Political slogans, however heartfelt, are often inverted by journalists and commentators to suit ulterior agendas.
“Never again,” for example, was a legitimate response to the horrors of Nazism, but has recently become the underlying rationale for mass unrestricted immigration, which ironically is now recreating the conditions that enabled Nazism in the first place.
“Make America Great Again” has been turned from an appeal for collective security and prosperity to, if you believe its hysterical critics, a religious incantation uttered by Satan himself to his network of armed white sleeper cells. They want you to think it really means Make America Hate Again.
The Australian equivalent of these flipped slogans, which is older than both of them, is – clutch your pearls now if you are prone to hysteria – the more-than-a-century-old catchphrase of Australian bigots: “the White Australia Policy”. It’s been so long since leftists redefined this once popular and perfectly reasonable idea that they no longer feel the need to elaborate on its meaning. All they need to do is throw it into a sentence and, hey presto, they become the political equivalent of a cinematic damsel throwing open the curtains of a haunted mansion to let in the dawn sunlight and make vampires recoil in shame and horror.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge was the latest politician to expose the bloodsucking parasites yesterday.
Shoebridge and his type think that all they need to do to win an argument about immigration is to label whatever it is they oppose as a “2026 version of the WAP”. And if the nation consisted solely of self-loathing ABC viewers and sanctimonious readers of Nine Newspapers, he’d be right.
But a growing number of people are seeing through this ruse, and for two reasons: one, they were never asked if they wanted Australia to become multicultural, so are rightly suspicious about a policy that has thoroughly transformed the nation against their wishes; and two, it’s now been more than 40 years since we were told that multiculturalism would be good for us, and the evidence is in.
So what does it tell us? Well, you can now be shot and killed for being Jewish at Bondi, for a start. Hate preachers tell young blokes in Sydney to fight for Islamic barbarians (and against Australian soldiers) in Syria. Immigrants have descended on welfare scams like seagulls on a packet of chips. We need an ever-growing suite of “hate-speech” laws to enforce our “proud” cultural harmony. And every election cycle politicians visit ethnic “community centres” and promise them millions of dollars not for assimilating but for voting for their party. Almost none of this existed before this golden age of multiculturalism. There isn’t a single measure of social cohesion or general happiness that has shown a positive result from allowing ethnic ghettos to fragment our towns and cities.
One of the more embarrassing aspects of Australian security, back when we took the issue seriously, was the air hostesses who were required to walk down the aisle of any incoming passenger jet and spray everyone with some vaguely toxic-smelling pesticide, as if any person who had stepped outside our pristine nation was now a potential spreader of exotic diseases that would poison our hard-won isolated prosperity.
It’s a sign of the changing times that the ritual spraying no longer happens. And planes these days are mostly no longer full of Australians returning from holidays abroad but incoming migrants on “student” visas whose educational intentions, if they have any, are directed towards learning how to become Uber Eats riders.
Some find themselves quickly studying criminal law, such as the Indian gentleman who was so eager to break our sexual assault laws that he couldn’t even wait for the plane to land at Perth International before he allegedly took certain liberties with the female passenger next to him.
A sensible immigration policy would deliberately discriminate against whichever ethnicities were likely to disrespect our laws and culture.
By engineering a populace that shares values and is disinclined to commit crimes, you create a high-trust society in which safety and security are achieved with little effort. Even the supposedly uneducated freed convicts and early settlers living in unrenovated wooden huts in the early days of the Australian settlement knew this. And from that, they built the foundation of what later became one of the freest and most prosperous nations in history.
In the late 19th century, this basic principle of human nature acquired a name: the “White Australia Policy”. It was shorthand for the need to create a high-trust, homogenous society if the nation was to grow and prosper.
The WAP was central to the Labor Party for most of the 20th century, until the party was taken over by Gough Whitlam’s band of pretentious woke pioneers in the early 1970s and became a vehicle for people who, instead of defending workers’ rights, hated everything Australia once stood for.
If the early adopters of the WAP made a mistake, it was to call the policy “white”. Had they instead called it the “Civilised Australia Policy”, which is what it was, leftists would have had a harder time categorising it as racist, and been forced to defend what they really wanted, which is a society that abandons more than 2000 years of continued intellectual development in return for the fleeting satisfaction of seeing Third World families use a multilingual service to sign up to Centrelink.
Given that inverting slogans is what the left does best, we should label the current government’s immigration program for what it is: the Brown Australia Policy. If they were honest, they would embrace that with glee. Come to think of it, that label would be a massive vote winner in ethnic suburbs, which are Labor’s new heartland.
How the more traditional and patriotic parts of Australia would feel about it is no longer this government’s concern.
