Sydney Sermons, Islamic Incitement

Since the October 7 atrocity, there has been a string of anti-Jewish sermons delivered in Sydney mosques by Muslim preachers. These have attracted much critical attention in the Australian media.

New South Wales Police, after conducting their own investigations, declared that they have no grounds to take legal action against the preachers. The Jewish community was shocked and distressed by this, and has been exploring the possibility of taking legal action of its own. Of the many anti-Jewish sermons, a particularly significant one was delivered at Friday prayers on 9 February 2024 by Imam Abdul Salam Zoud. Extracts of this sermon have been translated by MEMRI.

This sermon is significant for two reasons in addition to its antisemitism. First, Imam Abdul Salam cannot be dismissed as a marginal figure on the extreme fringes of Islam. His expertise in Islam has been recognised by his peers. He is a member of the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC), which admits only Sunni Muslims who have recognised formal qualifications in Islam, and he has been appointed to ANIC’s Fatwa Council, which provides legal rulings (fatwas) to Australian Muslims. Imam Abdul Salam’s membership of this group shows that he is recognised by his peers to have superior expertise in Islamic law. His voice speaks from the heart of Sunni Islam, not from its periphery.

The second reason this sermon is significant is that Imam Abdul Salam incited violent jihad against followers of all non-Muslim religions, including Christians. This relevance of this teaching has been underscored by the 15 April knife attack in Sydney, allegedly by a Muslim youth, on the Assyrian bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, as a result of which the bishop has lost the use of his right eye. In a video taken in the church immediately after the attack, the alleged attacker is being restrained and is asked by a priest “Who sent you here?” The youth answers in Arabic, “If he had not cursed my prophet I wouldn’t have come here.”

Imam Abdul Salam’s sermon made several points. First, it said that Jews are evil killers, bloodthirsty, treacherous and barbaric. Second, Islam’s destiny is to rule over all other religions, including Jews, but also Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and atheists. Third, the only way – the God-given way – to fulfil this destiny is through jihad. Fourth, Muslims must prepare as much power for this jihad as they can.

By ‘jihad’, Imam Abdul Salam did not mean inner spiritual struggle, but the jihad of conquest, which he said must continue until the end of the world. This is clear on two grounds. First, he referred to the great Islamic caliphates of the past: “none of them conquered the world by peaceful means, negotiations, concessions, or understandings. They conquered it through jihad for the sake of Allah.” He also pointed out that Islamic conquest is not an end in itself. The purpose of the conquest of non-Muslim nations is, from Islam’s perspective, an inherently righteous cause: to remove “obstacles” to the “spreading and rule of Islam”.

Second, Imam Abdul Salam equated jihad with violent fighting when he said, “This is the purpose of fighting (al-qital, an Arabic word which implies killing) and waging jihad against the enemies of Islam …” Imam Abdul Salam applied this to Palestine, which “will only be restored through jihad”. However, he also made clear that jihad conquest is “the only solution when it comes to the infidels” in general, including “the Jews, the Christians … the Buddhist, Sikh and Hindu polytheists, as well as the atheists – all of them are against you, O Muslims”.

The points made in this sermon are derived from the Qur’an or the Sunna (the teaching and way of life of Muhammad). For example, the Imam’s claim that Islam must “reign supreme over all other religions” is a paraphrase of Sura 61:9 which says exactly that. When Imam Abdul Salam called Jews “treacherous”, he was echoing the Qur’an’s descriptions of Jews as pact-breakers (Sura 2:27, 4:155 and 5:13). To call Muslims to prepare for jihad, Imam Abdul Salam recited Sura 8:60: “prepare against them whatever you are able of power and steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah”.

Such political views are not new to Australia. Imam Abdul Salam was formerly a long-time leader within the Salafist Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama‘ah (ASWJ) movement. In the year after the 9/11 atrocity, the website of the Islamic Information and Support Centre of Australia (IISCA), an affiliate of ASWJ, posted a series of articles that expressed views similar to those recently expressed by of Imam Abdul Salam, including:

♦ Islam is incompatible with democracy

♦ anyone who rejects the message of Islam must be fought against

♦ all Muslims must work to establish the dominance and supremacy of Islam

♦ all non-Muslim religion is by definition tyranny

♦ jihad means “to struggle against the disbelievers”

♦ fighting unbelievers is the highest, most meritorious act in Islam

♦  if the spread of Islam is inhibited, then the governing authorities must be overthrown.

The antisemitism is also not new. In October 2002, I came across a glossy anti-Jewish brochure which was being handed out to customers by a Lebanese cake shop on Sydney Road, Brunswick. The brochure had been produced by the Islamic Information and Services Network of Australia (IISNA), an offshoot of IISCA. At the time I visited IISNA’s website and found that it contained further anti-Semitic statements.

It is important to be absolutely clear that all this is not about racism. From an Islamic perspective, Jews are not a racial category but a religious one, a subcategory of kuffar ‘infidels’. The category “Jew” exists in Islamic sources alongside “Christian”, which is also a religious category. This perspective was reflected in Imam Abdul Salam’s sermon, which grouped Jews together with Christians, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists. Islamic antisemitism is not racial hatred, but religious.

What to do about all this? Since 11 November 2023, New South Wales has had brand-new anti-vilification provisions included in its Anti-Discrimination Act. This Act prohibits incitement of hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule of a person or a group on the basis of their religious belief or affiliation.

In August 2023, the Australian National Imams Council welcomed this new law, because it “sends a clear message that religious vilification is not acceptable”. The amendment, they said, is “long overdue, particularly in a climate of increasing Islamophobia and anti-religious sentiment …” ANIC stated that it “is proud to see the amendment made. It [ANIC] has worked tirelessly behind the scenes to advocate for such a change, including providing input as to the approach and provision to be adopted.”

But is this Act fit for purpose? It imposes civil, not criminal, provisions, which means that the police cannot use it to act against anti-Semitic preachers: someone from the Jewish community would have to make a complaint for the law to be applied. When a preacher has called for Muslims to “terrify the enemy”, and stated that “obstacles” to the spread of Islam are a trigger for jihad, it is understandable that individuals or groups might feel vulnerable and be reluctant to initiate a complaint. Complainants would not merely be taking on an individual; they would be challenging the religious convictions of many in the Islamic community. It also seems unreasonable that the state would leave dealing with this kind of incitement to affected individuals or community organisations.

Another obstacle when applying these new NSW anti-incitement provisions is that an exemption is provided for any act “done reasonably and in good faith” for “religious discussion or instruction purposes”. Imam Abdul Salam could argue that he was merely providing religious instruction in accordance with the precepts of Islam. Countering this might be difficult. He could insist that his message accurately reflects the teachings of the Qur’an and the Sunna. In his defence, one can hardly expect a secular tribunal to rule that his views are Islamically invalid. After all, Imam Abdul Salam is recognized as being qualified to tell other Muslims what Islam is or is not.

It would also be difficult to determine what “reasonably” and “in good faith” should mean in this context. Based on inconsistent rulings in previous vilification cases, there is uncertainty about how tribunals and courts are to interpret these expressions.

One could argue that civil anti-vilification provisions are of little value, only serving to increase tensions between groups in the community. What is needed are criminal provisions targeting incitement to violence. As it happens, there is another legal option in NSW that may be applicable. Under section 93Z of the NSW Crimes Act 1900, a criminal offence is committed by someone who “intentionally or recklessly … incites violence towards another person or a group of persons” on the grounds of someone’s religious belief or affiliation.

In this case, no defence is available for religious teachings, but prosecution under section 93Z can only be commenced by the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions. So far, the NSW authorities seem to have taken no action; however, the NSW Attorney General has announced a review of section 93Z.

Section 93Z defines holding or not holding a religious belief as a religious belief. Surely when a respected religious leader teaches that violent jihad “for the sake of Allah” is Allah’s will and “the only solution when it comes to infidels” (i.e. non-Muslims), including Jews, this is incitement to violence on the grounds of someone not being a Muslim. Do the police and the DPP not have sufficient Islamic religious literacy to be able to join the dots?

A deeper difficulty that may face bureaucrats considering launching a complaint against Imam Abdul Salam using either the Anti-Discrimination Act or the Crimes Act is that the pursuit of the complaint would focus public attention on Islamic teachings that are inimical to interfaith harmony and peaceful co-existence. It could expose as questionable or even fanciful the claim that jihad is a personal interior struggle. Imam Abdul Salam’s defence could also challenge the assumption that “Islamophobia” is an irrational hatred. A public legal process would come up against multiculturalism’s insistence that certain minority groups require special acknowledgement and affirmation.

In all this, the Australian Human Rights Commission is missing in action. It is surely a crisis of cognitive dissonance that has caused it to avoid calling out the Sydney anti-Jewish sermons as religious bigotry. Instead, it has announced “further anti-racism work” in response to what it calls “an increase in racism targeting Palestinian, Muslim, Arab, and Jewish communities”. This is misdirection and obfuscation which will do nothing to solve the very real problem of religious incitement.

At the same time, Australian security authorities might also be concerned that since the main trigger for jihad is the existence of “obstacles” to the spread of Islam – according to the Imam’s sermon as well as other statements by Muslim authorities – a criminal conviction would be considered an “obstacle” to the spread of Islam in Australia, which could therefore incite a violent response. A conviction for inciting violence could incite more violence.

There is a long-term systemic problem in Australia’s approach to containing the flow of radical Islamic indoctrination. Back in 2002, the Ahlus Sunna wal Jama‘ah website posted an article that discussed a famous fourteenth century fatwa issued against Genghis Khan by the renowned medieval Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir. This fatwa declared that Genghis Khan should be fought against (and killed) by Muslims because he did not rule by Islamic law. The article went on to state that this fatwa is still open against anyone who does not rule by Islamic law. An obvious implication is that the life of any politician is forfeit if they do not rule by Islamic law.

More than a decade after encountering this fatwa, I asked an ASIO official whether posting Ibn Kathir’s fatwa on a website was actionable. He said no: the authorities take action when they become aware of an actual plan to do an illegal act. Surely that is far too late, and far too high a bar.

Since October 7, the British government is having to provide heightened protection for MPs due to the increased number of death threats they have been receiving. MP Mike Freer has announced he is standing down at the next election. He cited “a constant string of incidents”, including death threats, abuse, and narrow escapes, and reported that he only narrowly missed being attacked by MP David Amess’s killer, Ali Harbi Ali, by “a stroke of luck”. He said that while additional protection was welcome, the greater issue is why people have felt “emboldened” to attack MPs: “Unless you get to the root cause, then you’re just going to have a ring of steel around MPs. And our whole style of democracy changes.”

It must be acknowledged that Islamic radicalism is by no means the only source of threats to British MPs. Several British MPs were killed by members of the IRA, and in 2016, Labour MP Jo Cox was killed by a right-wing extremist, Bernard Kenny, who shouted “Britain first!” as he attacked her.

Nevertheless, one potential root cause of someone feeling emboldened to do violence to a politician – a Jew, a Christian, or anyone else who might be considered an “infidel” – is that they have been taught that “jihad for the sake of Allah” is the “only solution when it comes to the infidels”. Meanwhile, Australian “infidels” (non-Muslims) seem strangely unwilling to do anything about a pattern of religious incitement targeting them which has been around for decades.

Why are our heads so firmly planted in the sand? Are we really willing to stand by and let “our whole style of democracy”, our very way of life, be profoundly changed by religious incitement? If we are not, then something needs to change – something that goes to the very root of how we understand Islam and the role it plays in our society.

Mark Durie is Director of the Institute for Spiritual Awareness and Senior Research Fellow at the Melbourne School of Theology.

34 thoughts on “Sydney Sermons, Islamic Incitement

  • ianl says:

    “A conviction for inciting violence could incite more violence.” [quote from the article]

    Our institutions, including the police militias, together with a large majority of the population are terrified of jihadi violence.

    That is the irreducible bottom line.

    If in doubt, read Tony Thomas’ recent articles here tracing the long-tail aftermath of the Cronulla “riots”. Or just see today’s Leak cartoon.

    • Ceres says:

      “Our institutions, including the police militias, together with a large majority of the population are terrified of jihadi violence.”

      Yes. In a nutshell. So appeasement – keep feeding the crocodile in the hope he will eat you last.

  • Botswana O'Hooligan says:

    Enoch Powell said it all in 1968 didn’t he? Of course, Malcolm –life wasn’t meant to be easy– didn’t help either when he allowed the Lebanon to rid themselves of certain people along with the good ones who came here to escape certain people!


    Of course we must tread carefully around the uniquely termed Radical Islam. On the other hand no one’s much worried about offending Radical Presbyterians, Radical C of E’s, Radical Catholics, Radical Hindus or Radical Jews. Why is that? Precious votes are at stake, and besides, offending Muslims can lead to violent retribution. Meanwhile as the West aborts much of its future generations into medical waste disposal facilities to achieve net zero population numbers, Muslims who value the lives of their next genarations, are busy replacing Western populations with new Muslims for the not too distant Caliphate.

    • David Isaac says:

      Who was it who let them in though? Fabian socialist politicians with encouragement from the likes of Walter Lippman and a broad-based enthusiasm from irresponsible lefties.
      What possible avenues are there to fix this demographic disaster? Possible solutions are either so tough as to be politically near impossible or too mild to be of any use. Driving resentment underground by limiting freedom of speech in mosques will only stiffen resolve.

  • padmmdpat says:

    A week ago I began to read the Koran. The first chapter is a prayer recited by Muslims. If a Muslim observes the ritual of the five daily prayer sessions, he/she will recite this prayer 17 times a day. The prayer ends with a claim that both Judaism and Chistianity are false religions. I think anyone who says this 17 times a day and believes it, may well have an attitude that is far from tolerant. Indeed, he or she may well have a sense of superiority and entitlement. Am I right in thinking this is being played out in society today?

  • David Isaac says:

    Jo Cox was a Cambridge PPE graduate, a globalist traitor to the British people, although one could say the same of most politicians in that once sceptered isle. Thomas MAIR was the man convicted of her murder but significant doubt remains about his guilt in the local community. KENNY was the elderly man who witnessed the attack on Cox and was injured by her assailant.

  • Sindri says:

    To be fair to the Police, there is no criminal law in NSW that is comparable to s. 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Andrew Bolt, Dr Töben and others were defendants in civil suits. Some of the stuff being emitted extremists, though repulsive, falls through the cracks as far as criminal law is concerned. Incitements to violence, of course, are another matter.
    What follows is intended for discussion, since I’m not sure what the answer is. Incitements to violence aside, do we actually want people to have criminal liability for vile statements? Think of s. 18C, which is a wretchedly badly drafted piece of legislation, and has been made worse by the way it has been interpreted in the courts. There should not be a law against merely giving offence, even on the basis of race. Personally I think that mendacious old crackpot Dr Töben, or anyone else, should be free to offend Jews by denying the Holocaust and coming up with the usual tiresome calumnies. I appreciate that Jews may disagree. But do we really want to graft s. 18C onto the criminal law? No thanks.
    And where do you draw the line? What about (as an example) the grotesque and horrible sermon from the Muslim cleric who said that Jews were the descendants of pigs and monkeys? Should he be criminally liable for those remarks? A lot of people here seem to be implicitly calling for it. As I said, I don’t know the answer, but I have an old-fashioned view in favour of free speech, no matter how vile the speech or the speaker.

    • Katzenjammer says:

      Harrassment, intimidation, violence – they should be separated in legislation from offence, vilification and similar. Hatred is a human right, as much as envy, empathy, love, sympathy, etc. But then it gets a bit tricky – eg. expressions of hatred verses promotion of hatred.

  • Podargus says:

    You can argue the legal paraphernalia as much as you like. You can use the free speech argument as much as you like.
    The inescapable fact is that the Muslim presence in Australia constitutes an enemy within.
    They were, and still are, allowed into the country by multicult fools in power.
    Change the laws to enable deportation without appeal.

  • padmmdpat says:

    Some years ago, interfaith ‘dialogue’ was taking place between Catholics and Muslims in Turkey. After a few years, the Catholic bishop involved said to the Muslims, “We are experiencing some frustration in this process. It is like a one way bridge. We are walking across to you, but you appear not to be making an effort to walk across to us. So tell us plainly. What can you learn from us?”
    The Muslims replied, “We can learn nothing from you because you have nothing to teach us. Furthermore, we are going to take the West. And we will not take it with violence. It is your politically correct laws which will hand over the West to us on a platter.”
    And that’s exactly what is happening.

    • lenton1 says:

      Exactly, never disturb your enemy while they’re making a mistake! And the mistake we in the West are making is that we’re committing nothing short of civilisational suicide. We are self-harming through socialist decreed self-guilt. Guilt of having succeeded in creating an essentially non-violence based civilisation. That the East have not succeeded (nor want to, they’ll never have their Magna Carta moment) in that noble aim is not our fault, it is entirely their fault and we have no reason whatsoever to not be proud of our Western ways and its historical evolution, as opposed to its current devolution at the hands of our socialist traitors: Greens, Teals, Labor, LINO’s et al we’re looking at you! The West V’s East conflagration is coming whether we want to acknowledge it or not. But it not need be a self fulfilling prophesy. However, the ONLY way to avert that will be for our traitors-in-the-midst (as listed) to first be ousted peaceably from our halls of power. Drain the swamp as someone once said.

  • Stephen Due says:

    It seems the multicultural dream is becoming a nightmare. When I was growing up it was all about pizza and pasta. When I was a young adult it was hummus and felafel. The assumption – rather too easily made in the context of a harmonious, monocultural society – was that the differences between people from different cultures was actually as superficial as lasagne versus curry. We could therefore enjoy the variety of cultural diversity, and our common humanity would inevitably overcome any minor frictions that arose. Children’s picture books lent a hand by featuring children of different races and cultures playing happily together. Now it seems that the picture books we thought so wonderful were themselves the product of a worldview not shared by others.
    Multiculturalism now appears, in its true light, as just another culture, just another set of religious beliefs. It is opposed to the use of knives to stab priests, which is nice. But it has other rather less attractive features, not least of which is its actual antagonism to (not just incompatibility with) every other worldview. Hence the infamous comments by Daniel Andrews, regarding people who hold Christian views of sexual morality, that their opinions are “bigotry” and they are “not welcome in Victoria”. He did not, for some reason, say the same thing about people who hold Islamic views on sexual relations. I wonder why?

    • Ceres says:

      The “multicultural dream” worked when it was pizza and pasta and migrants from Italy and other European democratic nations with Western values. It started to come undone with migrants from islamic middle eastern countries whose values are incompatible with Western values. Most are theocracies with no separation of the State and religion. As their migrant numbers have increased here, so too have their power and influence and demographics will ensure this accelerates.

    • pgang says:

      Multiculturalism is socialism. It’s a form of levelling, or dissolving a culture into nothingness, removing its distinctive qualities. In true socialist fashion it’s based on an opposite-lie – that it’s about diversity. In fact it hates diversity, and is about homogeneity.

  • David Isaac says:

    Jo Cox was a bright young Yorkshirewoman who was indoctrinated against her own people with one world propaganda, the finishing touches applied at that nursery of international socialism Cambridge University. The man convicted (in London for some reason) of her murder was Thomas Mair, a local gardener. Those who know him remain highly skeptical of his guilt. Mr Kenny was wounded by Jo Cox’s assailant who was reported to have called out “Britain first” which were it not being uttered during a murder ought to be quite unobjectionable.

  • pompous pilate says:

    one only needs to read about the life of ‘the prophet’ to wonder why there’s such a following.
    i recall an excellent missive entitled ‘The Story of Mohammed – Islam Unveiled’ by Harry Richardson’ which is recommended reading.
    (and a free pdf download i think.)
    as a contrast to’the prophet’s life, give me Jesus any day of the week and twice on sunday

  • STD says:

    The reason our political fools of both persuasions speak softly in skirting all things Islamic,and the reason for the police service not taking any substantive action is that they are shit scared of the labile consequences for Labor at the poling booth and the ensuing violence that will occur if the police subjugate Muslims to the status of dhimmitude in accordance with secular western moral laws and values-effectively the Islamic voice is tacitly sacrosanct. .
    Essentially there are not enough policing or army resources to control the cohesive nature of Islam-there are a million of these pricks in this country and unlike the silly anglos they aren’t generationally aborting themselves out of existence.

  • Helen Smyth says:

    The first terrorist attack in Australia took place near Broken Hill in 1915. Two Muslim men attacked a train filled with men women and children on their way to a picnic. It is interesting to note that they did not choose to attack a police station or army barracks where they might be fired on in return. What has changed?

  • petroalbion says:

    And I risk loosing my job if I use the wrong pronoun ….

  • pmprociv says:

    It is the essential nature of each and every religious creed to instil in its followers an unwavering belief in their unique superiority — otherwise, what’s the point? In this modern era, most profess tolerance of other belief systems, and not too many openly advocate the active suppression, even killing, of non-believers. Such preaching in a supposedly multicultural society is completely out of place, for in effect it mimics the behaviour of a cuckoo chick, pushing all competitors out of the nest so that, in the long run, it alone survives. Religious Darwinism at its worst . . .

    Why are our political leaders so stupid as to not see this? Or are they simply gutless, hopefully pushing this difficult challenge onto the next generation? But, once the Caliphate takes over, the conflict won’t end, for there’ll be that interminable Sunni-Shia schism to sort out . . .

  • pompous pilate says:

    one only needs to read about the life of ‘the prophet’ to wonder why there’s such a following.
    a very strange dude indeed.
    as far as that belief system goes, give me Jesus any day of the week and twice on sunday.

    • padmmdpat says:

      Islam is, convert or get clobbered. An ignorant religion, taught by ignorant people to ignorant people. But I have met many Muslims who have come to Australia and breathed a sigh of (rational?) belief and got on with life without the constraints and threats of an angry, hectoring ideology that tells them to submit. The young gay Pakistani taxi driver who took me home yesterday and told me how he and his Pakistani boyfriend breathe easily in Australia made me smile and cry.

  • STD says:

    Israel’s Ambassador to the Un……….this is what fair dinkum sounds and looks like. Our leaders are as weak as water.

  • en passant says:

    At <5% of the population, Muslims bitterly complain at being oppressed and discriminated against.
    At 15% they form exclusive communities and drive out everyone else, while extracting the maximum in services and benefits from their hosts, while still bitterly complaining about being oppressed and discriminated against. Elements of Sharia are implemented, and female genital mutilation now regularly occurs without retribution.
    At 30% they become militant in demanding special rights and using their collective voting power to determine the outcomes in some seats (what were the 70% thinking?)
    At 50% they no longer complain, but demand obedience – or else violence and murders ensue. The organised vs the individual.
    At 70% paradise is created – as is hell for everyone else remaining.
    This is the future our mainstream politicians are deliberately working towards to bequeath our children and grandchildren. and
    A cynical look at how to win seats using racism and violent religionism

  • Geoff Sherrington says:

    Multiculturalism has had different meanings at different times in my 80+ years of memory. Others might differ.
    A simple contrast between the 1950s and the 2020s is stark. Early immigrants (we had Maltese neighbours) tended to be grateful to be able to live here, avoided knocking our ways, wanted to integrate. These days there are many assorted reactions of new migrants reported in the press, it is too confusing to distill a dominant mood. But I recall next to nothing of jihad threat talk until the 1990s. Maybe immigrants should be selected for a willingness to integrate and be thankful, with people rejected for seeking other dominant objectives like economic or political or military influence. Apply KISS principles to migration policy.
    Geoff S

    • lenton1 says:

      Multi ethnicity YES, multiculturalism NO. Indeed, the latter is a misnomer, it simply is not possible to have a cohesive multi-cultural society. Cite: laws, at their most fundamental, are just a codified form of agreed social behaviour and behaviour is cultural. Given cultures across the globe vary from the most compassionate to the most violent, no liveable society can ever accommodate the full range of human behaviours. The corollary being; if we are to be governed by the rule of law (codified culture) as we must – then MULTI-culturalism is anathema. It has always been thus to the thinking Right, but completely out of understanding to the Left, and hence the West’s predicament. Not until the unthinking Right (LINO’s) and the entire socialist Left have their cowardly, duplicitous hands removed from the levers of power, the future of the mostly meritorious West remains in dire peril.

      • David Isaac says:

        11th May 11:04 Easten time.
        Prior to 1945 or even a bit later there was very little interest evinced by the Labo(u)r party in multiculturalism. The propaganda groundwork for such ideas had not yet been done. Labo(u)r’s stated concern was with softening the effects of capitalism on the working class and maintaining Australia for the Australians. Although the European migrants post-war undoubtedly changed our culture they too and their children especially were very much forced to adopt ours. This was a Christian multiethnic cultural absorption and partial synthesis. It occurred between peoples who had long intermigrated and intermarried albeit in small numbers and with thousands of years of shared history. For all that, with its demands of tolerating the difference of the ‘New Australians’, it did soften us up for the racial dissolution which is currently being perpetrated.

  • Bron says:

    David Isaac
    Tolerating the difference of New Australians- really? Australia was such a boring place before New Australians arrived in large numbers post World War 11. New Australians brought work ethic, decent cooking and a love of football (round ball). They helped make Australia the rich country that it is today. They are true Australians in every sense. There children are at the top of the professions and are the future of Australia. Don’t get me wrong WASPs still have a role to play. But they have to share the glory of achievement.
    Have you been to Auschwitz yet?

Leave a Reply