Why Boomers Think Young People Waste Money - Short

 This is an excellent analysts and I have to admit that I had not thought about these things.

Men Only Want One Thing - Short

 

"Never Shall An Enemy' - Extract of a Speech to the Australian Parliament by John Curtin

16th December 1941, Australia's Prime Minister gave this speech to the Australian Parliament, of which this is a short extract. Japan had attacked us on the 8th December 1941. Japan attacked the British Empire hours before it attacked the United States but because of the International Date Line it wasn't the same date.

The third thing is that more than 150 years this country has stood. Never shall an enemy set food upon the soil of this country without having at once arrayed against it the whole of the manhood of this nation with such strength and quality that this nation will remain for ever the home of sons of Britishers who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race. Our laws have proclaimed the standard of a White Australia. We did not intend that to be and it never was an affront to other races. It was devised for economic and sound humane reasons. It was not challenged for 40 years. We intend to keep it, because we know it to be desirable. If we were to depart from it we should do so only as the result of free consent, not because it was sought to be taken from us by armed aggression..

When people wrote, spoke and thought of a White Australia, they meant a British Australia. 

To Help Support My Work

https://www.subscribestar.com/upon-hope

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like

2022 Some Thoughts On The Australian Election

My Response To Replies to 'Arthur Calwell and his Memoirs'

My last article, Arthur Calwell and his Memoirs 'be just and fear not' received two replies. 

The first from Mark Richardson of Oz Conservative fame who basically gave some more information on Calwell's views before WWII.

Calwell's deep concern for social justice was invariably linked with the creation in Australia of an ethnically mixed society through large-scale immigration.

The second comment was from the world's most prolific author 'Anonymous', who gave a very reasonable and intelligent response. However I think that it is wrong and I will outline why after his comment.

I will attempt to reconcile the two seemingly contradictory positions of Calwell supporting both mass immigration and White Australia.

Calwell (along with many other Australian leaders during World War 2) felt that Australia was precariously vulnerable to being overwhelmed by Imperial Japan due to Australia's small population relative to Australia's land size.
Calwell (along with other Australian leaders at the time) concluded that Australia (for national defence reasons) needed a quick and massive population boost above and beyond what increased birth rates or importing Anglo-Celts from the British Isles was likely to achieve.
So Calwell (and other Australian leaders) expanded the White Australia Policy from English-speaking Anglo-Celts to include the near similar Europeans in general.
Which means that the Calwell era immigration following World War II until the mid-1970s was not in fact the first stage of multiculturalism, but more accurately a continuation of the White Australia Policy with a pan-European population base rather than being limited to mostly Anglo-Celts.

I was surprised when reading Calwell's book, which I have since found out was ghost written by Graham Freudenberg, that not once was the phrase 'populate or perish' used. In the post-war period this was a well worn phrase that was trotted out. It meant that Australia's population was too small to defend it and that we needed more people if we were to do so. 

But that phrase and the mass immigration policy that it supported don't really make sense. By the end of WWII Australia's population was about 8 million, Japans was about 80 million. Exactly how many people we needed to 'populate' wasn't talked about and I have never heard a number. What number would allow us to survive?

 It was all very abstract, what was never discussed was when would enough be enough?

If our enemy has a population of 80 million, how big does our population need to be to successfully defend it?

140 million, 80 million, 40 million, 20 million?

Our most likely enemy today has a population of over 1,000 million, how many people do we need to defend ourselves against that?

Defending Australia was never the reason mass immigration was started because there was never a population target to reach and it was never designed to be turned off, only started.

The second point that I would like to make is that the term 'White Australia' was always a misnomer. The truth is that the word white did not mean to most people in the English speaking world, European. It meant a particular type of European, someone from Northern Europe. In other words White people were WASP's, White Anglo Saxon Protestants. While this term wasn't used in Australia, it's an American term, it comes closest to what the word White meant when people spoke about the 'White Australia' policy.

Even countries with similar backgrounds and histories are not exactly the same. Unlike America, Australia has always had a high proportion of Catholics. So Catholics from the British Isles were included as White. In the United States people still ask are Italians White?

Similar concepts but not quite the same.

When the 'White Australia' policy was put forward it wasn't just to stop a million Chinese from arriving in Australia. It existed just as much to stop a million French people from turning up. Under the policy non-Whites did immigrate to Australia, but numbers were in the thousands over decades. The purpose was to keep Australia a bastion for the British peoples with other people in smaller numbers also being allowed in. Numbers matter.

Mass immigration after WWII was a half way house between the 'White Australia' policy and multiculturalism. It most certainly wasn't a continuation of that policy, it was it's replacement.  

To Help Support My Work

https://www.subscribestar.com/upon-hope

Upon Hope - A Traditionalist Future

Another Article You Might Like

Unions and Traditional Conservatism