Recently in my NATIONAL WATCHMAN UPDATES I have developed the theme that THE REPUBLIC IS NOW AUSTRALIA'S GREATEST RACE ISSUE. In an update of this title I ended with the following words, "The question is whether the Australia Anglo Saxon people will allow a republic when it must mean the total annihilation of their cultural and legal ownership of Australian law. A republic will have exactly the same effect on Anglo Saxons as the landing of Captain James Cook had on the aborigines. The new invasion will transfer control to Asians. This is to say that the republic will be the demarcation point for the legal change of sovereignty to another race." This of course received the usual cries of "racist" but the argument was not attacked; nor can it be for it is the truth. I was pleased to find confirmation in the Sun-Herald (November 10 1996) which ran an article "Greiner joins flag recruits". The article ended with the following two paragraphs. "Our flag fails the primary purpose of uniting Australians. It is opposed by substantial numbers of people because it signifies subordination, not our independence. The Union Jack in the corner gives a special status to white people of British extraction (which will enthuse the ghastly supporter of that person from Ipswich), but it has no place on the flag of modern multicultural Australia". At first glance these two paragraphs read fair enough. But are they not saying, "White people in Australia have a special status that has no...place in modern multicultural Australia". The removal of this status (whether it be good or bad is not relevant to the argument) must, by definition, be a measure directed to a specific race; it must be racist. This is to say that any measure to level white culture to the status of the multiculture must be racially based. The hidden premise, of course, is that measures that remove the status of white culture are acceptable. Conversely measures that remove or restrict the status of Asian, aboringinals or any other cultures are not acceptable. How can this be? To understand this (and at the risk of repetition) we return to the legal justification from Sarah Pritchard ( Lecturer in Law, University of New South Wales) “In a famous dictum in the 1965 decision of the International Court of Justice in the South West Africa Case Judge Nanaka stated: "The principle of equality before the law does not mean the absolute equality, namely the equal treatment of men without regard to individual, concrete circumstances, but it means the relative equality, namely the principle to treat equally what are equal and unequally what are unequal ...to treat unequal matters differently according to their inequality is not only permitted but required ...In the case of the minorities treaties of non discrimination as a reverse side of the notion of equality before the law prohibits a State to exclude members of a minority group from participating in rights, interests and opportunities which a majority group can enjoy”. Hopefully you are getting the hang of the legal jargon that is developing to justify racial discrimination against the white culture. I thought that it would be fitting to conclude this UPDATE with the words of Mr. Jason Yat-Sen Li (again risking repetition), the man without whom there would not have been a republic challenge. He is one Asian Australian who understands that British culture must perish for the vision of the elites, an Asianised Australia, to exist. "For Non English Speaking Background (NESB) Australians becoming a republic will signify an end to Australia kow-towing to British institutions and British superiority. It will mean that those who cling to the power and status of the former British empire will no longer find an official ally in the symbols of our nation...Those proud of their British heritage have every right to be so, but they cannot use that pride as a reason for preserving the Monarchy in modern multicultural Australia. I hope that you are starting to develop a whole new perspective on the real meaning of a republic and why the multiculture and the multinationals want it. It is, in part, as Jason Yat-Sen Li summarised, "Becoming a republic is about proclaiming that Australia now belongs to [the NESB] Australians in all their diversity." The corollary of this is that, for Jason Yat-Sen Li, Australia no longer belongs to white Australians. What is happening today is exactly what happened to Aboriginal Australia two hundred years ago. This is to say that the racial sovereignty of the current owners is being removed to allow sovereignty to pass to the new owners. No, this is not being done with guns but the results are exactly the same. After the Second World War Germany, as the vanquished, had its factories removed; the Germans no longer controlled their borders as aliens came and went at will; people were homeless and there were no jobs. The German culture had to submit to the culture of the newcomer; laws were passed to enforce this. The German constitution, culture and religion could no longer be taught in their schools. Their symbols were removed and taken down from public buildings. AND the German people were disarmed. Is this not what has happened in Australia? Thus we can conclude that there has been a war waged, a silent war, an unseen war. Wars are waged by sovereign entities; time will clearly define who the new Australian sovereign will be. Kerry Spencer-Salt B.E., LL.B (Hons) The National Watchman Australian Community Organisation P.O. Box 136, Surry Hills NSW 2010 Phone : (02) 9360 0610 E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Website : www.rockroll.com.au/watchman ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information on [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm For archives http://www.mail-archive.com/public-list@neither.org
