The Geopolitics Of Australian Independence
Dr. Jim Saleam
First published December 3 2006; New edition June 2011
This article is adapted from an
item published here in December 2006. A slightly modified version appeared in 2011 in Ab Aeterno, Journal
Of The Academy Of
Social And Political Research.
Since then, I have corrected a couple of errors in the text. I acknowledge the input of A.
Saunders, M. Peters, A. Patterson and others (who preferred anonymity). Where I
have relied upon bodies of geopolitical and other thought or the opinion of a
person, it is stated clearly. The good idea is eternal and belongs to all who
carry it, defend it and develop it.
Geopolitics may be an old study, but it has had only occasional airing in Australia. In
the pursuit of an independent Australian nation state, we are required to
understand Place and Time. The former teaches us that we are a Continent
Nation, set in a geographical context (macro and micro) and the latter tells us
how contemporary politics amplifies our geographical advantages and
disadvantages for national survival. I shall provide a more concise, or usable,
definition of the term 'geopolitics' below.
The reason for this discussion is - urgency. Australian nationalists reason
that our country finds itself on the edge of being ultimately absorbed into a
huge Asia-Pacific trade zone. This zone, in the process of full gestation,
functions as a part, if only economically at this time, of the emergent New
World Order (NWO), but it has 'local' historical features of its own. It may
yet be fought over between America,
the policeman state of this coercive order - and Chinese superpower
imperialism. We exist in a period when New World Order imperialism threatens
war against those who refuse to enter into its borderless fantasy, its
one-world. Yet the one-world is also (in contradiction to globalist rhetoric)
the prize of the two state-based imperialisms of America
at a time when other blocs are struggling to create a 'multi-polar world'. Our
planet suffers too, from an ongoing and deepening crisis of food and
population, all in a period of dramatic climactic changes; therefore also, we
exist at the opening of a phase of rivalry for resources, including living
space. (1) The Australian Continent is attractive for aggressors of all types.
We are interested therefore, in developing a new outlook which allows us to
understand better our potential to win national independence and then to
maintain that independence. Learning the geopolitics of Australian independence
is a proper task, because we aim to survive our time.
1. A Long History Establishes Australian Relations With Other Continents
as a Continent, separated from the others, around a time just after the era of
the dinosaurs. It existed in a form of almost-splendid-isolation, affixed
between three oceans. It was visited and occupied by new creatures most
certainly, but not in such an array of life-forms that it did not adapt highly
idiosyncratic animals and other life. Australia was, from the opening of
the Cenozoic Era, a true biosphere.
Humans arrived on this Old-Continent very 'early' in their history. Some
evidence exists that Peking Man and Java Man appeared here and vanished at
unknowable points. That they were here showed Australia was never 'isolated'
despite its isolation, an understandable contradiction. In these lost ages, even
the most barbarous of human kind could locate this land and eke out a rude
existence upon it. It was a place difficult to reach, but always attainable:
perhaps the first principle of our geopolitics.
Then others came, using as they did, the effective 'land-bridge' with New Guinea, or a process of simple
island-hopping in the Torres Strait. Negritos,
Aborigines, other groups arrived (including proto-Caucasoids), from a time
possibly 80,000 years ago, but probably in an age much more remote. They contested
for the land and the Aboriginal groups became dominant; and this struggle left
isolated pockets of other human types. So the Aboriginal races remained -
essentially alone - until what the historians call 'ancient times'. There is no
doubt as to the antiquity of these Aboriginal races, nor is there any doubt
that they occupied the Australian Continent untrammelled for tens of thousands
of years, without the effective competition of other human types. They were
able to 'dream' their 'dreaming'. The Aboriginal races built no 'civilization'
and therefore no state; they became a people
constituted as 300 tribal groups, sorted into linguistic and other
sub-divisions. They considered they did not 'possess' the land; rather, it
'owned' them. The Aboriginal races always existed as humankind had lived in the
Old Stone Age, in a form of primitive communism. On that basis, they were
challenged in recent historical times by modern men - and dispossessed. (2)
Men ruined much of the landscape, scarring areas, possibly beyond redemption.
There is debate as to the impact of the Aborigines (and others?) upon the flora
and fauna of this land. It might be safer simply to say that human activity
harmed the earth to a real degree, perhaps intensifying desertification and destroying
the mega-fauna. We Europeans, with our 'European' farming methods, carried on
the environmental disaster. Whatever the inter-relationship in some areas, the
Continent, in the last 10,000 years, became drier, less hospitable, fragile in
places, incapable of ultimately supporting human masses: perhaps the second
principle of our geopolitics.
The conventional history, that had Australia first sighted by the Portuguese in
the sixteenth century, the first modern landing with Dirk Hartog in 1616, the
discovery of 'Tasmania' by Abel Tasman in 1642, all culminating with the
'claim' of Captain Cook in 1770 - has long since been overturned. If anything,
the Spanish constructed a fort at Eden
and mapped the East Coast, long before Cook (who possibly carried a Spanish
map). (3) And yes, there were Malayan sailors on the northern coasts and
possibly ships from the Great Chinese Fleet of 1421 who had a look-in, trading
a few trinkets with local Aborigines. Arab traders may also have ventured here
in those centuries when they introduced Islam to Indonesia.
However - and it sets the starting-point of our Australian nation - it was the
white man Cook who dragged the Old-Continent into modernity, claiming for
Britain the East Coast as 'New South Wales'. By legal theory, the land was
'terra nullius', land without an owner. Britain took legal ownership. In Britain's
action was the beginning not of a 'colony', but of a new nation and
contact with other continents, went back long before the modern European claim.
It is a history now being documented and which colours our Continent with a new
sense of historical Time.
The history of the Pacific Ocean, 'Oceania',
is now being probed for the existence of states and empires previously the subject
of myth - or of theosophy. We are learning to see human cultural and political
evolution and the secret history of the Continent.
The theosophists talked of Lumeria, a lost continent in the Pacific,
occasionally called 'Mu', a mighty empire of sea-traders and warriors. It had
all the earmarks of an Atlantis myth. It was, perhaps not a continent, but
likely indeed - an empire. There are traces of an old culture in the Pacific.
If these men visited Australia,
they left, as far as we can see, no substantial marks. (4)
In ancient times, it is reasonably thought that Phoenicians, Greeks and Romans
saw the South Land,
perhaps from across the empty expanses of the Indian Ocean.
And the Pacific too in old times had its Libyans, its Celts in New Zealand,
its Vikings. It is feasible that Sarina (in Queensland) has its wharf structure built by
the Phoenicians (?) Yet all this shows us that Australia had an older history than
many have hitherto supposed, that its story was part of a mythos of sea power
Our historical survey tells us that Australia
was the Terra Australis Magna Incognita (Great Unknown
Land of the South), at
first, a legend, an inspiring myth. Many had 'touched' it, but left no real
depth of settlement. It was too harsh, too isolated, too untamed and difficult
to exploit or to develop. In that sense we modern Australians have taken over
the Continental legends from all humanity and made them our own; we find our
sense of Place, not just from our modern European origin, but from the history
of the South Land itself.
Yet, we are those who would discover our land from within. In doing so, we take
over the mythos of the old Aboriginal peoples and the facts of other human
habitation, for we also regard the differentialist aspects of our spirit (that
is, those things which differentiate us from Europeans pure and simple) as
establishing our native quality. If we dwell in this land and love it, finally
asserting we have no other land, then its primordial 'dreaming' - is ours too.
2. The Idea Of
Geopolitics In Australia
The principles of geopolitics can be now briefly explained. There is no room
here for a learned exposition. We are providing the overview.
Geopolitics is a school of political-historical philosophy. It has had several
prominent theorists of different nationalities, who down to the 1920's and
1930's, established it as a necessary study for statecraft.
In its original form, the school appeared in a Eurocentric form. Whomsoever
dominated the Central Asian area, would dominate the world-island. Whichever
power combined the resources of Europe with the areas of Eastern Europe
could wage this politics and secure the economic futures of the European
peoples - and some client peoples resident upon its space. With no natural
barriers, this real Europe would stretch to
the Pacific; within these spaces, an idea of power would reside to confront
(when necessary) other peoples with other conceptions. Inside this living-area,
philosophies like peoples, would reconcile. The broad school had both a
'Western' European and an 'Eastern' European formulation. The Russian
intellectuals called it 'Eusasianism' and centred it on Russia's unique
position straddling the two continents.
The Second World War period brought geopolitics some 'disrepute', given that
some theorists of fascism employed its arguments, but that does not detain us
here. We may argue that some communists did likewise from the time of Stalin
onwards - until finally the idea of 'Eurasianism' in the post-1991 Russian Federation
would replace the communist vision itself.
Jean Thiriart, the Belgian Euro-nationalist theorist, wrote in the1960's of a
grand Europe arraigned against the sea powers,
of the spirit of life against the spirit of commerce. His works never lost
their lustre and found themselves popular again in Russia
after the collapse of the Soviet Union. For
Thiriart, the enemy of freedom lay in the capitalist model of endless
consumption headquartered in America.
had to be isolated to its North American Continent-base. His ideas are today
wielded by Alexander Dugin, a theorist who influenced President Putin, Russian
nationalists and ex-communists. For Dugin, Eurasia
must become a 'reality' that inspires the future multi-polar world.
Australian geopolitics is in shadow. In the 1920's efforts in some returned-
soldiers' organizations, saw the works of American Lothrop Stoddard widely
distributed. Stoddard believed that an open struggle of the Asiatic races
against the European races was a likely event and that Australia was a
prize of this struggle. In that way at least, a discussion of Australia's
strategic placement took place. Australians were encouraged to look to Place as
determinative of their politics and reject that they were some outpost in the
intra-European power struggles.
In the 1930's, Percy Stephensen advanced his own theory of geopolitics which
was quite revolutionary. For Stephensen, the idea of the antipodes, was the
province of those who thought Australia far from their home-continent of Europe
and therefore it was that fact which made them nostalgic for 'home' ('home' to
most of these persons meant Britain) and fearful for the protection of their
Motherland. For Stephensen, it was on one level - the other way around! He
understood the function of airpower in fighting navies and considered it the
military basis of independence; Stephensen was neither nostalgic for 'home' nor
so fearful of the future that he required protection from an Empire
headquartered at the other end of the earth. Hence Stephensen quipped that for
Australians - Europe was the antipodes!
Geopolitically, allowing for the hyperbole in the formulation - that is
correct. It was thence little accident that in his key work on the development
of Australian culture, The Foundations Of Culture In Australia,
Stephensen demanded of us that we recognise our position in Place and Time.
could benefit from the arrangements of forces and balances in the global
geopolitical situation elsewhere, an Australian geopolitical policy meant that
the survival-factors were more localised: this would be the third principle of
The long suburban-consumer sleep in Australia,
the Menzies era (Prime Minister Robert Menzies, 1949-1966), encouraged only dependence. Once again, Australia
entered into an imperial alliance. Our concerns became those of the alliance.
Only in one regard did this alliance have a basis in fractured reality. Many
Australians confused American anti communism with an awareness of the 'Yellow
Peril'. There was a slight overlap in practise; yet, the American policy
inevitably integrated Australia's
affairs with those of Asian capitalist governments, a fatal position in the era
of the internationalisation (then globalisation) of capitalism. Under the
impress of the new superpower master, the White Australia Policy was abandoned.
The consumer age demobilised Australian national consciousness. The country,
without a voice for identity and independence, had a new awareness of Time and
Place - as an export platform serving the Western Alliance.
Nicholas Lindeman, a self-taught theorist, advanced a thesis in the 1970's that
suggested the re-emergence of a Japanese threat to Australia. For Lindeman, it was Australia's
wealth and its spaces that could lure the Japanese into a new imperial crusade.
Perhaps it might no longer be a Japanese threat but a Chinese one which we need
to face, yet his precepts had a particular validity: sea power was the key; Australia had commercial worth and was an
essential block in empire-building; Japan was a small country in need
of living space and resources. Lindeman too, maintained that the
ideological-thinking of the anti communist era was inappropriate to a period
when it was resources and space that were at issue. (6)
Sir Philip Baxter, a key player in Australia's original nuclear
program, wrote the preface to the Lindeman book. Baxter reasoned in the 1970's
that Australia was likely to
be the victim of a refugee invasion caused by overpopulation in the Third World. Baxter regarded Australia as a "lifeboat"
which might be "swamped" in this new century. He saw the invasion as
one partly organised by neighbours and partly the spontaneous reaction of those
desperate-for-life. For Baxter, Australia
was a piece a valuable real-estate and despite its unsuitability to mass
settlement, it was mistakenly seen by the poor of the earth as a land of milk
and honey. He recognised no ally as a permanent fixture. He asserted by
implication, a continental approach to survival by the rich, Australian
Continent. He urged an aggressive defence that used our advantages, up to and
including, the use of tactical nuclear devices on our soil - so as to disperse
enemy lodgements. Baxter was arguing that a crisis-period would require a
E.F. Azzopardi in the 1970's was familiar with Lindeman and Baxter and he
advanced a new synthetic theory which built upon these Australian contributors.
He definitely saw Australia
as a 'lifeboat' (an idea he borrowed freely from Sir Philip Baxter) in a world
of overpopulation and food crisis. He predicted climate change, global warming
and enviro-refugees. In his vision, the crisis was rendered apocalyptic through
the contentions of powerful states, anxious in any case for Australian
resources and global advantage. For Azzopardi, the new innovation involved a
recognition that the then Soviet Union was no ideological or national enemy,
but a conservative state locked in its own struggles with the Third World and China.
There was the likelihood of Northern Hemisphere nuclear engagement which would,
of necessity, establish the Southern Hemisphere as suitable real estate. In
that scenario, an Australian geo-politics would extend to a hemispheric
proportion. Azzopardi broke with any idea of Australian dependence on American
imperial alliances, indeed any alliances fashioned by the notion that we were
owed survival courtesy of a powerful friend. He would drive "this
continental chariot" to build a "new civilization" to rival
"the legendary Atlantis". Azzopardi grasped the idea that the Continent's
sheer wealth could ground Australian independence as much as lure others
(chiefly in Asia) to steal it, that these
riches could sustain a new Australian people's social and economic order. (8)
Today, we are witnesses to the essential validity of the opinions of Lindeman,
Baxter and Azzopardi, as shall be discussed below. We are indebted to their
Time has moved on since the 1970's. We saw a temporary collapse of the centre
of Eurasian power - Russia.
We witnessed the birth of central-world-island forcse in a revitalised
Islamicism and the continued growth of the Asian powerhouse, with the Chinese
superpower at its centre.
As noted, the fight waged by European nationalist forces today, has witnessed
geopolitics return as a major area of study. They speak of a Eurasian
revolution which will interlink the countries of Europe
into a new bloc. With Russian resources and western European technology, the
American regime can be excluded from Eurasia.
This power bloc would necessarily defend the common European Culture from any
threat from without. Nonetheless, we are aware these theorists write as
Europeans, not simply in the 'racial' sense, but in the capacity of their
We are 'Europeans' only by our ethnos. We must write as Australians and in so far as we read this literature, we
must interpret its theoretical bases to our own requirements - and/or follow
its logic as aspects of our appreciation for our own survival. Essentially,
however, as Stephensen put it, we Australians "will defend ourselves"
- and do so from our own specifications.
'Foundation' And Early History Were Governed By Geopolitics
The settlement of Botany Bay in 1788, was not simply a reaction to the social
tensions within the Britain
of the early industrial revolution. Rather, we can appreciate the British
imperial logic which saw France
as a European - indeed world - rival. One year before the French Revolution, Britain looked
to building naval base, store and pivotal point for control of the vast seas of
the South Pacific. Even decades later, Western Australia was proclaimed as a
colony to ensure French interests stayed off the Continent.
So it was. Although Australia
was regulated as a prison, it was strictly administered in a manner which
defied the development of a new area of mass British and European settlement.
Crown lands were closed and grants were large and offered to 'reliable'
persons. The economy was groomed for the export of primary products and
industry curtailed. Essentially, Australia's vast continental wealth
and geographic position were pawns in a wider chess game. The British imperial
position altered after the gold rushes from 1851, but in direction, if not in
Around this time, the 'Russian scare' operated in colonial life. Colonial
Australians considered themselves under the Russian gun. Russia's wars in Afghanistan
in the 1860's were considered a threat to British India
- and ergo a threat to the survival of the Australian colonies. Australian
freedom was considered by the bunyip aristocrats challenged by Russia,
simply because Russia
challenged the British Empire in Asia.
The Federation movement however, discounted such a threat. It looked to Australia's position near Asia
as determinant of the country's foreign policy needs. The Federation movement
was torn, between its understanding of the Australian future and its place
within an Empire. Within the embrace of the alien Empire, a new spirit of Place
The opposition to the imperial vision centred on Australian continentalism. It
was no real accident that the Fathers of Federation considered confederation
with New Zealand; the Tasman Sea presented no great barrier to close relations
and the fate of the two countries was linked. The two countries bonded in new
ways as the Twentieth Century unfolded, until we can no longer consider
ourselves foreigners to each other. We share the ANZAC mythology. The two
countries share a destiny and will suffer the same fate unless a commonality of
purpose prevails. The geopolitical argument would have both countries in a con-federal bond. Their confederation
would add geometrically to the strength of the whole and is entirely natural.
The ANZAC confederation would - again - demonstrate the importance of sea-power,
as a challenge and as a defence.
Yet, it is a contradiction of our nature that, founded by sea power as our
country was (and the New Zealanders too), the Australians have failed to become
a maritime people. Was it that we thought ourselves a branch of an Empire which
had a great navy and merchant marine such that we could ignore our needs? Was
it that we were willing to pay the price of protection by offering land armies
for slaughter? This contradiction must be settled. It could be historically settled
in antithesis: whereas the Australian people look inwards for the reserves of
their identity and strength, they project outwards a sturdiness and vitality
founded upon genuine sense of trade for advantage and fraternal intervention in
common human culture, politics and other endeavours, to create around us a
quilt of free peoples who look to Australia as their friend against all
hegemonism and imperialism. (9)
The inherent quality of our continentalism is rejection of the politics of
adventure and war; continentalism imposes a defensive and otherwise
peace-seeking quality to our nationalism - a firm rule of our geopolitics.
4. The Ongoing Revolution In Asia-Pacific Politics
The Asia-Pacific region has been a new focus of world-politics since the clash
of Russian and Japanese arms in 1904-5. Indeed, it was this defeat of the white
power by the yellow power, which revolutionised the politics of the day.
It was the Asia-Pacific region that took on the challenge of rivalling the
great European world-island powers. The sea powers like the United States and Japan contended over the
high-population areas and the sparsely populated islands amidst the seascape.
Each sought to build resources to interfere on the Asian continent.
Another rule of our geopolitics: the
primary threat to Australia
can only come from Asia.
The defeat of Russia
encouraged the formation of a national militia, universal arms training and the
foundation of an Australian Navy. The new enemy in the national mind became Japan, despite the existence of an alliance
between our imperial overlord and Japan. Indeed, the important
political book The Australian Crisis, (1909) predicted a Japanese
organized 'refugee invasion' of the Northern
Territory and the temporary loss of part of the Continent
thanks in part to betrayal by the Empire.
The dependence of Australia
upon Great Britain, which
took Australia into a denial
of her geopolitical and national interests during the First World War,
validated (without anyone knowing for decades) Australia's
suspicion of Japan.
During the war, Japan
intended a sneak-occupation of Australia
whilst our troops were overseas.
The inability of Europe to guard Australia from Japanese imperialism
was a fact not lost upon Australians - even when they professed imperial
loyalties. It compelled a sense of localist nationalism and an awareness of our
geographic place. This awareness extended into the era when Australia's
interests merged into those of the American superpower which straddled the
The economic transformation of Asia over the last four decades, in league with
the American superpower (first under the guise of the anti-communist crusade
and later under the form of liberal globalisation), has once again highlighted Australia's
dependence. The Continent has become an export platform, a military base, a
factor in the economic development of Asia,
its borders broken open and its pretension to sovereignty cast aside. Australia is conceived as part of Asia because we are adjacent to it and our economic
wealth of service to its development. Indeed, the political class has staked Australia's future upon submergence into Asia (sic).
appears to be a small power. But possession of a Continent placed as it is,
makes of us a potentially 'larger' power. It is a perversity of thought-process
that causes the political class to see Australia simply as a place 'at the
end' of a chain of Asian islands. It went so far that one journalist, waxing
lyrical, described Darwin
as a "south Asian town".
The former land-bridge that brought the old races to the Continent (now the
Indonesian archipelago and which 'points south' towards us, such that
Asianisers announce the Continent 'part of Asia'), is by reverse logic a sphere
in which Australia has keen interests apposite to the survival struggle.
A national revolutionary war against Indonesia might be inevitable. Australia and Indonesia are always enemies. Only
shallow seas separate the two countries. A singular geographic reality, a
continental shelf line rich in oil, is deeply contentious. Indonesian
colonialism in New Guinea is
a direct threat to Australian security as much as any Australian plan to play a
role amongst Pacific and Melanesian peoples threatens the stability of Indonesia.
Indeed, geopolitics demands Australia
seek the fragmentation of the present Indonesian state. Interestingly, a
national revolutionary war with Indonesia,
which covets northern Australia
in any case, might induce deep social and political change in our country
whereby war-measures-logic would allow a new State to cut deep into the
underpinnings of the old-regime. In that sense, such a war may have that
The Asian states to our north are diverse and hardly likely to remain friends
in the era of the emergence of Chinese imperialism. Australia
should, rightly, fear this 'Asia'. However,
like Indonesia, Asia generally is a patchwork of peoples imprisoned
inside states whose boundaries were formed in the era of European imperialism. Australia,
rightly, would welcome popular struggles to break up these states, or to
federalise these states. That discussion takes us beyond our subject, except to
note that: crisis could produce refugee floods and stimulate Chinese hegemonist
activities, issues which return us to the discussion of geopolitics. The
ongoing revolution of Asian life is a direct challenge to Australian survival.
Geopolitical Advantages And Disadvantages In The World Struggle
In securing Australian independence, we must take full stock of the
geopolitical situation in plus and minus.
is an island. It can only be approached by sea. The threat could materialise
courtesy of the naval forces of the American superpower or of the naval power
of the rising Chinese superpower, via climate refugees, or unarmed
'asylum-seeker' invaders, or by the infiltration forces of weaker states like Indonesia. This
is all bad enough; however Australia
can be struck at from far away by missiles, by aircraft and now by the fallout
of nuclear, chemical or biological engagement.
Because Australia can mobilize fully, because Australia is one of the few
states which can employ in the most
extreme circumstances even tactical nuclear warfare on its own soil to destroy
an enemy lodgement or invasion armada, because Australia has food supplies
in abundance and other economic resources, conveys to the defence a massive
advantage over an enemy who tries to affect lodgement and who thus relies on
supplies from far away. We have considerable defensive advantages because it is
essentially beyond our national purpose to engage in aggressive conduct.
The idea of continentalism compels Australians to the strategic defensive: a
firm military rule arising from geopolitics.
Of course, our long coastlines present problems of surveillance and wide
opportunities for lodgement. The Arnhem Land and Cape York areas - and possibly
region - are vulnerable points. The use of modern rocketry and other invasive
techniques threaten us by assisting lodgement.
We are by virtue of these geographical facts in difficulty against unarmed
invasion. We cannot predict the necessary and harsh means by which such an
invasion would have to be repelled. Our humanity may recoil at the methods, but
our sense of the higher good would impel us.
The Continent is large and inhospitable. The potential for warfare on this vast
space is untested. Reasonably, we would expect clear advantages over an enemy
who must come from far away. However, such an enemy may not plan full subjugation,
but have the intention of seizing and keeping only a parcel of our land-space.
For us, the idea of space, no less than
for the Russian of 1941-2, offers us a powerful lever to defeat an enemy. Being able to trade space for time, to ravage
our space and operate from it, would be one additional military expression of
Our politics must necessarily look towards the peaceful resolution of
population problems, of building a cordon of friendly states between ourselves
and potential aggressor states (where necessary favouring the break-up of Indonesia
and other post-colonial states), of having useful alliances amongst the Pacific
and Melanesian peoples.
6. The Vision Splendid. Australian Continentalism
And The Idea Of Eurasia: The Complementary
Ideas Of Economic Freedom And Sovereignty In Trade And Development Between
If there was a Paris-Berlin-Moscow Axis, a great political revolution that
unites Europe and its 'Asian' territories in Russia,
a grand Europe from Galway to Vladivostok,
we would see a bloc of such economic and political power that the American
superpower would be excluded from much of the world-island. Such a bloc could
confront Chinese imperialism. It could successfully defend itself and project
its power. It could preserve the patrimony of Indo-European culture.
All this is a matter of no minor significance. European politics lurches slowly
towards this mighty possibility. From within the depths of the old regime,
integrative measures occur through historical forces that foreshadow the
future. We have seen this in the binding of the European economies, the
creation of European defence forces, the making of European pacts to develop
Russian resources and with European opposition to some of the politics of
America/Zionism in the Middle East. However,
we must understand this in still superficial; Europe is still liberal,
capitalist Europe, while Russia is still in transition and is necessarily
guarded in its dealings with bourgeois Europe. Overall, pan-European policies
are cast in the politics of the local West European bourgeois elite operating
occasionally against its Atlanticist allies. But history runs deep and compels
players to act against their wills.
When will and vision unite, we would have a different combination. That
'revolution' is being prepared in the patient labours of the Euro-nationalist
forces in both Western and Eastern Europe.
When it will come, we cannot say.
It is reasonably the case that the idea of Eurasia
signifies a recognition that planet is multi-polar. The Eurasian system would
be one of a number of systems: a Moslem bloc, an Indian sub-continent bloc, an
Asian zone under Chinese hegemony, a North American system and so on. States
and peoples would gravitate towards where their ethnic or spiritual allegiances
compel them. Such a world would belie the New World Order imperialism of
globalist capitalism. It is noted that in 1997 Russia
signed treaties that recognised the idea of the "multi-polar" world.
ability to impose order in the South Pacific indicates a fraternal future for
its peoples. Australia's
role in rescuing weaker peoples from the crises of population and environment
would establish a strong base for Australian trade and naval-mercantile
activity, although this would not be done via any transmigration. An Australian
Pacific regionalist policy would assist Australia in closing the South
Pacific to imperialism. Australia
can build on the former achievements of British and French activity in the
South Pacific unilaterally and within the pattern of a Eurasian relationship.
An independent Australian Continent-nation allied with New Zealand and active in the South Pacific
presents a mighty opportunity for appropriate trade with Eurasia
and for a strategic friendship of value to both. Australian power exercised
anywhere in the Southern Hemisphere, would complement the great Northern
Hemispheric power of Eurasia. It could only
give a firmer basis to the dealings of European peoples with the peoples of Asia. It would also add weight to the forces that must
guarantee the continuity of the Indo-European patrimony.
7. Multipolar Cultural Sovereignties: The Moral Underpinning Of Australian
The geopolitical theory all but presupposes that within particular zones,
particular peoples and cultures hold sway.
The real idea of 'diversity', so often touted as a multiculturalist slogan in
Australian politics, has no other meaning for us than as the proper way to
describe the planet - and not one's suburb. In that regard, diversity is the
rule and the goal.
The existence of different human cultural zones is a positive thing and one
sure to blossom up from under the concrete pavements of modern globalist
capitalism. As peoples reject the loss of identity implicit in globalisation,
they re-form around eternal ideas like ethnicity, territory and culture. In
that regard, a true world revolution is coming.
When the former Bulletin magazine
proclaimed "Australia For The White Man" on its masthead, it
announced that a particular ethnos would occupy a Continent. It is a stand to
which we adhere. It is a position that does not threaten others. However, it is
the case our right must be defended.
The de-globalisation of nation-states presents the chance for peoples to
co-exist in peace. Whilst we recognise several intersecting crises in the
foreseeable future - and while we can see a period of war soon to break - we
reason these things foreshadow a better era. The transition from one epoch to
the next is not a dinner party. Yet the result guarantees genuine diversity and
The multipolar vision is the only option for peoples to counterpose to
globalisation. It possesses a moral power which can be employed in the
Australian struggle against the internal liberal-globalist enemy. It suggests
that in an era of great-space thinking, the Australian Continent has been
acquired by a group which intends to maintain its culture and physical presence
there, a continuity that reaches back into earlier ages.
8. Australian Independence
And Southern Hemispheric Geopolitical Facts
It is also obvious that Australia
'sits' in the Southern Hemisphere. The main problems of over-population sit on
the world-island, but the main dangers of thermo-nuclear warfare are in the
Northern Hemisphere. It is equally true that the Southern Hemisphere provides
vast areas of real estate of great allurement to the burgeoning masses of the Third World's poor (including masses of Southern
Hemisphere poor). These masses need not be animated by war, but could become
restive through factors related to the crisis of food and population or climate
change and environmental destruction.
In asserting a hemispheric dimension to our geopolitics, we necessarily escape
from a concern only with the seas and lands adjacent to us and take on a still wider
We recognise the importance of New
Zealand (as above) and the
European-ethnic-based nations of the Hemisphere to our cultural and economic
future. We assert the rights of all in the Hemisphere to independence from
imperialism, particularly in the case of all South Americans, from American
imperialism. But we desire too the survival of those peoples related to us. We
balance the two commitments. By uniting with all nonetheless, we undermine the
position of American imperialism. We contribute to isolating the American
regime. This could only work to bolster our South Pacific position.
The Antarctic Continent should be secured as a biospheric sanctuary and be
protected by the Australian and South American states. Development (sic) must
be excluded. This happy eventuality can only be achieved by united action. Such
action would show Australia
to be a responsible state. The potential of Antarctica
for scientific and similar purposes cannot be underestimated. Such an
eventuality would provide further significance to the relationship with a
It follows too that parts of the Southern Hemisphere do not yet suffer the full
effects of environmental degradation. We would intend to keep it that way. Such
'bio-politics' must look towards the management of the environment to stave off
human conflict in the zones around us, yet of course - any success attracts
invaders from elsewhere. It would also encourage the spirit of defence!
The Call To Struggle For Australian Independence
We European-Australians are the stewards of a biosphere. We are the upholders
of the Indo-European ethos. Yet, we are a new nationality with its greater
story still to be written.
We stand astride a Continent wracked by the scars of exploitation, yet still a
cornucopia of wealth. It is our Commonwealth upon which we can build the
social-republic out of the dreams of our labour movement of the Nineteenth and
early Twentieth centuries.
In this time of strife, we take up the words of national poet Henry Lawson and
"look to our own" in the time when, "the South must look to the
South for strength in the storm that is yet to break." (10) We are
prepared to "write in the book of fate", "our stormy histories".
We are "the Outpost of the White", but also as a new nationality we
will play a liberating role in our geopolitical zone for weaker peoples. In an
ANZAC bond, we also ensure the future of the European in the South Pacific and
in the Hemisphere.
Australian independence from the New World Order system is the beginning of a
truly great project in nation building, a small aspect of the development of a
multi-polar world. We shall complete the Promise of the Nineteenth Century.
Implicit in the idea is the call to arms for we may need to fight a national
revolutionary war in our defence and address other just-as-real threats. We are
a Continent for a Nation and a Nation for a Continent. We have advantages in
this quest for identity and independence.
In thinking geopolitically, we unite Time and Space. We appreciate our
potential to become a significant force in our region, indeed in the Southern
Hemisphere generally. We intend to survive our time. We have a new tradition of
spatial thinking to embrace. The harsh Continent may yet breed, in Percy
Stephensen's terms, those "crude men" who will save "White
Man : “Turning Evolution Upside Down”, at http://www.convictcreations.com/aborigines/prehistory.htm (April 1 2011). The reader should note that Australia’s
bio-antiquity is a subject fought over in Gramscian culture wars.
3. Rex Gilroy, “Carving out a New History Ancient engravings found
near Botany Bay suggest that Spanish explorers
reached the famous inlet two centuries
before Capt. Cook.” http://www.mysteriousaustralia.com/carving_a_new_history.html Internet: April 1 2011
4. Williams, Mark R. In Search Of
Lemuria; The Lost Pacific Continent In Legend, Myth And Imagination. Golden Era Books: 2001.
5. I discuss some of these themes in Jim Saleam:
“The Other Radicalism: An Inquiry Into Contemporary Australian Extreme Right Ideology, Politics
And Organization 1975-1995”, PhD Thesis,
University of Sydney, 1999 – especially in Chapter 2.
6. Lindeman, Nicholas. Japan Threat: Australia And New Zealand In The Coming World
Crisis. Armidale: 1978.
7. “Sir Phillip Baxter”, Advance, No.3, December 1977, p2.
8. Jim Saleam, passim.
9. A secret document prepared by Minister for Foreign
Affairs Dr Evatt on the matter of the trusteeship of dependent territories, 4
John Curtin Prime
Ministerial Library. Colonial policy 1945. JCPML00869. Courtesy National
Archives of Australia:
A1066, P45/153/2 part 2
10. Henry Lawson, Australian national
poet and political thinker 1967-1922.