In order to defend and promote Australian culture, race/people and nationality, we first must recognize the genesis of this cultural, racial & national vandalism of today, to its communistic movements after the First World War.
According to the post-war Marxist theorists Antonio Gramsci and George Lukacs, for communism to succeed in the West, broadly speaking Christianity and the traditions of Western culture had to first be undermined and ultimately destroyed. The first target in the crosshairs were the traditional sexual mores of the West. The first salvo was the introduction of sex education in Soviet Hungary’s public school system.
The initial ‘success’ inspired other Marxists to establish the Institute for Social Research at Frankfurt University; better known as the ‘Frankfurt School.’ This was where the concept of ‘political correctness’ was born; an insidious doctrine that has led an assault on our culture ever since and has made its presence felt in social and political discourse on almost any subject today.
The Frankfurt School encouraged a revolution led by the ‘victims’ of an oppressive society. Minority groups, some of whom had legitimate grievances, became the vocal revolutionaries, demanding the old structures be dismantled to protect their ‘rights.’
No matter how well these structures functioned, there was unrelenting criticism of the traditional family, authority, social structure, racial makeup, national pride, nationality and our sense of identity. Those who believed in and supported traditional Western culture, were branded as ‘racist,’ ‘intolerant,’ ‘homophobic,’ ‘sexist’ and ‘prejudiced.’ It should come to no surprise that those whose arguments have no substance are reduced to make ad hominem attacks on their opponents. Through seemingly endless public attacks on our social traditions, many of which were uncontested lest the defender become a target for Leftist vitriol himself, the public conditioning continued without the clarity of rational debate.
Soon the concept of ‘repressive’ or ‘liberating tolerance’ was formulated by another member of the Frankfurt School, Herbert Marcuse. This was defined as tolerance for all ideas from the Left of the political spectrum and the intolerance for any ideas coming from the Right of the political spectrum, due to it being non-‘progressive’ ideas and hence were denounced as oppressive and therefore illegitimate – violence against them was not considered immoral. Not surprisingly, other members of the Frankfurt School would lay the groundwork for the belief among many radicals of today that people of conservative disposition are in fact morally or psychologically defective in some way shape or form.
A consequence of this debilitating mindset is the stranglehold that Leftist taboos and politically correct notions have on the public debate today. Most notably in the media, and through it, the political establishment.
The Left are in a process where conservative thoughts are gradually assimilated into essentially Leftist ideas as ‘cognitive harmonisation’. Marcuse’s concept of ‘tolerance’, together with a timid political opposition to it, has leg to the situation we find ourselves today. The resulting alienation of voters from those who are supposed to represent them in parliament should be worrying to anyone with an interest in maintaining a representative government or public involvement in the political process.
Unfortunately, such was the Frankfurt School’s success that this concept of ‘repressive tolerance’ continues today, with no better example than the irrational hysteria attached to the modern Green fad of the anthropogenic global warming theory, now climate change theory. This fiasco was promoted by a gross impropriety of scientists, however this was merely a political campaign to fool the public, while they were protected by the cowardly and compliant Leftist media.
It is perhaps, telling that the process of secularization; where traditional religious principles and ideas have gradually been eradicated from the public arena all in the name of science, reason and rationality, have paralleled the growth of the cultish obsession of militant Green Environmentalism, which sometimes bordering on Earth worship. Green-Left ideologues’ frequent critique of the materialism of the free market is strong evidence of their desire for some kind of transcendent purpose in life.
Unfortunately for them, they have rejected the very religious and cultural heritage that was best equipped to satisfy this deep-rooted need. The need for companionship, pride, happiness, they have all rejected. The result of this rejection is that they will fall for anything. As the alternative to Christianity and our Christian heritage would be “some uncouth, pernicious, and degrading superstition.” – Burke.
Due to all of this nonsense, today in our politically charged environment, dissenters are treated as heretics, free thought and expression are treated as Hate Speech and must be silenced to create a safe environment. As well, the outlandish claims from the same scientists that promoted Global Warming now promote sea level rises, uninhabitable cities, gender theories and the like. These toxic and poisonous ideological pushes have been repeated in our educational systems, media and governments. However, those that pushed against this wave of confusion, they were punished and persecuted, even when evidence proving topics false; as in regard to Global Warming, people were silenced, ignored and branded as conspiracy theorists. Many were browbeaten into submission due to this. Some brave few persisted, using logic and evidence against the emotionally charged blackmail from the alarmists.
This is prevalent in Australia, especially what the Leftist media, Government and Educational Systems indoctrinate students into. Such as for the first time in that nation’s history, the majority of migrants are now arriving from Asia instead of Europe. Indians and Chinese have become the fastest growing sections of the Australian population. Between 2006 and 2011 the number of Australian permanent residents born in India increased by 100 per cent, those born in China increased by 54 per cent, while those born in the Philippines by 42 per cent. These startling figures do not even include those born in Australia to Indian or Chinese parents. The Census also revealed that other non-White immigrant groups are also expanding rapidly, including various African groups. All of this is dismal news for White Australians and, indeed, for White people everywhere. Unfortunately, these figures only mirror what is happening throughout the West, where White people are under demographic and cultural siege from race-replacing levels of Third World immigration and the official embrace of “multiculturalism.”
In just a few decades these malignant policies have transformed Western societies to the detriment of their European-derived populations and culture. It is a remarkable fact that this revolution in immigration and social policy throughout the West occurred at around the same time (1962-1973), and that in all countries these changes reflected the attitude of elites rather than the great mass of citizens. Changes in immigration policy and the imposition of multiculturalism were imposed on resentful European populations despite overwhelming popular opposition to non-European immigration.
Australia was the last habitable continent settled by Europeans. In 1901 the British colonies of Australia federated to form an independent nation. The first Act passed by the new federal parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act which, through imposing a dictation test in any European language (usually English), effectively barred non-White immigration to Australia. Until the cultural revolution of the 1960s, Australia remained an unashamedly White Christian nation with a strong Anglo-Celtic ethnic base. Indeed, the long-running (now defunct) news magazine The Bulletin maintained the slogan “Australia for the White Man” on its masthead until 1961. By 1947 the non-European population, other than Aborigines, was measured at 0.25 per cent of the total. As a result of the Immigration Restriction Act, Australia had become, by this time, one of the Whitest countries in the world. Ian Cook makes the point that “The ‘White Australia’ policy was a fairly self-conscious and explicit attempt to protect a particular genetic inheritance from being diluted by other genetic lines.” The policy was extraordinarily successful in this endeavor, and the historian Eric Richards observes that, in retrospect, it is extraordinary that so remote a settlement could maintain such a homogeneous population composition.
Australia and New Zealand were also the two most “British” societies outside the United Kingdom, and Australia was, proportionately, the most Irish society outside Ireland. The imperial loyalties of the Australian colonists were often explained by reference to the “crimson thread of kinship” that existed between Britain and Australia. Australian identity was founded upon three distinct yet interrelated components: racial Whiteness, “Britishness,” and “Australianness.” The attempted Japanese invasion of northern Australia in WWII proved that the longstanding fear of an Asian invasion (the “Yellow Peril”) was far from the neurotic, xenophobic anxiety disparaged by today’s politically correct historians. In the 1960s there was no popular movement for ending the White Australia policy, a policy that had retained the bipartisan support of Australia’s political class since its inception in 1901. Indeed, Richards notes that “Australia’s adherence to ‘Whiteness’ was its defining characteristic,” and that “None of the other great immigrant countries was able to sustain such a degree of homogeneity.” Hawkins makes the point that:
the primary and identical motivation of Canadian and Australian politicians in trying to exclude first the Chinese, then other Asian migrants and finally all potential non-white immigrants, was the desire to build and preserve societies and political systems in their hard-won, distant lands very like those of the United Kingdom. They also wished to establish without challenge the primary role there of her founding peoples of European origin. … Undisputed ownership of these territories of continental size was felt to be confirmed forever, not only by the fact of possession, but by the hardships and dangers endured by the early explorers and settlers; the years of back-breaking work to build the foundations of urban and rural life. … The idea that other peoples, who had taken no part in these pioneering efforts, might simply arrive in large numbers to exploit important local resources, or to take advantage of these earlier settlement efforts, was anathema.
Tied in with these natural and legitimate expressions of racial and ethnic solidarity, were concerns hordes of non-White immigrants would drive down the wages and living standards of White Australians. This was a key part of the original rationale for the White Australia policy as articulated by Alfred Deakin, Australia’s first Attorney-General, who argued that:
a white Australia does not by any means just mean the preservation of the complexion of the people of this country. It means the multiplying of homes, so that we may be able to defend every part of our continent; it means the maintenance of conditions of life fit for white men and white women; it means equal laws and opportunities for all; it means protection against underpaid labour of other lands, it means the payment of fair wages. A white Australia means a civilisation whose foundations are built on healthy lives, lived in honest toil, under circumstances which imply no degradation; a white Australia means protection.”
An analogous view had been expressed as early as 1841 by James Stephen, the powerful head of the British colonial office in London, who declared that Australia should be a land “where the English race shall be spread from sea to sea unmixed with any lower caste.” He maintained that the introduction of Indian “coolies” into New South Wales would “debase by their intermixture the noble European race… bring with them the idolatry and debasing habits of their country… beat down the wages of poor laboring Europeans… [and] cut off the resource for many of our own distressed people.” Charles Pearson, a British scholar who migrated to the colonies in the late nineteenth century, published a book entitled National Life and Character in 1893. In it, he described Australia as “an unexampled instance of a great continent that has been left for the first civilized people that found it to take and occupy. He warned, nevertheless, that it was still questionable whether the white races would be able to hold on to it in the face of the Asiatic threat:
We know that coloured and white labour cannot exist side by side; we are well aware that China can swamp us with a single year’s surplus of population; and we know that if national existence is sacrificed to the working of a few mines and sugar plantations, it is not the Englishman and Australian alone, but the whole civilized world, that will be the losers.
Such concerns echoed through the decades of the White Australia policy, where the country explicitly defined its nationhood in terms of Whiteness and a policy of economic protectionism designed to benefit the entire group by preventing, say, Australian capitalists from importing cheap labor that would undercut the standard of living of other White Australians. The policy reflected the desire of Australians to build a strong and prosperous society founded upon the principles of racial and cultural homogeneity and fairness within the racial group. Gwenda Tavan notes that the White Australia policy was a “morally imbued affirmation of the type of society Australians wanted to build: white and British-Australian as well as cohesive, conformist, liberal-democratic and egalitarian.” One commentator reflected this view when noting in 1939 that “The Australian prides himself on his high standard of living; he wishes to do nothing that will endanger it. Neither does he wish to bring into being a colour problem such as he sees in South Africa.”
Rather than being driven by any shift in public opinion, the impetus for the progressive dismantling of the White Australia policy, and the move from assimilation to multiculturalism between 1966 and 1975 came “from a small group of reformers that began appearing in some Australian universities in the 1960s” who, like their counterparts in the United States and Britain, soon comprised a hostile intellectual, academic and media elite who “developed a sense of being a member of a morally and intellectually superior ingroup battling against Australian parochial non-intellectuals as an outgroup.” In the changing ideological climate of the 1950s and 1960s, the moral foundations of Australia’s British history were subjected to radical criticism, and once foundational patriotic works like Keith Hancock’s Australia (with its maxim that “among the Australians pride of race counted for more than love of country”) were no longer compulsory reading for students.
Food for thought: If you think that you are oppressed, ask the question; what are you not allowed to talk about?
There is a better way. Let’s Put Australia Back On Track.