“The White population is being driven out of the labour market by an inundation of Mongolians. When the White man is driven to desperation there will be desperate times.” – Ned Kelly (1879)
“It is not a position of cultural or racial superiority to wish to preserve your own culture. Our complete racial and socio- cultural milieu is being changed through undemocratic policies. This is grounds for revolution“. – Denis McCormack
“It is against God’s law to integrate, it’s only nature, not hatred to keep among their own kind… a man would have to be a fool to want to live in any other culture than its own“. – Muhhammed Ali
“Throughout this century it has been considered by thinking men, notably such Americans as Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard, that Australia might well offer our harassed race its last refuge in the world. It is the only continent occupied, aside from a few aborigines, by a single race – our own. But Australia’s rulers have little or no understanding of race, particularly the difference between Nordics and non-Nordics, and suspect it would be “Fascist” if they did. Consequently they have not only permitted the immigration of scores of Asiatics but have promoted the importation of masses of unassimilable Southern Europeans, not perceiving that the introduction of a different race does not augment the numbers of a native Nordic population but merely supplants it – actually prevents it from reproducing itself. In America this is known as Walker’s law. And Americans point to New England where the native English-American stock was wiped out by the New Immigration. The result is that New England today is anything but English. But Australia’s political leaders know nothing of this. Like all Western politicians, appealing to the votes of the ignorant and the underprivileged and themselves ignorant power-hungry demagogues talking nothing but economics, of which they comprehend very little, they are generally unfit to manage even a municipality. They imagine that the United States is a racial melting pot and that it was this that caused America’s greatness. This is what they have learned at their universities, and they actually believe it.” – Anthony Jacob
Undermining the White Australia Policy
In previous essays in this series the case was made that the main point of the particular direction taken by Australia’s immigration, multiculturalism and Asianisation policies, was not so much to increase economic growth (which could have been done the Singapore way by increasing technological sophistication), but to continue Australia’s colonial status by making the country a colony of Asia. A necessary part of this process was to conduct a soft genocidal campaign against the major ethnic group of the population, namely Anglo Australia. This has been a concentrated attack on many fronts, especially from the Churches, professional ethnic groups, academia, the media and by overseas bodies, as well as other nations. The savage attack on the One Nation party in the late 1990s well illustrated how these forces of darkness co-operated and co-ordinated their actions.
This essay looks at how these same dark forces conspired to destroy the White Australia policy. In particular the essay will primarily focus on the actions of Arthur Calwell, who has generally been thought to support the ideal of a White Australia, in undermining this policy.
To set the scene of the paper let us quickly go over territory which our intellectual elites have well covered in a multitude of text books, designed for the brainwashing of undergraduates.
The 19th century saw major attempts by the elites, primarily of the business world, to Asianise Australia’s population, as had been done to other countries within the British Empire. The Japanese, for example, were approached in the 19th century to settle the Northern Territory. The idea similar to the multifunction polis scheme in the 1990s, was to transplant a portion of Japan into Northern Australia. There would be free passage for all emigrants and arrangements were to be made for the reproduction of Japanese social conditions. Witton Hack was sent to Tokyo to lay the plan of Japanese settlement before the Japanese authorities. They agreed in early February 1877. The scheme though fell though due to rebellion against the Meiji rule in Japan which led to the Kyoto government turning away from such imperialist adventures.
In the 1850s the Chinese entered the Victorian goldfields and increased in numbers from 2000 in 1852 to 42,000 in 1859. By 1887 they numbered 60,000 or 15 per cent of the population. The black-arm band books tell us that the White Australian feared the Chinese because of the threat of disease and threat to their livelihoods. These threats were real. The immigrants were sources of epidemic diseases such as smallpox, plague, leprosy and tuberculosis, and remains so to some extent today. The Kanakas, in particular, were sources of malaria and various worm diseases.
Further, as Myra Willard has noted, although many capitalists supported the creation of a multiracial Asian Australia, some were concerned that trade was passing into Asian hands and so they joined the White labourers in demanding exclusion. The black armband histories do not tell the bonded and aged undergraduates that most Chinese preferred to return home than become Australian citizens by paying a small fee and filling out an application form. Nevertheless, PC (politically correct) historian Henry Reynolds in North of Capricorn is right in noting that significant numbers of Chinese did stay; one quarter of Cairns at the turn of the century was Chinese and Darwin had a majority Chinese population until 1915.
The formation of the Australian Labor Party arose from the realisation amongst White workers from the failure of the 1890s strikes that they needed a representation in Parliament. The crystal-clear words of the first Federal Labor Party Platform were that the ALP stood for “total exclusion of coloured and undesirable races.” The drive for the federation of the colonies was fuelled by the desire for uniform legislation to enshrine White Australia. The first legislation introduced to Parliament was the Immigration Restriction Act. Alfred Deakin said, speaking of the Bill: “Unity of race is an absolute essential to the unity of Australia… it is the Monroe doctrine of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is no mere electioneering Manifesto, but part of the first principles upon which the Commonwealth is to be administered and guided“. Deakin (1856-1919), three times Prime Minister (1903-4, 1905-8, 1909-10) was primarily responsible for the Immigration Restriction Act.
Deakin on paper was all for preserving the Anglo ethno-racial group. He saw the experience of North and South America as showing “the unsuitability of mixed races for constitutional self-government”. In the London Morning Post of 12 November 1901 he said: “Our Antipodean suspicion is directed at immigrants of the lower Latin type, and is decidedly antagonistic towards new-comers from South-Eastern Europe“.
Nevertheless in practice Deakin was the typical pragmatic politician who compromised ideals to serve the interests of capital. For example, he permitted entry of Southern Italian contract labour in the sugar industry even to the point of alienating the Labor Party. A fear that imperial Britain may not allow the Immigration Restriction Act to be passed prevented a more secure method of safeguarding White Australia, such as enshrining the principle in the Constitution. The mere dictation test was widely criticised. Senator Stewart said at the time: “We do not desire to keep out these people simply because they are inferior to us, but because for racial, social and economic reasons we cannot permit them with safety to enter“. As Paul Kelly notes, “Britain ran an empire of coloured people from Africa to Asia and it had strategic alliance with the racially proud Japanese“. So, the Japanese can be “racially proud,” but not Australians: this double standard of Asian hypocrisy continues to this day. Australia should have stood its ground and defied the multiracially brain-drenched elites.
A major assault on the White Australia Policy was not to be undertaken until the Anglo-Australian population had been diluted by the first wave of immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. The same piecemeal strategy was practised in the United States after the American civil war. However as Anglo boys were dying in the Pacific in a battle to save White Australia from the Japanese, on the home front preparations were already being made for the end of Anglo-Australia. A.P. Elkin gives a hint of this in his attack on the White Australia Policy in the Australian Quarterly of September 1945. The White Australia Policy is increasingly being opposed by the Churches who want Asians he said. Elkin also said that race-mixing is advantageous, citing the work of Jewish Communist Ashley Montagu. An editorial in The Sydney Morning Herald of 20 March 1945 mentions that the Archbishop of Canterbury “intimated that Australia will probably be approached to ‘widen’ her immigration policy on Asiatics“.
Although contemporary PC (politically correct) Asianisers such as Paul Kelly and J. Jupp see the end of the White Australia Policy as being produced by economic progress in the Asia-Pacific there was no compelling reason why Australia should have done so for the reasons that Condliffe gave in 1964:
“The reasons for refusing to open the door to mass migration from Asia are economic and social, not racial. From time to time it is suggested that limited immigration quotas might be allotted, as in the United States, to Asian countries; but this would almost certainly create dangerous selection problems that could easily be publicised. Without doing anything to meet the criticism of discrimination which exists mainly in the minds of a small group of Australians, it would highlight the fact. Ample provision, generously administered, exists to meet special cases, and there is no evidence that Asian governments wish to press for, or would countenance, mass migration, though Communist propaganda seeks to make an issue of discrimination. The Asians Relations Conference at New Delhi in 1947 explicitly recognized the right of every country to determine the nature of its population. The population increase in every Asian country is of such magnitude that no conceivable volume of emigration could give significant relief to population pressure. There have been numerous conflicts in Asia such as those arising from the migrations of Indians to Burma and Ceylon, and Chinese to Indonesia. Australians are virtually unanimous in their determination to avoid the social conflicts that have arisen with the coloured populations in the United States and South Africa, and most recently in the United Kingdom“.
The team of professional ethnics, of Castles, Kalantzis (et al) assert that as Australia began to trade more with Asian countries such as Japan, the White Australia Policy became an embarrassment. Perhaps it was for them but there was no logical reason why it should. Who were the Japanese to preach immigration morality to us when they have one of the most restrictive immigration policies in the world? Japan grants citizenship only if both parents are Japanese – as does China and Thailand. Even today, as David Flint has recently observed, the highly discriminatory immigration policies of our Asian neighbours are seldom criticised. Racism for them is natural as most of these societies are not liberal democratic societies at all.
Another fallacious argument, both logically and historically is given by David Day. Hitler’s “attempted genocide of European Jews… helped to discredit the racial theories that partly underpinned the “white Australia’ policy“. But the attempt to establish anti-racism was made long before the Holocaust was administered as an anti-racist medicine. The anti-racist propaganda machine was beginning to rev up before World War II had even started, pushed by members of the Boasian school of anthropology such as Ashley Montagu. If there had been no Hitler at all, the same propaganda would have been pushed. Anti-racism and attacks on the White Australia Policy had been a core characteristic of Australian Communism since the 1920s.
Another important boost to the destruction of the White Australia Policy was the tolerance of the presence of American Negro servicemen in Australia during World War II. Negro troops celebrated ‘liberation’ as White women became prostituted in a time of crisis and shortage. Negro servicemen made free use of local White women in Brisbane and Townville, as well as pursuing other White women. Australian servicemen in Brisbane during World War II could see these Black men fondling women on the streets. The propaganda of Tokyo Rose would not have been effective at the time unless there was a grain of truth in it. The Australian government at the time was concerned that the behaviour of the Black servicemen would undermine the White Australia Policy, but turned a blind eye under US pressure.
It was the beginning of the Civil Rights movement.
In 1950 the Colombo Plan and many other small Plans were initiated. (SCAAP, SPAP, SEATO, AIAS.) The Colombo Plan concerned some 1,500 overseas students who were brought to Australia, educated in Australia and returned to their countries of origin at Australian expense. The Plan was much publicised and applauded. Not publicised and almost unknown however was the Private Overseas Student Program. Under this Plan foreign students numbering some 10,000 yearly came to Australia at their expense, paid university or school of technology expenses and although required to return home failed to do so. Many found well paid jobs on the basis of their degrees in Canada, the U.S.A. or UK. Others remained in Australia, sometimes by marrying an Australian young woman. To these the Australian Government gave preference in the allocation of’ university seats. The students thus deprived promising Australians of education and job opportunities – another act of genocide.
The same forces responsible for the cultural revolution which gave us feminism, homosexual ‘liberation’, anti- imperialism and other Leftist causes were also responsible in the main for the intellectual undermining of the White Australia Policy. The Right and conservatives of the time put up a pathetic resistance to a doctrine which was clearly a direct manifestation of communism. Resistance groups in the 1940s and 1950s were largely concerned with stopping the advance of the “reds” and were bonded to the concepts of the Cold War. The idea that there could be not merely a slow march, but a brisk jog of the same poisonous doctrine through the institutions of society, did not receive more attention than mere lip service. But this Fabian socialist strategy was the one which was used on Anglo- Australia rather than the direct military invasion. Few, apart from the League of Rights’ Eric Butler could see the forces at work.
The Churches Played Their Part
The Churches were particularly concerned with Asianisation, seeking good yellow bums on church seats. David Johnson has said: “In 1945 the Australian Communist Party, Archbishop Mannix and the Presbyterian General Assembly called alike for a quota system of Asian immigration. The Churches were particularly active in this movement. As early as 1943, the President of the Methodist Conference has said that ‘the White Australia policy is coming up for judgement”. In the following year, the Methodist Spectator urged that the Church dissociate itself from the policy, and the Methodist Conference objected to the term ‘White‘ as being racially offensive. In 1945, the Foreign Missions Committee of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church expressed similar misgivings’.
The Protestant Churches were active in opposing the White Australia Policy, often acting through the pinko Australian Council of Churches. Many Roman Catholic bodies also joined in the murder of White Australia. Catholic intellectuals, such as Professor Max Charlesworth were prominent critics and members of the Immigration Reform Group. However, perhaps the most important Catholic ethnic critic of White Australia was B.A. Santamaria. He had a lifelong desire, as an Italian Catholic to evangalise and “save Asia“. In the 1960s he called for tariff reductions, as a commitment to Asia and the end of the White Australia Policy. He hoped for a Pacific Community under the wing of the Mother Church. He churned out many articles based around his favourite quote from the demographer Alfred Sauvy: “The day will come when China will denounce this rich country to the United Nations for monopolising the soil, and will demand, sharply, that the land be allocated to the starving“. Rather than analyse and criticise the multitude of political assumptions in that statement, Santamaria accepted it as a call for mass migration. Never mind that such a call would spell a “tragedy of the commons” ecological ruin for Australia. For these medieval minded Christian types, God will provide and protect. Santamaria was a protégé of Melbourne’s Irish Catholic Archbishop Daniel Mannix. Santamaria was an apologist for the pro-Fascist Franco in the Spanish Civil War of 1936 to 1938. His greatest achievement was effectively destroying the Labor Party. The “split” helped transform Labor into the party of big business.
Left Wing of Labour Movement
Another source of opposition to the White Australia Policy was the Left wing of the labour movement. Although the labour movement was a principal force in the 19th century in formulating and fighting for the White Australia Policy to protect Australian workers from the levelling and degrading effects of economic globalisation, in the 20th century the left wing of the labour movement, infiltrated by Marxists and Communists, saw things differently. The Australasian Council of Trade Unions was affiliated with communist dominated organisations such as the Pan-Pacific Trade Union Movement. The Australian Communist Party was active in the labour movement, pushing its poisonous ideology of the unity of the workers of all lands. These organisations all rejected the White Australia Policy as anti-working class.
As with the promotion of Asianisation and anti-Anglo race hatred/planned genocide today, the traitorous Australian media, the whore of the rootless cosmopolitan moneyed elite, began to push “human tragedy”/tear-jerker” stories typically involving family reunion of non-Europeans or families of racially-mixed couples. The aim was not merely to arouse the liberal/left guilt reflex, a psychosis embedded in the brains of Anglo-Australia by communism but it was also to generate condemnation from foreign governments, usually of tyrants themselves. Such tyrants hated the success of White people in building a superior civilisation and fuelled by resentment that was typical of those liberated from the oppressions of colonialism, were happy to oblige our media elites by criticising Australia – no matter that mass murder, genocide, cannibalism and real oppression was occurring in their own countries.
The cases of Willie Wong and Nancy Prasad were given extensive media coverage and were said to have damaged our “international reputation“. In World War II, Australia was good enough to take in Asian refugees who fled the Japanese forces. These Asians were given sanctuary on the understanding that they would return home after war ended. Of course by that time although they had chosen not to stay and fight the Japanese, they were able to make good in Australia. Many intermarried with Australian Whites, while Anglo-Australians died fighting the Japanese. They reneged on their obligations. Arthur Calwell, in what we believe was one of his few acts of genuine patriotism attempted to repatriate 14 Malay seamen who had married Australian girls. Malayan Seamen’s Defence Committees sprung up like toadstools in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.
These lobby groups were further energised by the case of Annie O’Keefe, an Indonesian with eight children, whose first husband was killed in a plane crash during the war. She was given refuge in Australia on the condition that she return to Indonesia when requested to do so. As the fairy tale goes, she then re-married in Australia and applied for permanent residency. Her application was rejected. She then took her case to the High Court of Australia in 1947. This Court which had been steadily working away at undermining the federalist vision of the Founding Fathers, almost since its inception (e.g., undermining the powers of the States, centralising power in Canberra, using the external affairs power to add PC laws to Australian law, etc., etc.) naturally found in favour of the migrant. This decision applied to hundreds of other war refugees in the country. Arthur Calwell, who wanted to give the impression that he was controlling migration (just as John Howard did with his so-called “tough stand” on asylum seekers) introduced and had passed in parliament, bills to repatriate these Asian war refugees. Unfortunately before they could be put on boats and sent home, a general election was held.
In 1949 Fred and Rita six-pack were foolish enough to elect the Liberal-Country Party. With it came an immigration minister even worse than Calwell – Harold Holt. Calwell may have been concerned with the issue of ‘populate or perish“; the Liberals though were more concerned with “supply and demand“. The Liberals were more concerned with supplying Australia’s capitalist class with cheap migrant labour for the expansion of the manufacturing sector. The Liberal government, under the so-called Anglophile Menzies, and then Holt, began to deceptively and deceitfully dismantle the White Australia Policy. Cabinet papers indicate that the Liberals were bowing to international pressure to allow Asian immigration. The deceitful Holt administration moved carefully so as not to risk a public backlash by allowing too many Asians in too quickly. The time for swamping by Asians would come soon enough.
Thus, by a series of reforms, by 1967 Asians were allowed to enter as permanent residents. In the United States immigration law was also overturned in this period to allow Asians, Africans and other Third Worlders to enter. Senator Edward Kennedy, the Irish Catholic equivalent of Holt in his role as Chairman of the Senate Sub-Committee on the 1965 Immigration Reform Act in the US. Kennedy said that US cities would not be flooded with millions of Asians and coloured migrants (they are) and that the ethnic mix of the population would not be changed (it was; the US will have a White minority before 2050).
These immigration changes which effectively destroyed Anglo-America and Anglo-Australia, occurred in the same year and for the same reasons – and in that year the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination was also ratified. Blind Freddy can see that there is a conspiracy here, for it is clear that this was an Anglo sacrifice on the blood altar of the New World Order.
In Australia immigration minister Hubert Opperman (guess his ethnicity) said that the relaxation of the White Australia Policy would not lead to substantial numbers of Asians entering Australia – logically undermining the reason for relaxation in the first place! It was Opperman who pushed this idea onto Holt. It apparently did not take much pushing as Holt had previously expressed his opposition to the White Australia Policy. Holt was a New World Order man, in favour of “World Government“. In December 1967, Holt disappeared at Victoria Beach, apparently being eaten by a shark. Was it a case of one shark being eaten by another?
Thus, as Katherine Betts has stated: “The White Australia Policy had almost been eliminated by the late 1960s in a series of changes during the latter years of Liberal/Country Party rule. Public resistance had been circumvented by the use of administrative procedures and secrecy rather than open debate.” Of course: as both Bob Hawke, Malcolm Fraser and Paul Keating have said, if democratic consensus was followed we would not have had the Italians and Greeks. With the election of the Whitlam Labor government in December 1972 the final nail was hammered into the coffin of Anglo-Australia. The rapid transformation of Australia for the worse now accelerated.
In her book “The Great Divide,” Katharine Betts has said on the role of the intellectuals in undermining White Australia:
“During the 1960s and early 1970s the intellectuals’ preoccupation with the White Australia Policy and with Australian involvement in Vietnam combined to reinforce their anti-racism and their contempt for parochial values. At the same time the Southern-European ‘problem migrant’ was discovered as a local victim of Australian ethnocentrism, and this gave a domestic edge to new-class discontent. Immigrant Australians with their distinctive cultural styles were not only a fit and proper antidote for the dangerous narrowness of the native product; the migrant deserved special treatment to make up for the past wrongs. White Australia, Vietnam, internationalism, ‘problem migrants’ and multiculturalism were new-class causes. Others worked for them as well but these members of the new class did so disproportionately… All of the causes touch on questions of race and racism, and all could be fought by attacking preconceived deficiencies in Australian culture.”
It is worthwhile considering, albeit briefly, the thoughts of Australia’s champions of reason. As has been said, one of B.A. Santamaria’s favourite quotes was from the demographer Alfred Sauvy who said in his book “Zero Growth“: “[One] must expect that some day or other, China will denounce this rich country to the United Nations for monopolising the soil and will demand, sharply, that the land be allocated to the starving…” George Zubrzycki, Foundation Professor of Sociology, School of General Studies at the Australian National University and Chairman of the Australian Ethnic Affairs Council, followed the Sauvy line:
“The earth in its fullness exists for the use of all human beings regardless of race or colour or creed. How long can we continue to claim sovereignty over a continent the size of Australia and deny access to those who are prepared to work hard to develop it?”
He continues with these pearls of “wisdom“, noting that increased population: “Clearly implies profound economic sacrifice. Yes, sacrifice to our living standards. If hundreds of millions in the poor world cannot have two meals a day or even one whole meal a day then we may have to forgo our fantastic consumption of luxuries. If we want to populate Australia for the sake of strengthening our defence potential and for the sake of producing more wheat, more rice, more of everything else for these who experience hunger in the neighbouring countries of Asia, then we must pay a price, a price for our survival“.
Have a guess whether this intellectual sacrificed his living standards.
In 1979 Zubrzycki wrote that the Vietnamese boat people represented a “civilian invasion” of Australia, and “If we do not grasp the challenge of developing this vast continent we shall find it increasingly difficult to justify possession of it“. This was a continuation of “Cocky” Calwell’s “populate or perish” ideology with a blackmail twist to it. No matter that the foreign nations “invade” us and spit on the concept of national sovereignty. Take them or die. It would have been better to have fought like warriors and died than to be at the mercy of Zubrzycki’s pathetic racially suicidal pseudo-religion.
Australia is of course “racist“. According to Marxist Humphrey McQueen “racism is the most important single component of Australian nationalism”. And Denis Altman: “the first point about our traditional Weltschauung is that it is racist.” D. Cattle: racism made Australia “a grotesque unworthy place of moral torment and decay“. And uncertain of metaphors: Phillip Adams: “Racism is deeply embedded in our culture and can rise like a phoenix – or, rather, a vulture- with the slightest stimulus“. If only this was so – Anglo-Australia would not be subject to its present genocidal onslaught and the likes of these “intellectuals” would not find employment outside of the dirtiest manual labour.
Phillip Adams said in The Age, 12 July, 1980: “It is important to remember Australia before the most recent wave of migration. It was dull, self-satisfied and joylessly conformist… Not merely mindless, but lobotomised… In the past we’ve had to travel the globe… to see worlds that contrasted with our own. In a multicultural society, such experiences would be within walking distance …… ” And what about the poor, the unemployed and the other culturally challenged that these rich socialists meet on their journey?
Irish Australian leprechaun, writer Thomas Keneally, said to the BBC in October 1996, that Pauline Hanson puts us on the train to Auschwitz (Oh no! The guilt! The Horror! Aaaaaaaag!) For Malcolm Fraser, always eager to have his views profiled in the media, “The only future for Australia is in Asia“. Al Grassby, one of the Mediterranean race’s greatest contributions to Australia, “Take away multicultural Australia and you have nothing left” – that is, Anglo- Australia is “nothing“. But the prize for all time multicultural craziness must go to Ghassan Hage, who believes that multiculturalism in the form expressed above is an attempt to “preserve a sense of national community with a form of racist nationalism designed to support White supremacy“. What further horizon of absurdity awaits our stuttering class? What other mountains of politically correct nonsense have they to climb?
Regarding the undermining of the White Australia Policy and the intellectuals during, 1961-65, two influential bodies were Student Action and the Associations for Immigration Reform. Both of these bodies had their original base in universities including Melbourne and Monash Universities and the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. I Ageing war horses from the Immigration Reform Group such as Jamie Mackie and other supporters such as “Mr. Lever” Donald Horne, have claimed that the Immigration Reform Group played a major role in changing intellectual opinion about the White Australia Policy. They are deluding themselves: as has been shown here, the forces of evil that worked to destroy the White Australia Policy were near success well before this group of self- righteous scribblers ever put pen to paper. Thus Donald Horne in “The Avenue of the Fair Go,” describes some intellectuals arriving at Jamie Mackie’s house in 1959 to work out a way of ending the White Australia Policy. Later Mackie, Kenneth Rivett and others produce a pamphlet that comes out as “Immigration: Control or Colour Bar`?” This book Home says, ultimately leads to the end of the White Australia Policy: “At the end, I am there with Jamie Mackie and Ken Rivett surrounded by young faces, pink (pinko] white, brown. black, yellow. We are all singing “We are one. but we are many.” Horne needed to work into this story some line like “We had a dream. but now it is a reality” to truly replicate the Martin Luther King ethos which he is clearly trying to capture for Australia.
Immigration: Control or Colour Bar? followed the same Fabian strategy of gradualism and deception. The group advocated only a moderate increase of coloureds/Asians per year, of about 7-8 thousand. None of the group really wanted just that many coloureds – that would never destroy Anglo-Australia. Ken Rivett has said: “Of course we hoped and believed that it would then be revised upwards.”
Many others can he mentioned. Jim Cairns was one notable figure opposing White Australia. Manning Clark hated White Australia and the English and wrote a fantasy history of Australia to work through his psychosis. Many of the coloured students educated in the foolishly inspired “Columbo Plan” also returned to Australia to do their bit to undermine Anglo-Australia.
Dr. Herbert Vere Evatt is perhaps the most important opponent of white Australia in the early period of this war. The Australian Jewish News of 23 April 1957 reports cm a Zionist rally in Melbourne where Dr. Evatt said, “The time is coming when all the natural resources of the world will be controlled by the United Nations. Evatt played a vital role in establishing Israel, and was “revered in Israel“, having a Forest on Mount Carmel in his honour. As much has been written by the Australian right about the adventures of this Zionist, we shall not pursue his ghost further.
Professor Geoffrey Blainey should not be forgotten. Since Saturday 17 March 1984, after Blainey’s speech to the Warnambool Rotarians Blainey has been mistakenly taken as a defender of Anglo-Australia. He is not. He never opposed the Asianisation of Australia, only its pace. He supported the slower Asianisation of Australia. Of course Blainey was attacked by our traitorous intelligentsia who support the rapid rather than slow genocide of Australia. In Gerard Henderson’s Australian Answers Blainey is clear that he opposed the White Australia Policy and supported the slow Asianisation of Australia. Blainey had a five-year tenure as Chairman of the Australia-China Council. Blainey, like John Howard, are not friends of Anglo-Australia. Some people no doubt believe that in secret Blainey supports the ideals of the Anglo-Australian Movement. Nevertheless he has been careful never to give a positive defence of Anglo-Australia and accepts most of the pc anti-racist propaganda of his opponents. Thus the Blainey debate was about the viciousness of the elites turning on one of their kind.
Taking the Jack Hammer to “Cocky” Calwell
Arthur Calwell has been viewed as a “hero” of White Australia by various nationalist groups. It is easy enough to find supporting speeches and essays from Calwell, such as those collected in his book Be Just and Fear Not Calwell frequently wrote letters to members of the public concerned about the changes which were occurring about them, and in one letter which we have seen began a reply, “1 … agree with almost all your contentions on the question of miscegenation“. In his booklet, Danger for Australia (1949), he recognised that “vicious men” wanted “cheap coloured labour“. Interestingly enough page 20 of that booklet discusses the Liberal and Country Party vote on the White Australia Policy. Those against: H.E. Holt, J.T. Lang and R.G. Menzies, the last two having been taken for some time as defenders of White Australia. On the other hand while Calwell was saying all of this, Calwell seconded the 36 man ALP Federal Conference finding, chaired by R.W. Holt and introduced by SA Deputy Premier Donny ‘hot-pink pants’ Dunstan, to drop the word “White” from the ALP’s immigration policy. A headline at the time read, “ALP Move to Drop ‘White’ Admit Asians Policy.” – which despite Calwell’s deceptive denials was correct. At the time when Calwell was writing his “pro-White” speeches, he was acting to help Jews come to Australia (1946). In 1947 he tried to remove some of the restrictions that applied to the Chinese, but Cabinet rejected these moves: The “Cockatoo” was jumping the gun. The time was not right.
His daughter stated in an article in The Australian Catholic Record (a pc pro-immigration, pro-multiculturalism journal) that Calwell was proud to be known as a Fabian socialist – confirmed as well by fellow-traveller Gareth Evans. His famous “two Wongs don’t make a White” quip, has been quoted out of context. It was a remark made to Thomas White, Member for Balaclava, and was not intended to have a racialist context.
The Jewish (Zionist) lobby have long supported mass migration, multiculturalism and Asianisation. They promoted race vilification laws. Arthur Calwell is quoted in The Age 16 April 1945, as saying, “the precedent established by New York State of outlawing anti-Semitism and racial prejudice should be followed by the State Parliaments of Australia. The Federal Government had not the power to pass such legislation.” Of course by the 1990s, under Paul Keating, the Federal Government, prodded by the spears of the ethnic lobby, found that it did have such power.
In December 1946 Calwell refused to table papers concerning the entry of 700 aliens from the Middle East (believed to be Jews) on the grounds that this information would compromise information about citizens acting as guarantors for these migrants. He was attacked at the time by Jack Lang. Calwell responded in a pamphlet entitled Lane Was Never Right (no publication details) where Calwell referred to Lang as Australia’s “Julius Streicher“. Giving the game away about the ethnic identity of the aliens.
He said of Lang: “When he rises in this Parliament and stigmatises migrants as undesirable because of an accident of birth or race and particularly of religion and says that they are not worthy to come here, he shows that he himself is not worthy to sit in Parliament of the nation.” Of course the same argument could be applied to the White Australia Policy, showing Calwell’s thought processes. Calwell has been honoured by the Jews and the ethnic lobby as the “migrant’s champion“, and the “man who changed the face of Australia”. For his support of Israel, a street in Tel Aviv was named after him. Later he was honoured for allowing the mass migration of Jews to Australia in the post World War II period by having a memorial forest in Israel named after him. Joe Krycer of the Jewish National Fund said: “Arthur Calwell was the first well-known Australian politician to push the line that immigration should not be restricted to people from the British Isles. His policies changed the face of Australia.”
Justice Marcus Einfeld, Judge of the Federal Court, a Jew and a supporter of PC causes, said in a “Tribute to Arthur Calwell” much the same thing, in more words. Calwell worked hard to get as many Jews as possible to Australia, especially survivors of the holocaust. “The Jewish community was reborn and restructured by this brilliant partnership, just as Australia as a whole has been so vastly enriched by 50 years of immigration since.” Einfeld mentions with approval how Calwell and Leo Fink completed the requisite forms for the entry of thousands of Jews. The proposed immigrants had to be brought in under the family reunion category. Calwell is quoted as saying: “Syd. I didn’t know you and Leo had so many relatives.” In other words, with a nudge and a wink, Calwell the immigration minister participated in a fraud. Justice Einfeld is not troubled by this, that the Law may have been twisted if not broken. Einfeld also criticises Pauline Hanson for invoking, the name of Arthur Calwell in “her” maiden speech. Einfeld cynically says that “Hanson protests against the dilution of the Anglo Saxon gene pool” in Australia. Nevertheless, one would have thought that the concern of Einfeld was about transplanting the Jewish Ashkenazi gene pool to Australia, so this is a double standard to be taking Hanson to task on this point. Einfeld is critical of Anglo-Australia for its “dispossession of the original inhabitants“.
But is silent about the Jewish dispossession of the Palestinians.
Anglo-Australian must be criticised for its concern about the dilution of its gene pool, but nowhere do we recall Einfeld taking Jewish publications to task for their (we grant, rightful) concern about the dilution of the Jewish, gene pool from intermarriage. Does an issue of The Australian Jewish News go by when this issue is not raised? It is a double standard which cannot he freely questioned in the multicultural State of Australia. As Einfeld reminds us, “the right of free speech in a decent country like ours ought to be tempered, and not exercised, where it causes intense personal gratuitous hurt. No matter that some ethnic groups are always mortally wounded by any criticism, no matter how well founded.”
A number of academic texts have also noted that Calwell’s immigration programme which was supposed to protect Australia has radically transformed it, as much as if an Asian invasion had occurred. Chitra Fernando gives a neat summary on the thesis of Elaine Thompson’s book Fair Enough: The key point made by Thompson is that the assimilationist phase was a necessary bridge from homogeneity to heterogeneity, though it was not originally intended as such. Assimilation prepared the host community for multiculturalism, thereby enabling a bloodless socio- political revolution. The same remarks have been made by the leftist John Pilger in A Secret Country. The difference in opinion we have is that Calwell was part of a genocidal conspiracy to destroy Anglo-Australia, a by- product of Fabian Socialism.
Calwell in ‘How Many Australians Tomorrow?‘ recognised that Australia’s population problem could not be solved by immigration but was a matter of declining fertility. He did nothing to address the feminist issue. Instead he played on well placed fears that “Anglo-Australia had of the ‘yellow peril’, of the teeming masses of Asia to the north. Australia had, after all, just escaped invasion by the Japanese. Communism seemed to be spreading through Asia. Yet the deluded academics who write on this topic always ridicule Anglo-Australia for such a fear. They of course live in Asia fairy land. There was, and is, a ‘yellow peril’“.
This is where Calwell’s infamous “populate or perish” slogan came in. “We have twenty five years at most to populate this country, before the yellow races are down upon us“.
In 1948 Calwell said: “The Pacific War taught Australians a lesson we must never forget – that in any future war we can never hope to hold our country unaided against a powerful invader…” But Australia did defend itself against Japan even given its diluted effort from the war in Europe. However, even if Australia had a population of 50 million it is doubtful that Australia could be successfully defended against a technologically superior enemy.
Calwell must have had the brains of a cocky not to see that nuclear weapons had changed the course of modern warfare. A nuclear armed Australia of 7 million Anglo-Australians, technically sophisticated like a Sweden of the South, with a home defence militia would be a formidable force.
The Gorton government considered a plan for an independent nuclear deterrent, but dropped the idea. If Calwell was serious about Australia’s defence then he would have put Australia on the high technology road, not the road of miscegenation. He clearly had an agenda that he was implementing for his masters. This cynical view is supported by a number of facts. Calwell said that “for every foreign migrant there will be ten people from the United Kingdom“. Calwell knew, and stated as such in 1945 in How Many Australians Tomorrow? that this was almost impossible given Britain’s wartime losses and the need to rebuild the country. He said that immigration attitudes must be liberalised to allow in the Southern Europeans and other non-Nordic Catholics. As Day has rightly noted: “Calwell’s support for an immigration program composed overwhelmingly of British migrants, and his rigidly upholding of ‘White Australia’, was a propaganda smokescreen designed to hide the reality from an Australian public still anxious about European immigrants. Calwell was careful in the propaganda which he used to lie to Anglo-Australia and selected blonde Nordic children as examples of his “reffos”, “beautiful Baits”.
He selected “a number of platinum blondes of both sexes. The men were handsome and the women beautiful. It was not hard to sell immigration to the Australian people once the press published photographs of that group“. But it was a lie by a slippery deceitful politician. The average migrant would look more like something out of Seinfeld or the Sopranos than out of Calwell’s Nordic fairy tale book.
While Anglo-.Australians were dying in World War 11, Calwell said that he welcomed a `polyglot population” like the “splendid specimens of American manhood walking Australian streets“. The remarks were reported in the Sun News Pictorial of 9 February 1945. Letters to the Melbourne Argus 13 February 1945, interpreted Calwell’s remarks as referring to mixed race individuals (Black/White crosses). Even then a few individuals knew what the Cocky was up to. Let us bury forever the idea that Calwell was a “White Australia” man. Calwell was an early version of Paul Keating with the same Irish rootless cosmopolitan mind set.
As Kippen and McDonald have shown, the post war migration programme had only a minor “younging effect” on the population, and much less than the baby boom. If net migration since 1945 was zero the Australian population would have been 12.2 million at 2000. Calwell did not anticipate the 1960s baby boom which added 4.2 million to the population. The population of 12.2. million, is at the upper end of the figure of ecological sustainability that some greenies such as Flannery believe is a sustainable population for Australia. If Flannery is right, then we have Calwell to thank, at least in part, for the coming ecological collapse of Australia through runaway immigration. Kippen and McDonald have also shown that migration cannot be used to solve the deficiency of births problem that allegedly concerned Calwell. Nor has the 7 million or more people added from the post World War II immigration invasion made Australia safer. We have imported the ingredients of racial crime gangs, which now flourish.
The destruction of the White Australia Policy has been hailed by the new class as a “great victory” for the religion of globalism. The elites have intellectual orgasms about the creation of an “Australia” (whatever that now means), where 1 in 4 people come from a non-English speaking background, in relative terms Catholic Social Justice Council have said: “A transformation of Australia into what is possibly the most multicultural nation on earth in only one generation is the most remarkable feature of its modern history.”
The same transformation has occurred across the Nordic West because the Northern European people’s racial vigour has been eroded by centuries of liberal universalism and divisive individualism, leading to deracination, the loss of racial memory. Like lotus eaters, dopey on the opiates of a post war consumer society, Anglo-Australia’s will to resist, disappeared, as did their memories of the treachery of government. Only a few brave souls, such as Eric Butler, resisted this tyranny.
The end result of this will be the elimination of Anglo-Australia unless we organize and fight back. The capitalist class of Australia is pushing for a population of 50-400 million people. Businessman Richard Pratt (who sings the praises of Arthur Calwell) wants a population of 50 million by 2050 but other business leaders want it sooner. It apparently doesn’t matter to this class of businessmen that such a policy would swamp and destroy the Anglo society which took them in as “reffos“. Almost to a man these business leaders repeat Arthur Cocky Calwell’s grand blackmail argument: take in these millions of Asians or they will come anyway.
So we have been warned. The lords of capitalism are not content to rest with what they have achieved. And why should they, for if they can achieve all this in such a short time, what’s to stop them? Let us hope that the answer is: US.
1. Quoted in W. Branigan, “Australia Questions ‘Open Door’ Policy to Asiatic Migrants,” Washington Post, 1993.
2. Anthony Jacob, extract from Can the White Man Survive? “The Darkening Antipodes,” Instauration, vol.2, no.7, June 1977, pp.7, 18-19.
3. M. Willard, History of the White Australia Policy to 1920, (Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1923, reprint 1967), p.72; J. Lack and J. Templeton, (eds.) “Sources of Australian Immigration History,” vol.1, 1901-1945, (History Department, University of Melbourne, Parkville, 1988); A.G.L. Shaw, “The Story of Australia,” (Faber and Faber, London, 1962); S. Alomes and C. Jones, “Australian Nationalism: A Documentry History,” (Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1991); .D. Gibb, “The Making of ‘White Australia’,” (Victorian Historical Association, Melbourne, 1973); A.T. Yarwood, “Attitudes to Non-European Immigration,” (Cassell Australia, Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1967).
4. Henry Reynolds, “North of Capricorn,” (Allen and Unwin, Crows Nest, NSW, 2003).
5. P. Kelly, “Pride of Race,” The Australian, 12 March 2001, p.11.
6. A.P. Elkin, “Re-thinking the White Australia Policy,” Australian Quarterly, 17 September 1945, pp.6-34. K. Saunders, “The Dark Shadow of White Australia: Racial Anxieties in Australia in World War II,” Ethnic Racial Studies, vol.17, 1994, pp.325-341.
7. Montagu, “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race,” (2nd edition, 1945).
8. Editorial, “White Australia,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 20 March 1945
9. P. Kelly, “The End of Certainty: The Story of the 1980s,” (Allen and Unwin, Sydney, 1992); J. Jupp, “From ‘White Australia’ to ‘Part of Asia’: Recent Shifts in Australian Immigration Policy Towards the Region,” International Migration Review, vol.29, Spring 1995, pp.207-228
10. J.B. Condliffe, “The Development of Australia,” (Ure Smith, Sydney, 1964). S. Castles (et al), “Mistaken Identity: 9/2018 Racial Treason From the White Australia Policy to the Yellow Australia Policy by John Peterson and Rohan Phillips
Multiculturalism and the Demise of Nationalism in Australia,” (Pluto Press, Sydney, 1988), p.53. There were, in this period, defenders of the White Australia Policy: K.M. Dalias, “The Origins of the “White Australia”,” Australian Quarterly, vol.27, 1995, pp.43-52; J.G. Latham, “Australian Immigration Policy,” Quadrant, vol.5, 1961, pp.3-8. Latham said: “ours is a European civilization. Are we not entitled to keep it so if we wish – just as other countries are entitled to preserve their traditional and preferred civilizations?” (p.5) Apparently not. John J. Ray also defended the White Australia Policy and other non-pc causes: J.J. Ray, “Conservation as Heresy,” (Australian and New Zealand Book Company, Sydney, 1974). Ray proudly said: “Name any opinion that is unpopular among intellectuals and I am almost sure to hold it.” (p.xxv) He sanely advocated racial separatism between Blacks and Whites, if left to themselves, normally do live in separate communities. It is only when governments and ideology-blinded white do- gooders interfere with the natural selection processes that problems arise.” (p.58) Ray rejected the idea that Blacks are as intelligent as Whites: “Are All Races Equally Intelligent – or, When is Knowledge Knowledge?” Journal of Human Relations, vol.20, 1972, pp.71-75. Refreshingly, Ray defended the idea that prejudice could be rational, based on empirical facts. He empirically tested and refuted the Jew T. Adorno’s “The Authoritarian Personality” model which has it that prejudice is an indication of psychopathology (see pp.198-207, 250-256). He found that Australian attitudes to Jews and Southern Europeans, at the time were highly correlated, the groups being disliked as “money hungry” (p.266). He cited evidence that the Latino is in general more emotional than the Nordic: S. De Madariaga, “Englishmen, Frenchmen, Spaniards: An Essay in Comparative Psychology,” 2nd edition, (Patman, London, 1970). He then said: “Large numbers of even educated Australians do not like Jews or ‘Wogs’. This is not concentration camp mentality. It is simply the perceptual discrimination of identifiably different characteristics in these people and the personal preference of not liking such characteristics… we all have personal preferences about what we like in other people. If Italians are more emotional and we don’t approve of emotionality… it makes perfect sense not to like Italians or any other group that is similarly characterised.” (p.70) Oh for some academics today like John Ray!
11. S. Castles (et al), “Mistaken Identity: Multiculturalism and the Demise of Nationalism in Australia,” (Pluto Press, Sydney, 1988), p.53.
12. D. Flint, “The Twilight of the Elites,” (Freedom Publishing, North Melbourne, 2003), p.48. An American text such as J.H. Carens, “Nationalism and the Exclusion of Immigrants: Lessons from Australian Immigration Policy.” In M. Gibney (ed.), “Open Borders? Close Societies? The Ethical and Political Issues,” (Greenwood Press, New York, 1988), pp.41-60, has the same type of selective morality, which is not applied to the Asian nations. For a recognition that Asians nations have “racist” immigration policies see P. Brimelow, “Alien Nation,” (Random House, New York, 1995), pp.252-253.
13. D. Day, “Claiming a Continent: A History of Australia,” (Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1996), p.348.
14. J. West (et al), “Socialism or Nationalism? Which Road for the Australian Labor Movement,” (Pathfinder Press, Sydney, 1979).
15. H. Brown, “Australia 1942: The Most Dangerous Year,” The Australian Magazine, 25-26 January 1992, pp.6-13, at p.13.
16. D. Johanson, “History of the White Australia Policy.” In K. Rivett (ed.), “Immigration: Control or Colour Bar? The Background to ‘White Australia’ and a Proposal for Change,” (Melbourne University Press, Parkville, 1962), p.26.
17. Their argument was best stated by I. Bedford, “White Australia: The Fear of Others,” Politics, vol.5, 1970, pp.224- 227: “The Principle of the brotherhood of all men is a sufficient ground for the overthrow of the White Australia policy.” (p.225) This all goes to show that some people will believe anything.
18. B.A. Santamaria, “The Price of Freedom,” (Campion Press, Melbourne, 1964); P. Monk, “The Price of Freedom – 2003,” Quadrant November 2003, pp.47-55.
19. B.A. Santamaria, “Go Forth and Populate,” The Weekend Australian, 7-8 January 1995, p.22.
20. M. Steketee, “Split Visions,” The Weekend Australian, 28 February- 1 March 1998, p.20.
21. M. Millet, “Door Inched Open to Non-Europeans,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 January 1998, p.6; P. Kelly, “Our Timid Shift to Multiculturalism,” The Australian, 1 January 1997, p.15; G. Henderson, “Bollocks to the Myth of Gough Ending White Australia Policy,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 31 March 1992, p.11.
22. “Mr. Holt in Favour of World Government,” Hobart Mercury, 15 October 1960, p.4.
23. Administrator of the Northern Territory F. Chaney, former Liberal Member for Perth, said in 1970 that within two generations mass immigration from Asia would be the norm. This was said at a time when the traitorous Liberal Party were still squawking about their support for a “homogenous society”. They must have meant homogeneously Asian. “Big Influx from Asia Foreseen,” The West Australian, 26 February 1970; R. Gill, “Haven for Chinese in Australia,” The West Australian, 25 June 1980.
24. K. Betts, “Ideology and Immigration,” (Melbourne University Press, Carlton, 1998), p.105. The secret removal of the White Australia Policy has also been observed by Paul Kelly, “The Challenge of Pauline Hanson,” The Weekend Australian, 26-27 April 1997, p.21: “Australia is deficient in addressing fundamental issues at an intellectual level. It abolished the White Australia Policy by stealth, not by reason of debate and decision. The Cabinet documents show the Holt Cabinet even tried to pretend that nothing was happening at the time. There were tactical advantages in such methods but they leave unresolved tensions at the national heart.”
25. K. Betts, “The Great Divide: Immigration Politics in Australia,” (Duffy and Snellgrove, Sydney, 1999), pp.158-159.
26. Alfred Sauvy, “Zero Growth?” (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1975), p.126.
27. Quoted Betts, “The Great Divide,” p.170.
28. As above
29. As above p.171
30. As above pp.171-172
31. As above p.187. Along the same lines David Hale in The Age Good Weekend, 3 November 1990, p.22, described pre-multicultural Australia as a “wasteland”. “A nation of barbarians. A land without culture and interesting food… Above all a country of suffocating boredom.” (quoted from Betts p.187) In general Australian chattering classes are obsessed with food. Note the open inconsistency between their attitude towards food on the one hand and their concern for the starving millions of the world. Maybe these do-gooders should consume less and do something to genuinely help people in need. How easy it is to moralise when one has a pocket full of money and a belly full of good wine
32. That detestable ageing feminist Germaine Greer, who apparently now is singing the praises of sex with “boys” (and thus technically minors – an illegal act) found that as a child good-looking people she met were Italians, who made her mother look like an “off-duty barmaid.” (Betts, p.188) The remark is psychiatrically revealing, showing a deep hatred of her own kind and kin. By multicultural standards e.g., that of family-based Italians, Greer’s own thought is perverse, evil nonsense. What would a hairy-chested, gold splashed “Latino” think of Greer’s critique of penetrative sex? (Hey, what gives with that chick anyway?”) The idea that such males may not be passive supporters of feminism does not occur to her
33. Betts as above p.295
34. See A. Grassby, “Nation Would be Nothing Without Multiculturalism,” The Australian, 9 September 1997, p.14, for more reverse racism.
35. G. Hage, “White Nation: Fantasies of White Supremacy in a Multicultural Society,” (Pluto Press, Sydney, 1998), p.322
36. D. Evans and A.C. Ross, “Immigration Reform in Australia”. In B. Douglass’ (ed.), “Reflections on Protest,” (John Knox Press, Richmond, Virginia, 1967), pp.169-178.
37. J. Mackie, “A Bipartisan Triumph Over Years of Racism,” The Australian, 8 March 1996, p.13. Interestingly enough Mackie says that the changes were only possible by gradualism, i.e., the Fabian strategy of “modification by stealth”. Mackie says that Opperman should be “thanked” for this strategy. Thanks Oppy!
38. Young Donald is always blowing his horn about his ideas, his books, his brilliance. But what substantial material has Donald Horne produced? In his “Ideas for a Nation” (Pan Books, Sydney, 1989), he says that “objectively, existence is meaningless.” Realities are created by acts of imagination. Well Don, just imagine that you are in your republic
39. Donald Horne, “The Avenue of the Fair Go: A Group Tour of Australian Political Thought,” (Harper Collins, Sydney, 1997). The characters in The Avenue presumably speak for Horne. If so, then free speech is only okay for Horne if it supports his ideas. It is claimed in The Avenue that certain thought should be criminalised e.g., denying that the Aborigines were dispossessed when the British arrived. (p.109) Of course such oppression will not stop there
40. Immigration Reform Group, “Immigration: Control or Colour Bar?” (Immigration Reform Group, Melbourne, 1960)
41. Horne, “The Avenue of the Fair Go,” p.60
42. Among the “distinguished” group of intellectuals comprising the Immigration Reform Group was Italian James Gobbo. As Victorian Governor in his January 1998 Australia Day message Gobbo commented on the “predictable reception” which he received as a seven year old turning up at Errol Street Primary, fresh off the boat from Italy in 1938, dressed in a blue smock and large blue bow tie. As if an Aussie lad dressed in the style of the time would have received a different treatment in Fascist Italy of 1938! Indeed Gobbo was not an Italian migrant but was born in Melbourne and went to Italy with his family as an infant. He seems to have had a life-long resentment against Anglo- Australia for a petty childhood incident. In 1999 SA Liberal MP Steve Condous, a Greek Australian, spoke of his “painful past”. He was called a “dago” because of his Greek background and “bashed”. A. Crabb, “They Spat at Dad and Called Me a Dago,” The Advertiser, 11 July 1999, p.3. Condous’ remarks were made at the launch of an immigration information campaign
43. “Immigration: Control or Colour Bar?” P.45
44. N. Viviani, “The Abolition of the White Australia Policy: The Immigration Reform Movement Revisited,” (Griffith University, Australia-Asia Papers no.65, Centre for the Study of Australia-Asia Relations, 1992), p.13
45. G. Partington, “Manning Clark and White Australia,” Quadrant, July-August 2001, pp.15-20
46. M. Freilich, “Zion in Our Time: Memoirs of an Australian Zionist,” (Morgan Publications, Sydney, 1967).
47. Gerard Henderson, “Australian Answers,” (Random House, Sydney, 1990)
48. The allusion is to Henry Reynold’s remarks to The Australian, that a team of historians were to attack Blainey’s reputation “with a jackhammer”. Betts “The Great Divide,” p.226. Fortunately in more recent times other historians have started doing the same to Reynold’s work. Long may it crack! Arthur Calwell was caricatured by Australian newspaper cartoonists as a cockatoo. It was an insightful caricature: an animal which can mouth the words wanted by its master without thinking. In W.D. Rubenstein, “The Jews in Australia,” (Heinemann, Melbourne, 1991) he says at p.476: “For instance, Geoffrey Blainey wrote that ‘If Australia were an empty continent… and ordered to start an immigration programme… I might select one-third from the ‘overseas Chinese’, one-third from Scots… and one-third from Jews. With such a trio of immigrants the country would soon be in a flurry of economic development.” Geoffrey Blainey “All for Australia,” (Methuen Haynes, North Ryde, 1984), p.36. In November 1985, Blainey also launched the book “The Jews in Victoria 1835-1985,” written by Hilary L. Rubenstein and paid tribute to the Jewish contribution to the development of Australia, describing it as in per capita terms probably exceeding any other group. This view does not withstand historical analysis.
49. The idea common among most of these so-called nationalist groups, allegedly in the spirit of William Lane and Henry Lawson, is for a “European” Australia. This is essentially a form of multiculturalism without the Asians. Given the material in this chapter, one should ask: why should one bother, why not accept full-blown multiculturalism if one accepts the core ideology of our opponents? And by their own logic, where is the line of “Whiteness” drawn?
50. Arthur Calwell, “Be Just and Fear Not,” (Lloyd O’Neil, Hawthorn, Victoria, 1972). This quote comes from page 117: “All nations – black, brown, yellow and white – are racist, simply because the world consists of different races and nations. All races suffer from a deep feeling of xenophobia and all are determined to preserve the homogeneity of their own people. They all reject the brotherhood of man concept. Some people call me a racist because I am proud of the blood that flows through my veins. I am proud of my white skin, just as a Chinese is proud of his yellow skin, a Japanese his brown skin (sic), and the Indians of their various hues from black to coffee-coloured. Anybody who is not proud of his race is not a man at all. And any man who tries to stigmatize the Australian community as racist because they want to preserve this country for the White race is doing our nation great harm”
51. A. Calwell, “Danger for Australia: Our Traditional Immigration Policy Threatened,” (Industrial Printing and Publicity, Melbourne, 1949).
52. J. Stanaway, “ALP Move to Drop “White” Admit Asians Policy?” The Herald, (Melbourne), 2 August 1965
53. M.F Calwell (daughter), “Arthur Calwell and His Times,” The Australian Catholic Record, vol.65, 1988, pp.279- 291.
54. G. Evans, “Making Australian Foreign Policy,” (Australian Fabian Society Pamphlet, no.50, 1989), p.47
55. M.E. Calwell, as above p.284.
56. Also reported in The Australian Jewish News, 20 April 1945. Calwell is also quoted as lamenting the departure of President Roosevelt who was a “great loss to the Jewish people, because he was a man who did not tolerate any racial and religious discrimination. Roosevelt’s example should be followed by all.” Compare these remarks with those of Calwell made in 1950 to see his deceitfulness.
57. See Dick Pratt, “Refugee Alert Sounds Like a Wake-up Call,” The Australian, 25 November 1999, p.19
58. “Migrant’s Champion,” Sunday Herald Sun, 21 August 1994, p.29.
59. D. Ballantine, “Man Who Changed Australia,” Sunday Herald Sun, 21 August 1994, p.29.
60. C. Le Grand, “Israel Honour for Immigration Pioneer Calwell,” The Weekend Australian, 9-10 November 1996, p.9.
61. Justice Marcus Einfeld, “Tribute: Arthur Calwell,” Jewish Fund of Australia, 27 November, 1996
62. as above pp.6-7.
63. as above p.7.
64. as above p.12
65. as above p.13.
66. Another choice quote from the good Justice: “Ms Hanson asked: If Aborigines are given all this land they are seeking, where the hell do I go? I have no problem answering this insulting nonsense by telling her exactly where she should go.” (p.14) All this from a Federal Court Judge! Australia’s real eState.
67. E. Thompson, “Fair Enough: Egalitarianism in Australia,” (University of New South Wales Press, Sydney, 1994).
68. C. Fernando, “Worker’s Paradise,” The Age, 17 September 1994
69. J. Pilger, “A Secret Country,” (Vintage London, 1990), p.98
70. Calwell, “How Many Australians Tomorrow?” (Reed and Harris, Melbourne, 1945).
71. Quoted from Pilger, p.99. J. Zubrzycki, “Let’s Revisit Calwell Ideal,” The Australian, 13 January 2004, p.11 in his plea to Mark Latham to take in the refugees of the world notes that on 2 August 1945, less than three weeks after his appointment, ‘Cocky’ Calwell made his first ministerial statement where he uncorked the proposal for the greatest taxpayer funded migration scheme in history. Contrary to establishment views, this was done in total contempt of the Australian people who were still suffering from the effects of the great depression and facing double digit unemployment
72. D. Jenkins, “How We Nearly Went Nuclear,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 1 January 1999, p.1.
73. Calwell, “How Many Australians Tomorrow?” p.53
74. D. Day, op.cit. note 13, p.353
75. Pilger, “A Secret Country,” p.100.
76. Calwell’s “How Many Australians Tomorrow?” Had a paragraph of a Yugoslav refugee girl, a blue-eyed blonde with Nordic features – genotype as rare as hen’s teeth in the Slavic gene pool, but pushed by Calwell as the typical “reffo” that would be coming our way.
77. R. Kippen and P. McDonald, “Australia’s Population in 2000: The Way We Are and the Ways We Might Have Been,” People and Place, vol.8, pp.10-27
78. T. Flannery, “The Future Eaters,” (Reed Books, Chatswood, 1994), pp.368-369
79. R. Kippen and P. McDonald, “Achieving Population Targets for Australia: An Analysis of Options,” People and Place, vol.6, 2000, pp.11-23
80. G. Henderson, “A Migrant Nation Can’t Shun Its Roots,” The Sydney Morning Herald, 18 January 1992; G. Withers, “Migration Fits Our True Ideals,” The Australian, 23 February 1999, p.15.
81. D. Ballantine, “They Dared to Call Australia Home,” Sunday Herald Sun, 12 June 1994, pp.31, 94. Greg Sheridan, “Turn Right and Follow the American Path,” The Australian, 9 October 1999, p.15 has said that “one of the manifestations of globalisation is multiracialism.” He neglects to add that this fate is reserved for White European societies. His beloved Asian societies – Korea, Japan, China, etc., are free to maintain their racial homogeneity. As in Britain, the decision to go “multiracial” was never democratically supported: E.J. Mishan, “Pornography, Psychedelia and Technology,” (George Allen and Unwin, London, 1980), p.85. These decisions lack legitimacy and are not part of our “social contract”.
82. Hodge, “Populate to 50M or Perish: Tycoons,” The Australian, 25 November 1999, p.3.