White Australia is an organisation based on principles, but unfortunately most people have been trained to focus on policy rather than principle and demand to know details and specifics. For example, they get hung up on exactly how White we want Australia to be.
What about people born here, they say? What about Greeks? What about people with parents from different backgrounds? Will you exclude this group or that group? When is White, White enough?
But the White Australia Policy was never about rigidly locking in specifics for the rest of time. It’s about principle. And the principle is this: This country was founded by the British for the British. So people of that specific ethnic heritage have the right to exclude anyone from the country that was founded by them and built by them and for them. That doesn’t mean that they will only allow British people to live here, but that they have the RIGHT to. This is the founding definition of what it means to be Australian and our political movement uses that foundation as its starting point.
It’s not about rigidly holding out until we have perfectly achieved this standard, it’s about respect.
It’s about acknowledgement of the principle. Other people who don’t fit the above definition may or may not be allowed to stay, but for other people, staying here is a privilege, given by those who do fit the definition. And that privilege comes with conditions. It’s not a right.
So who will we send back? For a start we will send back anyone of non-British descent who refuses to respect that principle. People like Drew Pavlou and Joel Jamal do not get to dictate to Australians their eligibility to stay. They get to ask. Nicely. And no, they are not Australians. Precisely because both cling to a non-British identity and ethnicity. They don’t fit the definition and so they are here as a privilege not a right. Respect us and the principle under which this country was founded and maybe you can keep the privilege. There are other people who look of British descent and who act as if they are of British descent but are in fact descended from Whites of other European countries. The difference is that their families adhered to the principle and respected the principle. This is what was originally intended with the term “assimilation”:
If you look like an Aussie and act like an Aussie and you and your parents were born here, the race and the culture still remain British based or British based assimilation.
And this principle is part of a deeper principle that is often turned into a false idol by libertarians. All nations are defined by an arbitrary set of metrics of who they exclude. If there is no exclusion, then there is no nation, and all nations can exclude all the way down to the individual if they want.
I could quite easily declare the Nation of Stephen Wells tomorrow. It has one citizen, me, it controls the land where I live and everyone else can bugger off.
Hopefully you see the problem with having a nation comprising of just me. Nations comprising of lots of people can simply take the Nation of Stephen Wells by force. And this is why anarchist libertarians and sovereign citizens are retards. The only rights any person has are those he can defend and it’s impossible to defend your rights by yourself.
So I have a family and I include my family in my nation. The more things I can keep in common with my family the bigger my family can become. And the bigger that family is the better it can defend the Nation of Stephen Wells and preserve the ethnic heritage of Stephen, my faith, my moral values and my culture.
But the downside of making the Nation of Stephen Wells bigger is that although it can better defend itself it is much harder to keep everyone happy within it. The Nation of Stephen Wells doesn’t have to compromise with anyone else, when my nation consists only of me. Which is why its easier to make nations out of extended families than random strangers. Because there are fewer things generally that families need to compromise on.
Mike Burgess the head of ASIO accused the White Australia organisation of undermining “social cohesion”. But the Nation of Stephen Wells was at a utopian level of social cohesion when it consisted of just me. Social cohesion, by definition means uniformity, not diversity. So the White Australia Organisation doesn’t threaten social cohesion, on the contrary, it simply exposes how our treasonous government has already destroyed it with multiculturalism.
The White Australia Party will advocate for a socially cohesive White Australia Policy. The goal, the principle is to achieve an Australia of predominantly White people who look like they are from the same ethnic group, have the same moral values, are generally accepting of Christianity as a religion, even if they believe something else, and who share the same history and culture.
And when people who fit that definition decide that this land is socially cohesive enough, then and only then will they look at the people not of that definition who are still in the country and decide if they can stay and under what conditions.
And we who are part of the White Australia organisation and nation have differing views on that. But it is we, not non-whites who don’t fit the definition that this country was founded upon, who will debate that and decide that.
So who will stay and who will go? The answer is we can’t say right now. But we have the right to be as exclusionary as we want as long as we are large enough and strong enough not to be conquered by others.
We know where we will start. Getting rid of most temporary visas gets rid of a few million. Non-citizens on longer visas gets rid of millions more. Violent criminals. Africans. Indians. Chinese. Arabs. There are a host of obvious groups that simply are not socially cohesive with White Christian heritage people. We have the right to exclude them. Some, most or all of them as WE see fit, not as they see fit. This is all before we get to questions about Joel Jamal or Drew Pavlou.
But what about the Aboriginals?
Sigh.
Some people will just never get the concept of a principle:
We have the Right to exclude whoever we want on whatever basis we want.
That is how a nation is defined. Accept this and we can be friends. Whether or not you continue to live amongst us is a separate issue and will be decided by us as we see fit at the appropriate time. At the moment Aboriginals are trying to take our land, claim it as theirs and they also cause us lots of problems with crime and welfare dependency. That’s not exactly friendly is it? Aboriginal activists have for years pushed themselves as a different, separate people with a separate flag who see us as an enemy. So be it. If that is still their attitude when we come to power, well that makes things easier doesn’t it?
We hold no animosity to any group or person for animosity’s sake. We simply hold to principle so that we have the best chance of securing the lives we want and so we can live amongst people who are like us. Until that principle is accepted and respected by other groups we have no reason to even discuss which of them can stay here. Until you respect that, our motto will remain:
Australia for the White man, the rest must go.
You can find Stephen Wells at Telegram and purchase his books here.
