Wednesday, August 4, 2021
HomeArchive-1White Australia Is Not Humanitas Nullius

White Australia Is Not Humanitas Nullius

Third World immigration imperils future of Australia

by Darrin Hodges
Shire branch secretary – Australia First Party

At this time in Australian history we face many challenges, non-European immigration, illegal immigration, Asianisation, globalisation, Free Trade Agreements, diversity for it’s own sake, multiculturalism,all of which are threatening to atomize our society and break the crimson thread of kinship that is woven through the moral and social fabric of this country.

It’s true that Australia was built on immigration, whether it was by transportation or free British immigration, however those early immigrants saw themselves as Australians with a fierce understanding of that identity whilst still acknowledging their heritage. The free immigrants resented the imposition of criminal transportation by the British government.. Indeed, in 1849, what was to become known as ‘ The great protest meeting’ took place in circular quay, attended by some 8,000 persons, in response to the arrival of the convict ship Hashemy into Port Jackson where it floated with a number of free immigrant ships that had arrived. This is the five point protest they adopted:”We, the free and loyal subjects of Her Most Gracious Majesty, inhabitants of the city of Sydney and its immediate neighbourhood, in public meeting assembled, do hereby enter our most deliberate and solemn protest against the transportation of British criminals to the colony of New South Wales.

Firstly.—Because it is in violation of the will of the majority of the colonists, as is clearly evidenced by their expressed opinions on the question at all times.

Secondly.—Because numbers among us have emigrated on the faith of the British Government that transportation to this colony had ceased for ever.

Thirdly.—Because it is incompatible with our existence as a free colony, desiring self-government, to be made the receptacle of another country’s felons.

Fourthly.—Because it is in the highest degree unjust to sacrifice the great social and political interests of the colony at large to the pecuniary profit of a fraction of its inhabitants.

Fifthly.—Because, being firmly and devoutly attached to the British Crown, we greatly fear that the perpetration of so stupendous an act of injustice by Her Majesty’s Government will go far towards alienating the affections of the people of this colony from the mother-country.

For these and for many kindred reasons—in the exercise of our duty to our country, for the love of our families, in the strength of our loyalty to Great Britain, and from the depth of our reverence for Almighty God—we protest against the landing again of British convicts on these shores.”

Now that declaration struck me, here we are, only 70 odd years from the day Captain Cook landed at Port Botany, we have a people who identified themselves strongly as Australians above all else, in that as soon as their feet touched Australian soil, they saw their identity deeply rooted as Australian, even though some of them might have ‘stepped of the boat’ themselves only the day before, this shows that Australians have always had a strong sense of identity, that new Australians were willing to buy into this new country regardless of their origins.

Given that Australia was built on immigration, what sort of immigrants were required?, Sir Henry Parkes tells us in a speech he gave in March, 1881, where he sought to have his immigration legislation debated, in part he said:

““I am an advocate of immigration. But why? Because without the element of population we cannot build up a nation in this new country. I want men and women—free men and women—of our own stock to assist us in laying the broad foundations of an empire“

So even from the earliest times it was obvious to people that the only way to build a strong and unified country was the immigration of people with compatible cultural backgrounds. The fathers of Federation knew this and that is why the so called white Australia policy was an integral part of Federation. One of the first bills debated in the new federal parliament was the 1901 immigration act, which sought to limit immigration to people of European heritage.

This is why I think that Multiculturalism is the very antithesis of Australian Federation, the driving principle of Federation was to forge the six colonies into a single cohesive nation of “one people, one destiny”. By abolishing the white Australia policy, the establishment have removed one of the central pillars of federation. The institution of multiculturalism must necessarily mean the diminution of Federation, as multiculturalism has promoted the building of ethnic ‘colonies’ within Australia. At the time of Federation, Australia was 98% Anglo European, primarily of British stock. In a speech on federation, an academic speaking on Sir Henry Parkes, said that by 2025, the Anglo-Celtic population will be “robust” 65% and suggested that Sir Henry Parkes would be pleased by such a result, I suggest that Sir Henry Parkes is rolling in his grave.

One of the things the founding fathers were wary of was Asianisation. Asianisation is one of the greatest threats we face, while people are all watching what the Muslims are doing, especially the likes of Trad and Al-Hilali and his vile comments on women, the yellow tide is rising and it won’t matter if the Muslims end up taking over this country, because by the time they do, we will already have become Asianised and have lost the country anyway. It was Henry Parkes who said:

“”They [Chinese are not an inferior race. They are a superior set of people. A nation of an old, deep-rooted civilisation. It is because I believe the Chinese to be a powerful race, capable of taking a great hold upon this country, and because I want to preserve the type of my own nation, I am and always have been opposed to the influx of Chinese.”

It is such observations that lead to the introduction of the White Australia Policy. It was not designed with some vision of ‘white supremacism’ (whatever that is) or some counterpart of Nazism, Hitler was still in nappies when the White Australia Policy was being developed. The goal of the policy was multipurpose.

* To protect Australian Jobs and wages.

* To allow space for the fledgling Australian nation to grow, in the face of more mature Asian nations.

* To protect the embryonic Australian culture and ethos.

* To keep out undesirables.

It worked, and by the 1940’s Australia was a strong nation. A nation forged from reason and intellect, not from the chaos of civil war as was the U.S. A nation that was capable of defending itself, A nation of men and women who knew the value of self-sacrifice, duty and love of their country.

So where is the love?, such a phrase has become somewhat of a jocular refrain yet I pose it in a serious light, where is the love?. Charles Richardson in his response to Peter Costello’s release of the most recent http://www.treasurer.gov.au/tsr/content/speeches/2007/003.asp gives us an insight into the implacable hatred that the multiculturalists hold for the true destiny of Australia:

“If Australia wants more people, we don’t need to return our womenfolk to domestic drudgery in order to get them. We just need to open the door a bit wider.

That doesn’t satisfy proponents of fertility, because immigrants are the ‘wrong sort’ of people. In a dangerous flirtation with racism last year, http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/costello-issues-population-warning/2006/07/24/1153593271730.html made that point explicit, saying ‘Increasing immigration to cover natural population decline will change the composition of our population and raise concerns about social dislocation’.

The drivers of fertility crusades are racism and misogyny: keep the women barefoot and pregnant, keep the dark-skinned foreigners away from our shores, and build up our population with nice white Christian babies.”

What Richardson fails to explain is his hatred for Christians and White people, it would be considered racist if he were talking about any other ethnicity or religion. However, Costello is correct when he points out that increased (non-European) migration will change the very nature of our society. Yet it is the the Howard government that has been importing non-Europeans by the plane load. It’s rather ominous that in Costello’s speech about the release of the IGR, he points to the fact that the aging population will result in much lower productivity and therefore a reduction in GDP (Gross Domestic Product), which results in much less revenue for the government (smaller tax base) whilst increasing the government’s debt (pension). Given Australia’s disastrous collapse in fertility rate, as show in the following http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d177/dasa1/fr.gif.

Future governments will want to go for a quick fix – mass immigration from the third word – to alleviate future government debt. In his speech on IGR, Costello refers to the above graph as a ‘decline’ in fertility rates, I would call it a disastrous collapse. Its only just prior to 2007, when the Howard government introduced it’s ‘baby bonus’ that fertility rates lifted somewhat. My main contention with the ‘baby bonus’ is the fact it is paid out indiscriminately. In my view, to lift the true fertility rates in Australia, that is the fertility rates of true blue Australians, the baby bonus should only be paid to those who can demonstrate paternal and maternal European heritage. In other words, if we continue to pay out the baby bonus without discrimination, we are basically paying for the Asianisation of Australia or the “Humanitas Nullius” of White Australia.

“White Australia is not Humanitas Nullius“ – We won’t accept the destruction of White Australia. White Europeans discovered this country. White Europeans built this country. White Europeans died to protect this country from peril. White Europeans made this country the great country it is today, therefore I can see no reason why this country should not remain a predominately White European country.

The Crimson thread of kith and kin, that precious link to our heritage and our future, has never been stretched so thin as it has today, if it breaks we loose not only our past, we will loose this country and any sense of identity we have. If the thread breaks, there will be no future.

In closing, I’d to enjoin you in that same toast that Henry Parkes proposed way back in 1888 at a Federalist conference:

““I ask you then, with unreserved feeling, with true hearts, earnestly engaged in this great work to drink this toast: One people. One destiny.”

2007-04-16

RELATED ARTICLES
- Advertisment -

Most Popular

Recent Comments