitution that guaranteed freedom to pursue happiness and a freedom to make money with which to make that happiness complete. Best of all, America was a nation of individuals - defenceless against the most collectivist tribe that had ever existed. This was the same formula exploited so mercilessly that had caused them to be kicked out of enough countries to form an alternate UN. But of course when making more enemies than a crooked tax collector - which incidentally was a role often filled by Jews - it was just good sense to have a well thought out survival plan. This, Kevin Macdonald, in his seminal work A Culture of Critique, called a "group evolutionary strategy". This was what was employed to consolidate an impregnable position in the US. This essentially comprised using team work par excellence to accrue phenomenal wealth with which to take over the power points of American society - the instruments of persuasion such as media and Hollywood - to turn them around like captured cannon and begin using them on the enemy

However, even then, with the fear of what they called anti-Semitism in the very marrow of their bones, they still didn't feel safe. In their paranoia they still felt as exposed as a pair of dog's testicles. Monolithic homogeneity of the host populations they'd burrowed into was what had always brought them undone. But there was an obvious solution to this. If the homogeneity of the US population could be busted up by the introduction of many different ethnic groups which would serve the purpose of camouflage, the dog's testicles would become just another pair in a greyhound race. So began the relentless crusade for so called cultural plurality.

Things were going swimmingly for our Hebrew friends with a virtual immigration free-for-all until hitting the first major road block in the form of the 1924 US Immigration Act which they fought against with the fury of a whore stiffed for her fee.. Briefly, the act stipulated that the racial components of the US should be frozen in line with the results of an 1890 census, ergo a quota system. A later census of 1920 was disregarded because in the years immediately preceding it, immigration had been skewed heavily in favour of those from eastern and southern Europe. It was considered fairer to all concerned to extrapolate from the earlier census and keep the percentages of immigrants coming from a particular country in line with the percentage of their countrymen already resident in the US and thereby maintain a racial status quo.

It was a setback but in their millennia of existence Jews had learnt how to deal with adversity. They simply regrouped, and with infinite patience resumed the struggle. The breakthrough came in 1965 when the quotas were thrown out, the walls came down and the Jews'  Shabbos Goy, Ted Kennedy famously stated that the new immigration act would in no way alter the racial make-up of the country. It's well known that politicians lie for a living but this was a lie that would tower as an Everest of bullshit among mere foot-hills of bullshit. It's now calculated that within little more than twenty years whites will no longer be a majority in America. The same goes for Australia which caught the fever when the mighty US breathed on them as it does for the rest of the West where national suicide is considered the most moral and honourable course of action.

 

Unless a cure is found quickly for the disease of multiculturalism and, more importantly, the mass third world immigration that feeds it, Daddy's little sweetheart will be reaching maturity in an Australia that for an Australian, won't be worth living in.

But you don't have to take my word for Jews being the engine behind mass immigration and multiculturalism in the West, or for that matter that of any other 'anti-Semite' . They're more than happy to  take full credit for it themselves. Indeed they brag about it. See below.

(1) Lopez, Mark The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945 - 1975 Melbourne University Press P109
(2) ibid P 84
(3) ibid P 83
I'm also indebted to Kevin Macdonald's, The Culture of Critique

For an insight into the development of multiculturalism in Sweden which parallel that in Australia, this is well worth reading:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2017/09/23/the-origins-of-swedish-multiculturalism/#more-154699