Wednesday, March 06, 2013

Tony, don't go there

There's been a stoush between the two major parties in Australia this week over 457 visas. In theory, these visas are meant to allow employers to fly in workers from overseas when there is no-one available to do the job in Australia.

But predictably the system has been rorted:
Evidence of widespread rorting of the controversial program has grown. One company employed more than 400 foreigners and no locals on a building site, and it has been claimed fake businesses have been set up to bring in foreigners who then seek permanent residence.
It's an election year and the left-liberal Labor Party are taking a populist position (and the correct position) that unemployed Australians should have preference in our job market. The Labor Party Immigration Minister, Brendan O'Connor, has said:
It is clear there have been abuses of the 457 visas and qualified Australians are missing out on jobs in a number of fields.

And what of the more right-liberal Liberal Party? They want the rorting to continue and to be expanded. The Victorian Liberal Party, for instance, wants the 457 visa system to be extended to Geelong, a town struggling with 10,000 locally unemployed people.

Even worse was a comment from the federal leader of the Liberal Party, Tony Abbott. He accused the Labor Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, of engaging in "the false birthplace war".

I hope that was just an ill-thought, throwaway line. What worries me is this. Western countries once had what might be called an ethnic nationalism. But an ethnic nationalism is something that we are born into - it is predetermined rather than self-determined. It therefore violated the liberal idea that we are made free when we are autonomous and self-defining.

So it was replaced by a civic nationalism, in which a nation was tied together by a common citizenship and a shared commitment to liberal political values. That was a weaker form of national identity and it was always going to struggle to hold ground. Why? Because it still violated the liberal ideal of autonomy as it meant giving preference to people largely on the basis of a predetermined quality, namely where they were born.

As I noted in a recent post, a host of past Labor PMs have come out and rejected even a civic nationalism on the basis that it discriminates against those who aren't Australian citizens and that it discriminates on the "arbitrary" basis of birthplace.

So it's a bit ominous to hear a Liberal leader imply that birthplace shouldn't matter when it comes to jobs, and that those who are not Australian citizens and who were born elsewhere have an equal claim to job vacancies in Australia.

If Abbott means this, then he too has moved not just beyond a deeper ethnic nationalism, but beyond the civic nationalism that was supposed to replace it. It means that we have moved one step closer to a post-national consensus amongst the major parties.

If Australians are to have no more loyalty toward each other than to those who live dispersed throughout the world, then what does it mean anymore to be an Australian? It just becomes a descriptor of where you happen to live, rather than a meaningful description of belonging to a particular people.

And if the ruling elite has no more loyalty to those who are citizens here (let alone to their ethnic kin) than to those who are not citizens and who live elsewhere, then what is the basis of loyalty to the state?

And what is to stop a generation of young Australians from being left behind? If their own government has no particular concern for them, then who will?


  1. I have/had been toying with the idea of voting Liberal for the first time (as a conservative Labor voter) at the next election. Comments like this make me shake my head.

    The DLP will get my Senate vote, though.

  2. I smacked my palm into my forehead when I heard the report of what he said. I'm no Lib/Nats fan but I sure do despise the current government. I can't believe he walked into that one.

    As for loyalty to the state I know that I have none. Let's just leave it at that.

    Off topic but you might like this:

  3. Right-Liberal: We must not discriminate against skilled workers from anywhere in the world, they contribute greatly to our country. Forget about the high native unemployment rate, ignore the declining wages, quit worrying about the rising crime (you racists). Big business needs its cheap labor.

    These guys are supposed to be the defenders of Australia? Right-Liberals are just as destructive as Left-Liberals.

  4. Right-liberals are just as destructive as left-liberals true. The difference though is that right-liberals are unveiled about their contempt for nationalism and voice their support for global transnational big corporations.

    Visible hatred or invisible hatred? The Australian white citizens choose the party which is open about their goals and hatred for them.

    I think Australian whites on the lower end of this deal are just choosing the more "open poison". At least you know what is killing you.

  5. "If Abbott means this, then he too has moved not just beyond a deeper ethnic nationalism, but beyond the civic nationalism that was supposed to replace it."

    You give him too much credit. Everything a modern politican says has been researched and focus-grouped to death. He's just kicking Gillard when she's down because it's the easiest path to victory. When he's elected, who knows what he'll actually do as PM. His platform at the moment is simply "I'm not Gillard".

    Rudd did the same thing in '07 except his approach was "I AM Howard (except younger and cooler)". As soon as he became PM he held the "2020 conference" which was just his excuse to switch agendas.

    I don't read too much into what the mainstream political leaders stand for because it's been shown time and time again that they stand for nothing.

  6. Mass immigration seriously accelerated under Howard, Abbott has been talking of damming more rivers, more farming, exporting food, up in the top end which means more jobs for...Immigrants. If anything the Liberals will open up the spigots of higher mass immigration even more so, if not just to prove they're not racist. The foreign investment will no doubt be complimented with more discounted business loans for diverse immigrants, as has been the case for the last 40 years.

    Face it there are no traditional conservatives or ethnic nationalists with any substantial political power any more. Trad Cons are now the out group, and the only way to gain power from a weak position is to use subversive tactics.

    The Anarcho tyranny being meted out to our civilisation, by our current hostile elite can only be combated by a new and revived cause of patriarchal men making there own honour and law unto a new fascis.

    And now some music.

  7. Howard was Australia's highest taxing Prime Mininster in history (GST), Future Fund my arse, if he was a genuine conservative he would have lowered tax rates. Not to mention the immigration.

  8. I had to look up the term "rort." :-)


    Labour are predominantly Social democratic liberalism with a touch of Green Malthusianism and Neoliberal globalism.

    Liberals are Neoliberal globalism. Although they will fake Libertarian isolationism or Populist nationalism in order to get votes.

    There is no truly Libertarian isolationism or Populist nationalism party in Australia, (except perhaps for those demonised as racist by the neoliberal and marxist media).

  10. There is no longer a party representing the Australian mainstream. Sadly, Australian politics balances on an axis of wealthy globalists who view us as an impediment to further riches, and a progressive social engineering elite who want our hearts and minds...often the two intersect, e.g. Cameron, Turnbull, RINO Republicans, etc.

    Both sides are building the first foundations of a Global Parliament. (whether they realise it or not)

    How the mainstream responds to their exile from power will be the 'story' of the 21st century.

  11. Frank Salter:

    "The subordination and steady replacement of Anglo Australia is not due to high principle but an unholy Left-minority alliance. The cosmopolitan Left has abandoned the shrinking white blue-collar working class for new constituencies, including minority ethnics who can be relied upon to vote for parties that keep the immigration door open to ethnic kin. Australia’s cosmopolitan elites are, in effect, electing a new people to replace reactionary Anglo Australia. The fact that the new people are more ethnically motivated than Anglo Australians has not bothered ideologues who are on hair-trigger alert for any hint of Anglo ethnic sentiment."

    Full article

    The question is: why does the "conservative" side of Australian politics support this population replacement program? Are they simply just lackies for big business? Or have they embraced the same anti-national, anti-white ideology of the Left? Or are they just trying to show how "non-racist" they are? Or all of the above?

  12. Bloggers and readers if you would be so kind to fill out the online survey below for a class project on environmental/green blogs I would greatly appreciate it.

    Thank you,

    Raquel Rodriguez
    FIU Mass Communications and Journalism

  13. Its very hard to vigorously argue the case for immigration restrictions when immigrants are key voters in so many marginal seats. As more immigrants come in it'll become harder still.

    I hate to say it but in my opinion recent arrivals will have to be recruited into the cause of immigration restrictions for it to successful.

  14. If a party could unite the people of Australia rather then be divided by the left and right paradigm there would be no need to pander to minority immigrant votes.

  15. Tony wants western Sydney and a bullet proof shield against Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaacism charges. He denounced Wilders for much the same reason as well as being unusually submissive to the aboriginal lobby.

    The classical liberal line on 457s achieves this and placates the left side of his party. For him it is a win win.