Australian Nationalism

The Vital Difference between Native-Australianism
and British-Australianism

"By the term Australian we mean not just those who were merely born in Australia. All white men who come to these shores with a clean record and who leave behind them the memory of the class distinctions and religious differences of the Old World; all men who place the happiness of their adopted land before imperialism ... are Australians"

The Bulletin 2 July 1887


Today, more and more Australians are awakening to the fact that our country is under a virtual "invasion" by Third World immigrants of all types. Government enforced "Multiculturalism" is creating serious ethnic divisions. The Australian Identity and Heritage is under attack. As Australia produces growing numbers of potential recruits for a movement of Australian Nationalism, we are confronted by an urgent problem. We must shape the direction of this new "movement" into the right channel.

We style ourselves as thorough-going Australian nationalists, progressive nationalists. We are forced to confront groups which express an alternate ideology, "Anglo-Saxonism", the doctrine which makes much of our British past. These persons are committing great errors, sometimes understandable mistakes, but extremely harmful when considered in context. Our objective is to correct their mistakes, to guide the European Australia movement into tactically and historically correct paths.


Allow us to elucidate the kernels of Anglo-Saxonism. The Anglo-Saxonists begin by pointing out that most of Australia's early migrants were British and that they established the English language as the national tongue. They recall our national development: that we began as six colonies of Great Britain under whose auspices Federation was allowed to occur. The Anglo-Saxonists proclaim that Australia was safe while Britain defended us. It is agreeable to them that the British Establishment in Australia imported British political and artistic-literary culture into the country. The Anglo-Saxonists attempt to appropriate all of Australia's military glory and mutate it into a "patriotic" ideology which finds virtue in Australia's involvement in Britain's wars. They remind us that the flag under which we won our glory contains the Union Jack. The Anglo-Saxonists argue that the public affection for Queen Elizabeth, who is also Queen of Australia, proves the vibrancy of our British Heritage.

The Anglo-Saxonists are convinced that all immigration weakens this Heritage, which actually IS the Australian Heritage. To survive the crisis faced by the Nation, the Anglo-Saxonists advocate the assertion of the British Heritage.


Australian nationalists are proud indeed of various elements of our British Heritage. We are proud of being able to appreciate the richness of British literature and scientific enquiry. Our national language gives us easy access to the wealth of an old culture. This is priceless. But our Anglo-Saxonists are often much more concerned with our political-British past. For us, this is another matter.

The Anglo-Saxonists make much of "Westminster Government". Nationalists have little time for it. Let us be practical. Our political mission requires a very different style of government. Our Constitution is horse and buggy. It is not a sacred cow. We are certain to modify it. Is this necessarily an attack on our "Heritage"? Nationalists are also aware that assorted colonial anachronisms in law and administration must likewise be swept away. All this would be simple practicality.

When Australian Nationalists praise our British Heritage, we are admiring and promoting matters of culture; unlike the Anglo-Saxonists, we are not talking of "links" to which we are supposedly permanently bound by blood. There is good and bad in our British past; our task is to promote the good and repudiate the bad. Is that so unreasonable? Nationalists use the analogy that "children" grow up and develop differently from their "parents"; Anglo-Saxonists reply that while that is so, there is no need to "insult" or "deny" one's ties. True, but Nationalists are making on that point a claim for individuality. Australia's coming trials are original and unique. New institutions and laws backed by a new philosophy are called for. THAT is our point.


In this section we shall look at some of the key themes of the Anglo-Saxonist argument and reply to them with Nationalist answers.

Firstly, Anglo-Saxonist publications keep reminding us that the majority of Australia's early pioneers were British in origin, thereby establishing a prior British right to Australia - which they see as paramount in regards to not only Third World immigrants but also to other Europeans. Of course, the majority of Australia's early settlers were British; though the Anglo-Saxonist thesis needs energetic comment.

What of the Irish element in the early settlement, or are they just "rebels" or something similar? We know from history that our colonial Establishment fought a "war" in Australia against the Irish. The issue eventually cooled, but before the days of an Australian national identity, the English vs. Irish issue was a matter of politics. Neither side was actually Australian; the argument was imported. We could note also the Irish influence in our early folk culture and mythology (like the Kelly Gang, etc.). All this, our Anglo-Saxonists overlook. Is it not important also, or does it conflict with the British ideology? If it is justified to be loyal to Britain in all things, would it be reasonable for an Australian whose name is Murphy, and whose ancestors hail from what is now the Irish Republic, to express a commitment to the ideals of the IRA? As nationalists we admire the early achievements of our British pioneers, but we haven't forgotten our Irish Heritage either.

Next, our Anglo-Saxonists place too high an emphasis on importing those of Anglo-Saxon blood; believing that such people, by their very nature, would carry on and perpetuate "British Culture" in Australia. They insist that Anglo-Saxon immigration implies retention of all cultural norms, etc., of their former society, and that their descendants would likewise be unchanged by geographical and psychological-environmental factors. And yet, the early Australian Nationalism, in which we find so much inspiration, was precisely the product of Anglo-Saxon minds. Can our Anglo-Saxonists explain that?

Lastly, our Anglo-Saxonists ignore the wide European immigration which took place in the 19th century. This immigration modified Australia and its cultural forms. Continental Europeans were important in the 1880s and 1890s, the "springtime" of the Australian Culture. Since the Second World War, firstly under the control of the great Nationalist Arthur Calwell, large numbers of Europeans entered Australia. This immigration was opposed by Anglo-Saxonist groups. Of course, a handful of these persons were undesirables; but that isn't the point. Today some of these persons and their descendants support "Multiculturalism"; but many don't. The Anglo-Saxonist ignores the dynamics, however, of an appeal to those elements of the European communities who would respond to the goal of a New Nation, free from the threat of Asian takeover.

One further area of Anglo-Saxonist mythology can now be examined. It is pointed out that Britain was our foremost friend in the protection of our Heritage. That doesn't fit the facts. The Anglo-Saxonists claim to support the old White Australia Policy. BUT ARE THEY AWARE THAT THE BRITISH EMPIRE WORKED AGAINST THE PASSING OF "WHITE AUSTRALIA" LEGISLATION?

The British Foreign Office of the 1890s was not in the least interested in permitting the Australian colonies' restrictive immigration policies "lest it offend Her Majesty's Indian subjects" as Joseph Chamberlain, architect of Britain's foreign policy, so succinctly put it. As far as Chamberlain and his ilk were concerned, the nature of Australia's ethnic mix was not of interest. Since Australia did not possess an identity, it was simply a landscape peopled by economic units. Once it seemed an Anglo-Japanese alliance was in the offing, British pressure against our restrictive immigration policies increased. Britain's last attempt to change the White Australia Policy took place in 1919, following a request from Japan for the British put pressure on Australia. Needless to say, the British Foreign Office was again resisted by Australia. Perhaps our Anglo-Saxonists would like to explain this? Can they not see that overseas masters of any type will always view Australia as just a piece of real estate of a certain economic or strategic value? The example of Britain and White Australia is relevant today - as our new ally, the United States, desires an Asianised Australia. History has proved the maxim of the old Bulletin magazine: White Australia and Independence from overseas "friends" are complementary policies.


Australia's involvement in the two world wars has provided our Anglo-Saxonists with powerful arguments for the retention of our British cultural and political heritage. World War One produced the ANZAC myth, the proof of nationhood. But they make a misinterpretation of ANZAC. The real heritage lies, not in the nature or cause of the enterprise, but in Australians "proving themselves as men".

Gallipoli was the first time that Australia "shed blood" as a nation (not just as a group of colonies); and did so on a large scale, and in a show of bravery, heroism, and "strength" - THAT is why Gallipoli was seen as "the making of our Nation". It was, on the international "stage", the proving of the "strength" of the Australian Nation itself.

However, as Percy Stephensen said in the 1930s, ANZAC showed the futility of involvement in foreign wars. Indeed, as Geoffrey Serle in his work on Australian Culture (From Deserts the Prophets Come) has argued, the blood-letting of the First World War RETARDED the growth of Australian Culture by engendering an atmosphere of political subservience to "overseas".

The Second World War brought home the question of our lack of independence. In 1942 Japan menaced Australia but Winston Churchill, in his wisdom, demanded that the Australian army stay in the Middle East. Prime Minister Curtain overruled Churchill and returned our troops for the defence of Australia. Churchill's contention was that even if Australia fell to Japan, Britain would stand and settle with Japan later. This proves our Nationalist argument.

In the past (even into the 1970s and 1980s), there have existed circles of Anglo-Saxonists who believed that the defence of our Nation should rest in a new imperial defence system. Such a notion was built on a rotten "Heritage". It was also based on a lack of understanding of the facts of Superpower contention, nuclear weapons, and various geopolitical facts. There is no salvation in British - or any other - gunboats. There never was. Any group which preached such a doctrine in the name of "Heritage" was doing the growing mass of patriotic Australians a severe disservice. It would be MISLEADING at best, and, if practiced by a government, TREASON at worst.


The 1930s magazine, The Publicist, maintained that "imports" of British culture "help to water" the native Australian plant. It was argued that British culture would always influence Australian culture more than, say, French or German culture. But the development of Australian Culture was held to be the primary objective for Australians. And the development of this culture was held as a POLITICAL task.

The Publicist reported that there existed social-political opposition to the emergence of Australian Culture. For example, there were no courses in Australian literature at the University of Sydney (until the 1950s). Australian books could not get published. The earlier flowering of Australian culture under the impetus of the 1880s and 1890s saw some of our greatest achievements: the Heidelberg school of painting, Henry Lawson, the Bulletin, etc. By the 1930s and 1940s, a new "burst" of cultural energy was under way. For Nationalists, these are the important things. An Australian tongue, an Australian humour, an Australian style of painting, architecture, and literature: do our Anglo-Saxonists laud these developments in their publications? Particularly when they conflict with dominant political values? Sadly, NO. In the journals of these advocates of "heritage", Australianism is sadly missing, something which cannot be wallpapered over by photographs of the Queen or Prince Charles.


The Anglo-Saxonists confuse the debate by raising the question of the monarchy. It is true that many of those Australians who are not even royalist in inclination have a certain "affection" for Queen Elizabeth II. Many people find the monarchy a "charming" institution, a pleasant colonial anachronism. The debate over monarchy vs. republic can be confusing; especially with many of the "republicans" being of the Grassby ilk. The Anglo-Saxonists, however, make their usual errors.

The Monarchy is held up as THE stable institution in a changing Australia, the incarnation of national values and heritage. Has the Monarchy in Britain saved that country from national decline and alien immigration? Unfortunately not. The Anglo-Saxonists maintain, however, that the Monarchy is a sort of talisman against republican Europeans and non-white immigration. By rallying to it we can supposedly save ourselves. We don't think the Monarchy deserves such praise. Prince Phillip is a thorough-going internationalist and Prince Charles continually advocates multiracialism. Queen Elizabeth II has presided over the decline of a great empire - and without even questioning its slide into oblivion!

The Monarchy is a political fact in Australia. But it is under challenge by circumstances of administration and law. WE ARE AWARE THAT THE TREND MOVES EVER SLOWLY TOWARDS A REPUBLIC. Of course, we would oppose a banana republic of the Labor Party type. But we cannot oppose history. The Nationalist movement views the republican debate of the Establishment as largely irrelevant, as it avoids the true issues that face us regarding true Australian independence. Nevertheless, we will not stand by and see the question of Australian Heritage and Identity obscured by foolish persons concerned over the dignity of a particular institution.


Australian Nationalists find our Anglo-Saxonists decidedly lacking in VISION. We have a "vision splendid", for our country. We would prefer a nation of 15-20 million European souls armed with an assertive Australian Identity. Australia could be the last frontier for the settlement and development for the European race. THAT WAS THE DREAM of many early Australian nationalists. However, it would appear from the literature of the Anglo-Saxonists that they have an alternative to the Nationalist vision of an independent Australia.

The Anglo-Saxonists envisage a land primarily of Anglo-Saxon stock. Some of them envisage that our defence system would rest on alliances with other countries of the British Commonwealth, as well as with the USA. Culturally, we would inevitably retreat into "Tradition", while politically it is likely that in some circumstances our national interests would be sacrificed "for the good of the British Commonwealth". IS THAT A GOAL IN WHICH WE COUlD TAKE PRIDE? Some of our Anglo-Saxonists believe that this "goal" is even somehow "Christian"(?!?!).

The movement of Australian Nationalism requires an imagery, a strong and vibrant vision to contrast itself against the rotting consumerist society of today. We can project ourselves this way. We can offer the new; while our Anglo-Saxonists could never become a real movement of "vision", since they can only offer a distorted image of what was.


Our Anglo-Saxonists have never really decided whether they really like, or don't like, the presence of certain Europeans in Australia. Lately, they have begun to speak of maintaining our "European identity". But it is obvious that their goal is NOT to rally the best from our European migrant communities behind a movement to save the Nation from its "Asian Destiny". They endlessly quibble about certain European migrants and their "clannishness" and whatnot. However, THEY of all people can not inspire migrants to adopt Australian nationality. The Anglo-Saxonists condemn some migrants for asserting dual nationality; they then proceed to adopt a second nationality for themselves. This point is not lost on migrants (and their offspring). The activities of the Anglo-Saxonists hamper assimilation.

If, as one Anglo-Saxonist journal put it, our British Heritage is "Christian" and biologically conditioned, then are they talking of the exclusion of Continental Europeans from Australia? Nationalists do not accept that proposition. They advocate the assimilation of Old and New Australians, coupled with an intensive programme of mass acquaintance with our native Australian heritage and present European cultural tasks in this part of the world. Not only is this policy correct, but it is also tactically necessary.

In terms of tactics the Anglo-Saxonists commit a grievous error. By denying European migrants a place in their future Australia, they give to our enemies a weapon to harass the White Australia movement. The media can paint us as insular idiots. Also, the enemies of our movement can, thanks to the Anglo-Saxonists, alienate the European communities from a genuine nationalist party.

That the European groups are potential reserves in the fight raged by Australians of Anglo-Saxon-Celtic origin is proven from history and recent facts. For example, Italian canecutters in Queensland in the early 1900s were in the vanguard of the struggle to exclude non-European labour from the fields. They managed to win the support of the Australian Workers' Union and other unions. This trend has an echo in the present. One survey revealed that the anti mass immigration attitudes of Australians from Continental Europe are sometimes much sharper than amongst Australians from Britain. The respondents who thought that the level of immigration was too high were: 49% of Australians, 36% of the British-born, and 48% of those from elsewhere in Europe (note: regarding whether the level of Asian immigration was too high, the results were pretty much close to each other - 60% Australian, 62% British, and 54% other Europe)(*1). Such facts need to be urgently considered.


Australia's former British connections are painted by the Anglo-Saxonists as all but idyllic; this, they never were. From the moment an Australian Identity began to crystallise, an Australian Nationalism emerged. Several historians have shown that this emergent nationalism necessarily took on an anti-Imperial/British impulse. Australia's greatest writers and its trade union movement marched in this stream. They were anxious to free Australia of a foreign vice. Today, of course, Britain has no power over Australia. It claims none. Yesteryear, nonetheless, serves to give valuable lessons to the nationalists of today.

Around the 1890s and early 1900s, Australia's interests markedly diverged from Britain's interests. Britain's alliance with Japan was an early sign of this in foreign policy, while our political subservience to Britain allowed the British Government to quash anti-coloured immigration laws passed by Australian parliaments. In plain language, Australia's Imperial commitments had endangered her. Was it desirable for Australia to trade her independence for imperial policy? Most definitely not. Australia's interests had already diverged from Britain in other areas.

Consider settlement. Many Australians bemoan the fact that we failed to attract mass white immigration in the 19th century; they feel it was unfortunate that our population is huddled together in a few cities and the "coastal strip". This situation arose precisely from imperial policy. Australia was "designed" as a pastoral country, a gigantic storehouse of foodstuffs. Open settlement, it was felt, would lead to an American situation - independence. Australia's national development and economic growth was deliberately stunted. An interesting and very moving poem by Ian Mudie, "This is Australia", brings this to the fore. Mudie wrote that Australia's national destiny had continually been thwarted by overseas machinations. It was a lament to what was lost, but what could still be. Mudie makes it clear that it was NEVER Britain's policy to develop Australian manufacturing, shipping, identity, or much else. Britain never planned the growth of a new country. There was no profit in that. Is it "anti-British" to tell the truth? Does it mean we'd abuse the British people? Of course not. But it does mean that we recognise the point raised by Percy Stephensen in his Foundations of Culture in Australia: that the British Empire was a monstrous "mother" who managed successfully to live off its children while convincing them that it was acting in their interest.

The point is now moot. For the Anglo-Saxonists to accuse us of being "anti-British", the McCarthyist byword of the 1930s, is ridiculous. We have simply learned a lesson; we know that he who crawls like a dog - and who wags his tail on command like a dog - gets treated like a dog. As Nationalists we are tired of any doctrine which demands Australian subservience. The "British Ideology" was one such creed; there are others today (such as Multiculturalism and Asianisation). Australia has had enough of this. We now require an Australian ideology for the new century. Our national destiny WILL be realised.


Let us state our conception of the elements of Australian Heritage, Australian Nationalists argue that there are FOUR aspects to our national heritage: the British, the Irish, the Continental European, and the Native-Australian. The revival of interest in the latter is the mood of the times. It may be an automatic recognition by a wide strata of the People as to what is the most important part of their make-up. Today we are under attack by "Multiculturalism", the doctrine which denies Australia a SINGLE IDENTITY in favour of ethnic ghettoisation. INTERESTINGLY, OUR ANGLO-SAXONISTS DO NOT RISE TO ASSERT OUR NATIVE HERITAGE AGAINST MULTICULTURALISM, BUT INSTEAD PROMOTE ITS REVERSE MIRROR IMAGE: THE "BRITISH HERITAGE". Since it often appears that many Multiculturalists hate all things Anglo-Saxon, the Anglo-Saxonists automatically defend all which they consider to be Anglo-Saxon. The obsessions of many multiculturalists (particularly those from the same mould as Al Grassby) against the British people fuels a counter movement. We say that MULTICULTURALISM IS NOT SO MUCH CONCERNED WITH DESTROYING OUR BRITISH HERITAGE, BUT IS ATTEMPTING TO DESTROY OUR NATIVE-AUSTRALIAN HERITAGE - THE PROMISE OF A NEW AUSTRALIAN NATION. Will the Anglo-Saxonists ever understand this? We pray so. We agree with the Anglo-Saxonists that Multiculturalism is a blight and must be replaced by ONE AUSTRALIAN IDENTITY, but we disagree on what that identity is to be: British-Australian or home-grown Native-Australian. Our concept of this has already been stated. But why is this issue so important? BECAUSE OF EXTERNAL DANGER.

Australia faces the gravest trial in its short history, the combined dangers of Third World overpopulation, economic imperialism, and cultural disintegration. Only a united people can survive. Our national poet, Henry Lawson, warned that "we are fated to stand alone" in the coming fight. Isolated and really without allies, or at least viable allies, we must make the best of what we possess. We must fight with the best weapon we have: the confident assertion of the Australian Identity. Is there any "value" in asserting "British Heritage" in a struggle which is not Britain's and in which there will be no British support? Should we assert German links, or Italian links, or Irish links? There would be little purpose to any of that, also.

The pressures for our national survival must forever change the Australian People. It would mould together the Old Australian and the New Australian in a single Identity, perhaps forged in bullets and blood. What of the Australian of 2030? The exact form we could not predict, but his cultural "roots" are already known to us.

Nationalists see the process of achieving real national unity as a CULTURAL REVOLUTION. Harsher values and harsher times require a different attitude to the bourgeois self-satisfaction of today. The process of national psychological mobilisation will hammer out the message of "Australianism"; such a mobilisation will be energetic and - to be successful - must touch the whole people. Its slogans would demand practicality and a degree of national conformity. They would have to arouse the most fundamental instincts of the People. Australian History, Mythology, and Identity: these are the weapons of such a mobilisation.

The ideology of the Anglo-Saxonists would just fail in these tasks.


The Anglo-Saxonists are not "bad" people. They suffer merely from a misappreciation of historical realities. They did not choose to advocate their ideology in bad faith. Generally, they are completely sincere. Their passion, however, is not the desire to lead Australia forwards to a new century, but to restore one aspect of the past: the cultural and political British Heritage. They usually style themselves as "conservatives"; and, as conservatives, their goal is to "conserve". Since this is not normally the goal of energetic activists and innovative minds, the average Anglo-Saxonist sees his duty as being to play a "lobbyist" role rather than a political role. Since there is much in the current legal order the Anglo-Saxonist likes, he is not likely to "rebel" against it. He therefore usually eschews political activity in favour of pressure tactics. The Establishment can be well pleased with him.

Whenever any Establishment politician uses "God, Queen, and Country" rhetoric, the Anglo-Saxonist mistakes it for his variety of patriotism. This leads to strange situations. In Queensland, for example, where one particular Anglo-Saxonist group is very active, we witnessed in the 1970s and 1980s most "right-wingers" rallying to the then Premier: Joh Bjelke Petersen. Joh was reasoned to stand for God, Monarchy, and the decentralisation of power (an alleged "British" attribute). Unfortunately, Petersen was selling Queensland to Japan! The Anglo-Saxonists refused to confront this fact.

It is also unfortunate that Anglo-Saxonism is decidedly a CLASS movement. If it were 1932, would the Anglo-Saxonists stand with Jack Lang against Imperial Finance, and for the rights of poor Australians? Or would they stand with the New Guard, and for the eviction of starving people from their homes?. We suspect we know the answer to this question. It is difficult to explain here without diverging from our subject, but it is true to state that Anglo-Saxonism was once the doctrine of the "haves", while Australian Nationalism was the hope of the "have-nots" of our society. Times have changed, and Anglo-Saxonism certainly does not inspire the new type of "upper class" politician of today; it is a doctrine trying to recapture these "haves" (through lobbying). We can therefore see that an UMBILICAL CHORD links the Anglo-Saxonists and the Establishment.

It is also a straight fact that while Anglo-Saxonist conservatives appear thoroughly "patriotic", many of them actually advocate measures leading to the decline of the Australian Nation. Consider the following examples of leading "British Heritage" conservatives:

Sir Colin Hines, RSL President for NSW, in 1979 supported the idea of using large numbers of Vietnamese refugees to populate northern Australia.(*2)

Sir William Keys, RSL National President, in 1988 endorsed multiculturalism, supported non-discriminatory immigration, and declared "we are part of Asia".(*3)

Bruce Ruxton, RSL President for Victoria, has loudly proclaimed the idea that hundreds of ex-British Army Gurkhas, and their families, should be allowed to migrate to Australia.(*4)

Just what do they think they're doing? Are these people willing to turn Australia into another multiracial shambles, just so long as the "heritage" and institutions of Australia remain "British"???

Our Anglo-Saxonists need to learn their lessons quickly. Already they seem to be on the wrong side of patriotism vs. treason (most inadvertently, some deliberately).

They must make a decision.


Two roads are open for the rising numbers of patriotic people concerned over the question of our European Civilisation. There is the road to nowhere and the modern road of Australian Nationalism. Australian Nationalists appreciate their British CULTURAL (as opposed to political) Heritage. They also appreciate the other aspects of our Heritage and realise that their task is to preside over the unfolding of a new People and Culture: The Australian. The Anglo-Saxonists may find the Party of Australian Nationalism unpalatable. So it must often be when a new doctrine emerges. Eventually our Anglo-Saxonist friends will be won over to Australian Nationalism. A vast popular movement will grow and overturn the present anti-Australian order. Australian Independence, Australian Identity, and an Australian Future will be won.

The Twenty-First Century: Australia's Century?


(1) "New Chums Don't Like Newer Chums", The Bulletin, 12 September 1989, p. 21

(2) "Viets Should Go North: RSL Leader", The Age, 13 November 1979.

(3) "Australia Now Part Of Asia, Says RSL Chief", Advertiser, 6 September 1988.
"An Old Soldier and His New War", The Bulletin, 1 August 1989, pp. 132-134, 136.

(4) Andrew Bock. "Gurkhas Should Be Allowed To Migrate: Ruxton", The Age, 18 July 1992, p. 13.
Anita Quigley. "Migration Battle Takes To Streets", Herald Sun, 3 December 1993, p. 33.
Bruce Ruxton. "Australia Should Have At Least One Gurkha Battalion", Toorak Times, 26 April 1989, p. 9.
Michael Ryan. "RSL Bid For Gurkha Warriors", Herald Sun, 10 July 1994, p. 5.

This publication has been produced using source documentation previously published elsewhere (subject to editing and alteration).

John Croft
11th November 1996
Return to Home Page