Australia’s Magna Carta

Australia and New Zealand are often neglected among nationalist/reactionary circles largely due to their irrelevance on the international stage. This has always been the case. Since the British began colonisation in 1788, Australia has always relied on the immense naval power of a foreign entity in-order to keep her shipping lanes safe, largely due to her geographical isolation. During the Second World War, this role would be taken over by the United States. As a result, Australia’s foreign policy, and to some extent her domestic policy, has been at the mercy of foreign influences both from Europe and North America. What the North Atlantic does, Australia and New Zealand will usually follow. Hence, the political events of America and Europe in actuality hold greater significance to Australian political life than her domestic political events ever have and ever will.

Australia, The White Man's Land

Starting in 1788, the New South Wales convict colony soon began to grow around current day Sydney, and throughout the early 19th century the birth-rates boomed in conjunction with establishment of more colonies across the continent. The Gold Rush during the 1850s drew in large amounts of Chinese looking for wealth. Naturally, this created the first sense of racial tensions during Australia’s colonial era. Similar to the massive population boom of the Americas during the 17th and 18th century, by 1901 Australia’s white population had grown from 0 to 3.8 million in little over a hundred years.

By this time, Australia had developed a keen sense of identity, molded by Australia’s unique landscape and the Anglo–Irish ethnic dynamic. When the colonies federated to form the independent Commonwealth of Australia in 1901, the founding fathers considered the European character of Australia to be of utmost importance. The Immigration Restriction Act of 1901 was one of the few things that all political factions agreed upon when drafting the constitution of Australia. It explicitly excluded non-Europeans from being allowed to migrate to Australia and this policy would remain in Australia law in some respect for over 70 years. What would become the White Australia Policy, would go on to be the most important piece of legislation in the country’s history.

Influenced by British-Australian Charles Henry Pearson and his 1893 work National Life and Character: a Forecast, where Pearson posed the notion that black and Asian races were in the ascendant both population wise and through greater industrialisation. The book challenged the pre-conceived invincibility of Western colonial influence and greatly influenced early Australian politicians and was also praised by US President Roosevelt and UK Prime Minister Gladstone.

Australia’s first Prime Minister Edmund Barton speaking before parliament in 1901:

We know that coloured and white labour cannot exist side by side; we are well aware that China can swamp us with its 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 in Australia alone, but the whole civilised world that will be the losers.

This was in general defiance of the British Imperial doctrine as mercantile profit was largely seen as the first priority, not particularly the ethnic make-up or independence of her respective colonies. Had history gone differently, it wouldn’t be all that unlikely that masses of Chinese would’ve been imported (either voluntarily or forcibly) into Australia to become labourers, similar to that of Black Africans to the Americas. Fortunately, Australia escaped this fate. The policy was viscerally promoted by both major political parties throughout the first half of the 20th century. The founder of the Australian Labor Party, William G. Spence in 1909:

The white races should come to a common understanding; and present a united front to its potential enemies. We say that the policy of White Australia is worth defending and we are prepared to defend it.

Australia’s second Prime Minister Alfred Deakin:

A White Australia does not by any means mean only the preservation of the complexion of the people of this country. It means the maintenance of conditions of life fit for white men and white women; it means protection against the underpaid labor of other lands; it means social justice so far as we can establish it, including just trading and the payment of fair wages.

An interesting quote from American-Australian King O’Malley (Australian minister for foreign affairs 1910-1915):

If the Australian people had only lived in the southern states of America, as I have — and had seen the dire results present mingling of Africans with the whites, they would put their foot down and say: We are not going to leave such an unholy problem behind for future generations to solve.

Australia’s 8th Prime Minister Stanley Bruce (1923-1929):

We intend to keep this country white and not allow its people to be faced with the problems that at present are practically insoluble in many parts of the world.

In a sense, it could almost be said that Australia was the first country to be established with explicitly white nationalist intentions as its foundation. Robert Menzies would be the last Prime Minister (1949-1966) who would defend the policy:

The White Australia Policy was racial in the best sense of the word, it is based on a belief that by drawing immigrants from races which assimilate readily, we shall produce a stronger and more cohesive people and avoid unhappy racial differences.

Keep in mind, this was after the great cultural catastrophe of the Second World War and the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, which explicitly condemned racial discrimination. After Menzies’ retirement in 1966, the White Australia policy began to be slowly deconstructed until it was completely abolished by the New leftist Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1973. However, the policy would continue to have supporters across the left-right spectrum for years to come. Throughout the seventies, Labor MP Arthur Calwell was among many who continued to support the policy:

If Australians are ever foolish enough to open their gates in a significant way to people other than Europeans; they will soon find themselves fighting desperately to stop the nation from being flooded by hordes of non-integratables.

ilangja001p1

By this time it was too late. Australian birth-rates had dropped to below replacement levels, and like many other western countries at the time, the gates were opened. This time for good. The days when Australia was more ethnically British than Britain herself were over. Like so many of Australian political decisions, this was largely due to the influence of foreign powers, such as the American immigration act of 1965.

Jack Lang, former Premier of New South Wales during the Great Depression who pushed for the construction of the famous Sydney Harbour Bridge, also defended the policy long after his party had abandoned it. During the early seventies he wrote:

White Australia must not be regarded as a mere political shibboleth. It was Australia’s Magna Carta. Without that policy, this country would have been lost long ere this. It would have been engulfed in an Asian tidal wave.

This year, the amount of foreign born residents in Australia is at its highest level since the 1890s approaching nearly one third of the population. The largest source of this immigration is largely from South and East Asia. Australia is now seeing the results of its abandonment of its founding document. The Asian tidal wave has arrived.

Advertisements
Octavian

Primordialist of a reactionary and Traditionalist inclination. Esteemed Greco-Roman LARPer

17 thoughts on “Australia’s Magna Carta

  1. A good article Octavian, I am curious as to what you think should be done in the current situation, my solution had I the power to set policy in Australia would be to basically cut the migration intake to zero, perhaps some exceptions could be made for immigration from nations such as Canada, the UK etc. and start to give incentives to migrant groups to move back, beginning with the ones that are likely to cause the most trouble. Similar to what Japan did with the Brazilian Japanese.

    Fortunately, I think the situation in Australia has not progressed to the level it has in Europe whereby violence will be required to prevent outright population replacement, nonetheless, I think if current trends are not arrested, a time will come when violence may be the only option, and indeed the morally right thing to do.

    Although I am quite optimistic on the future of Australia owing to the fact that our largest migrant group, East Asians have fertility rates which are below what white Australians have as per ABS data, so I think just cutting migration to zero and starting repatriation will be sufficient as Anglo-Saxon Australia is not in danger of being out-bred as America or Europe is. In that regard, I think Australia is better positioned then most other western nations, although I am worried about Australia eventually becoming the 33rd province of China more or less on current trajectories, simply due to the growing relative power of China in the Asia-Pacific region.

    If that were to occur, I can very well imagine the Chinese government levying pressure on Australia to accept Chinese migrants to achieve demographic change, not unlike what some have accused China of doing in Tibet.

    1. You are correct. The short term solution is to cut all immigration. There are areas of Australia where white birth rates are reasonably high.

      Another thing is that Australia should have it’s own nuclear deterrent so it can have an independent foreign policy. We can’t rely on America, because our interests are not America’s interests. A strong navy to challenge China is also necessary.

      1. I agree with you on the importance of developing a nuclear deterrent, it is unfortunate that there is such a negative perception regarding anything to do with the world “nuclear” in Australian society.

        Also, when a more Traditionalist minded government comes to power in Australia, what religion do you think should be put forth as the national religion of the nation? I am split regarding this question as based off its Anglo-Saxon heritage, the Anglican Church would seem the ideal candidate, but the Anglican Church is simply another form of Protestantism, whatever one might say, and of the three main branches of Christianity, Orthodoxy, Catholicism and Protestantism, I do regard Protestantism as being the only branch which is not a valid form of Christianity and in any case it has done enormous damage to the religion since its foundation.

        On the other hand, Orthodoxy would not be the right option as Australia is not founded upon the Byzantine ethos, unlike say Russia for example and Catholicism also seems to be to distant from Australia’s culture, although perhaps a stronger argument could be made for it.

        1. This is an incredibly difficult question, as Australia was established as a nation with no official religion and thus has no precedent in this regard (Although our Head of State, Her Majesty, is also the Head of the Church of England, thereby there is some de-facto officialism in that regard)

          Anglicanism was overtaken by Catholicism in Australia in 1986, (largely due to Italians and other Immigrants from Catholic Europe.) but it has always been a dominant demographic in Australia since the beginning, being largely synonymous with the Irish aspect of Australia. Funnily enough, even in England today, Catholics have overtaken Anglicans in terms of weekly attendance.

          The best I can think of would be a reformed Anglican Church that went back to it’s more Catholic theological roots. However, I don’t think any of the current Christian denominations (apart from probably Eastern Orthodox) are likely to survive any traditionalist revival as the decay has run far too deep. A new Church will likely be needed.

          1. Dear Octavian,

            I notice I am a bit late to this discussion but, if you still happen to be monitoring these comments, I’d be interested to know whether you have considered the “Radical Orthodoxy” movement within the Anglican Church as a potential answer to this important question?

            If not, here is a short summary of the key ideas of the movement:
            http://www.unifr.ch/theo/assets/files/SA2015/Theses_EN.pdf

            Radical Orthodoxy recognises, like many traditionalists, that the Western Church and the West in general need to look to Medieval Europe for the ideas and practices to dig us out of our current predicament and guide us to a viable alternative.

            Importantly, the movement can also make use of the institutional, economic and cultural rescouces that the Anglican Church in Australia has (schools, buildings, theological colleges etc). Could this movement provide a means for traditionalist-orientated Australians to gain influence in Australia?

            1. Quite possibly. The similarities between Traditional Anglicanism and Orthodox Christianity are actually rather numerous.

              1. Thank you for your reply. Yes, there are many similarities. Unfortunately, there doesn’t seem to be much life in the Traditional Anglican Communion in Australia. I believe that their potential is also limited by the fact they are outside of the Anglican Communion.

                Thinking strategically, I believe that young Australia traditionalists should either join the traditionalist Catholics/Easter Orthodox or start a traditionalist reform movement within the Anglican Church themselves. What do you think of the latter option? Here are my thoughts:

                I believe the High Anglican strain within the Anglican Communion in Australia is ripe for a take-over by young traditionalists. They currently have a veneer of traditionalism but are theologically liberal, spiritually dead, and empty of parishioners. The Radical Orthodox movement provides a Canterbury-approved set of theological ideas that young traditionalist priests and theologians could use, and adapt, to replace the dead and discredited liberal theology that currently reigns in Australian High Anglicanism. If this is a viable option – which I believe it is – traditionalist-minded Australians should start a network with the aim of achieving this goal.

                Sydney’s evangelical Anglicans have shown what a few like-minded and intelligent priests and theologians can accomplish within just a few decades. They have also shown that, when you start to fill churches, you also gain influence in the Anglican schools and theological colleges, and connections in politics, the media and Universities.

                Any thoughts?

                William

        2. Instead of Christianity, which is a middle eastern derived desert religion, our country would be better served by looking to the pre-Christian spiritual and cultural traditions of Europe. Odinism is alive and well, and conceptually better suited to our times, than throwback monotheistic cults of personality. The Judeo-Christian monotheism is not a European religion, and is ill-suited to the free thinkers of Western Europe.

          1. Paganism is dead, the necessary metaphysical and traditional lineage required to understand it are long gone. Trying to revive it is simply a LARP fantasy. Christianity and Modern Europe are inseparable. Christianity has defined Europe and vice versa. There are many articles here that could explain to you why this is the case.

  2. I think I will have to agree with you regarding the fact that with the exception of the Eastern Orthodox Church, all other branches of Christianity have degenerated too far to for them to revive, you may be right in that a new Church is needed.

      1. Occidental paganism has been dead for two thousand years and it isn’t going to come back. Some exoteric customs have survived residually, but the esoteric cores of these religions have been lost to the ages. The fact is that Europe has been Christian since Justinian, and whatever comes next, whether that be a rejuvenated Christianity or some form of syncretic Islam, will surely incorporate elements of European Christian religiousity, not those of any polytheistic tradition.

        As for that link, all I see is a torrent of rather Jewish kvetching and whining — so much for pagan stoicism, it seems. If the polytheism Europeans practised was supposed to stay, then it would have done. The Roman Empire would not have converted, nor the Anglo-Saxons, nor the Gauls, nor the Icelandic, etc.; and the others would not have been wiped-out. That’s the way history works, I’m afraid; if you are weak and vulnerable, you will be erased.

        As for your reference of Nietzsche, you forget that he was responding to the central late-Christian ethic of his age. Were the Crusades a demonstration of sklavenmoral? Were the endeavours of Charles Martel? Were the High Middle Ages? Was Colonialism, even? What about the Romanian Iron Guard? It’s easy to simplify matters and paint with broad strokes, I know, but it’s a habit best avoided. One could look to the orgiastic rites of various Hellenistic cults in ancient Greece and say “Oh look, they’re all degenerates!” but the truth is of course more complicated than that.

        And before you call me a Christian, I’m not one.

  3. To say paganism is dead is dead in Europe, is to deny Thousands of years of proof to the contrary, and a cultural continuity that predates Christianity and persists today, despite the overt denials and cultural genocide perpetrated by various “churches”. Odinism, if you have the intellect or aptitude to read into it, is not a mere attempt at reproduction, or some sort of cosplay fantasy joke. Paganism, in it’s variant forms, has resisted Christianity and persisted for thousands of generations, a direct link to the indigenous beliefs of our ancestors. I can understand the misconception that ‘paganism is dead’. It’s a bit like saying the Celtic languages are dead. It is untrue, and based upon Christian wishful thinking. The indigenous culture and belief and spirituality of European peoples is still alive and well. You may not know of it, you may have been culturally divorced from it for centuries, but others have a different experience, a different cultural evolution, just as language doesn’t die so long as a few teachers are left and some student s to listen, it is the same with culture and religion. The European mindset is ill suited to the desert mentality of the middle eastern religions, which is foreign to the European psyche. The Judeo-Christian traditions are dying out in the civilised world, as is inevitable when intelligence and free thinking are allowed to question the primitive Christian middle eastern dogmas. There are many alternatives to explore. Wassail!

    1. The Pagan persistence you speak of is nothing but profane.Paganism’s oral traditions and the adoption of Christianity within Europe both attributed to the deterioration of Paganism over the many centuries. Let me know when you find a druid in Europe.

  4. #1. I wrote to respond to both of the comments from:
    “May 20, 2016 at 2:06 AM Reply luciusvaro says: ” etcetera and “May 20, 2016 at 3:44 AM Reply Octavian Revolution says: ” etcetera .

    #2. The term “Neo-Paganism” is unnecessary and unhelpfully cliché and antagonistic. The word “Neo” does have the etymological Greek meaning of young, however, to term the unbroken, continuous beliefs of the indigenous Europeans as something ‘new’, or ‘young’, is to infer that contemporary individuals and communities who practice a culture/ lifestyle/ belief that is pre-Christian, is something invented from anachronism and romance. It is not. To deny European ‘paganism’ , by your argument you would also deny the cultural and spiritual traditions of all peoples who have suffered the depredations of colonisation and genocide. Most people would speak of the Tasmanian Aborigine in the same terms as they would the Thylacine. To do so is ignorant and erroneous. To speak of European “paganism” as you say :Dead”, is to make the same erroneous assumption.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s