Site hosted by Build your free website today!

The Asianisation of Australia: volume 3, part 2

Part Two

The "New Class"

The people who comprise the bulk of the current Establishment in Australia are from that section of the population termed the "New Class" (generally referred to as "cosmopolitans"; and referred to by many nationalists as the "Traitor Class"). This New Class, simply put, is in essence the "Lost Generation" of the 1960s and 1970s, whereby much of that generation came under political and social influences that imbued them with a general ideology (or "world-view") of liberal-internationalism.

As can be generally observed, each rising generation slowly replaces the previous generation as the nation's "Establishment"; that is, people of the upcoming generation eventually come into positions of influence and power within political parties, the media, the education system, business, unions, the legal system, and the public service; in particular, we are discussing the highly educated elite of the upcoming generation (generally, they are university-educated), as it is the highly educated of the new generation that eventually rise into, and then come to dominate, the "Establishment" of the country. This is the natural progression of generations. However, it is unfortunate that certain historical, political, and social circumstances combined so as to produce a new elite that generally holds a liberal-internationalist viewpoint. Of course, in speaking of trends regarding changing generations, we must recognise that we are looking at general trends, and that there will always be large numbers of the specified social group that are not part of the overall trend of the new generation.

Padraic McGuinness (former editor of the Australian Financial Review) has discussed the concept of the New Class in The Age: Australia's "New Class" is based upon the tertiary-educated white-collar middle class and professionals. In basic terms, the ideology of this New Class is liberal- internationalism; and therefore they are generally supporters of mass immigration, multiculturalism, and Asianisation (although not referring to the latter as such, being more likely to use terms as "Asian destiny" or "integration with Asia").

It is clear that such a New Class exits, and carries with it a liberal- internationalist ideology that is very different to the ideology of the Australian Establishment of the 1900s to 1950s, which was characterised as generally patriotic, socially conservative, pro-White Australia, and pro-British.

The New Class grew out of the student generation of the 1960s and 1970s (university- based in particular) that opposed: 1) the White Australia Policy (we should recognise the influence of contact with Asian/Third World university students via the Colombo Plan, as well as with the university-based immigration reform groups), 2) the Vietnam War, and 3) conscription (the latter two, in particular, raised much debate, and resulted in student "crusades").

The New Class enabled its own further growth when it came to dominate the universities via 1) older students graduating into academic teaching positions, 2) the university recruitment of "New Class" academics from America, and 3) the oppressive "politically correct" atmosphere generated within the universities by New Class ideological-political-social-academic "thuggery" (the effective harassment and intimidation of those in the universities - academics in particular - who differed from, or opposed, the general liberal-internationalist viewpoint). This domination of the universities (as well as the primary and secondary education systems, which came to be dominated by the university-graduated New Class teachers of the 1960s and 1970s) led to the subtle indoctrination of the upcoming student generations by New Class teachers constantly espousing their liberal-internationalist views.

It is important to note that the longer students stay within the education system, the more likely they are to be subtly "brainwashed" by the continual and insidious effect of having their views moulded by liberal-internationalist teachers (whose teachings are affected and coloured by their beliefs and ideology). As these new students then themselves become teachers/academics, the New Class becomes a self- perpetuating circle. However, the New Class' ideological hold upon academia, media, and politics cannot be regarded as absolute, and may yet face another generation's "backlash".

Dr Katharine Betts (of Swinburne University) has noted the links between immigration, multiculturalism, and the New Class: As Padraic McGuinness has noted, the New Class views its own beliefs as morally good; and therefore it sees its liberal-internationalist views, and subsequent actions, in a self-righteous light. This explains "the undemocratic nature of Asianisation"; that is, why Multiculturalists and Asianisers are quite prepared to trample on democracy with hob-nailed boots (happily stomping upon other people's rights and freedoms in the process).

New Class liberal-internationalists self-righteously believe that only their general ideology and world-view is correct, and cannot conceive that any opposing viewpoint could be correct; and do not want to allow opposing viewpoints to express themselves, or - especially - to let them grow and gain wider support (as would normally happen in a democracy). Thus, anyone opposing immigration, multiculturalism, or Asianisation may become subject to social-political-legal- economic "thuggery" from the Establishment-New Class, whether it be social intimidation (see the antics of the media), political/legal oppression (see the various so-called racial vilification laws), or economic harassment (withdrawal of government contracts, economic boycotts, or deliberately damaging media attacks upon individuals, leading to the loss of jobs or business).

Mark Uhlmann, editor of The Record magazine, has written of such harassment as being The Herald has reported the views of Tony Fitzgerald, former head of the Fitzgerald Inquiry into corruption in Queensland, who has warned against the pressure, and social intimidation, which stops many Australians from speaking out: That the New Class holds quite different views to the general population has been demonstrated by Professor Ian McAllister (of the Australian Defence Forces Academy, University of New South Wales). McAllister has compared the views of general voters (from the 1990 Australian Election Study) with the views of the political Establishment (from a survey of all major-party candidates in the 1990 federal election): McAllister has shown the divergence of views held by the "elite" and the "mass" (the people) by referring to the following survey re. attitudes to immigration:



                                 Elite (all       Mass
                                 major parties)   (all voters)

Gone much too far                 8               29
Gone too far                     28               29
About right                      50               34
Not gone far enough              11                7
Not gone nearly far enough        3                2

                                 Elite            Mass
                                 (Labor)          (Labor voters)

Gone much too far                 1               28
Gone too far                     17               28
About right                      68               34
Not gone far enough               9                7
Not gone nearly far enough        6                2

                                 Elite            Mass
                                 (Liberal         (Liberal-
                                 -National)       National voters)

Gone much too far                 8               31
Gone too far                     34               30
About right                      41               32
Not gone far enough               6                6
Not gone nearly far enough        4                1

                                 Elite            Mass
                                 (Democrat)       (Democrat voters)

Gone much too far                14                27
Gone too far                     31                26
About right                      43                38
Not gone far enough               8                 8
Not gone nearly far enough        4                 1

A later poll (published in the Herald Sun, 16 December 1996, page 8) confirmed these differences:



                                Elite            Mass
                                (all parties)    (all voters)

Gone much too far                7               33
Gone too far                    25               29
About right                     54               30
Not gone far enough             11                6
No response                      3                2

As stated earlier, the differences between the views of "our leaders" and that of most Australians extends to many other social questions, as evidenced by this poll (made at the same time as the above poll on immigration):



                                Elite            Mass
                                (all parties)    (all voters)

Very proud                      22               37
Fairly proud                    37               41
Little or no pride              38               18
No response                      3                4

Such differences, between mass and elite on various issues of social contention, have been further noted by McAllister: Remembering that the population basis of the New Class is, as previously noted, the tertiary-educated white-collar middle class and professionals; we can compare the attitudes of the university-educated, and of the highly paid (which presumably includes a high level of those who have been university-educated), to that of other Australians in the following opinion polls:

27 August 1984, The Age.
Poll by Irving Saulwick and Associates.
2000 people interviewed, nationwide, July 1984.

"Australia should accept as migrants:"

Response:                              General           Tertiary
                                       population:       graduates:
                                         %                  %

Suitable migrants from any country      37                 59
Those who have the skills we need       36                 56
People who have relatives here          24                 36
Refugees                                18                 39
People with money to invest here        15                 22
Europeans only                           6                  3
Australia should not accept any
 migrants at the present time           34                 17
Don't know/Not stated                    2                  1

Note 1: The "general population" result includes the "tertiary graduates" (New Class) group and therefore the real "general" result, if those of the New Class were not counted, would be even more markedly different to the result of the "tertiary graduates" as seen here.

Note 2: Of course, while the population basis of the New Class is, as has been noted earlier in this chapter, primarily the tertiary-educated white-collar middle class and professionals, obviously not everyone from that background will hold the ideology of the New Class. However, it must be emphasised, that the specified social group does provide the bulk of the ideological adherents of the New Class.

4 October 1996, The Australian, p. 4.
Poll by Newspoll.
1200 people, interviewed by telephone, nationwide, 27-29 September 1996.

"Thinking now about immigration. Do you personally think that the total number of migrants coming into Australia each year is too high, too low or about right? If too high - is that a lot too high or a little too high? If too low - is that a lot too low or a little too low?"

Response:               Household income:
                        Less than     $30,000     $50,000
                        $30,000       $49,999     plus
                          %             %           %

A lot too high           59            48          38
A little too high        21            22          20
Total too high           80            70          58

A little too low          *             1           3
A lot too low             1             1           1
Total too low             1             2           4

About right              14            22          31

Uncommitted               5             6           7

Note 1: * = less than 0.5%

Note 2: It has been theorised that as many individuals "climb up the social ladder", whether in business, politics, community organisations, etc, the further they climb, the more they are compromised by having to agree with the predominant New Class ideology within those circles. Especially in business, where so much trade in now being carried on with Asia; many may change their views as they become more Asia-orientated through business and personal wealth gain, a matter of "money first, Australia second".

Looking at the above polls on immigration, we can see the great differences between the views of the Establishment (New Class) and those of the general public. This is not a case of the country's elite "not being in touch with the views of the common people"; but instead it shows that those who "rule" Australia actually hold a different set of views (that is, they hold a different world-view or ideology) to the views of the general Australian population.

The current Establishment in Australia, comprising people of the New Class, generally believes in the world-view known as liberal-internationalism, and thus they are willing to continue on with programmes of mass immigration, multiculturalism, and Asianisation, no matter what the majority of the Australian people want. Therefore, it should be clearly understood that "our leaders" do not hold the interests of the Australian nation and the Australian people at heart.

Note: Sometimes "smart alec" liberal-internationalists ask "If this is the case, then how come these people of the New Class still represent the common people in parliament?" The fact is that whilst the common people hold views against Asian immigration, this is but one view they hold amongst many, so that the economic issues - which are, by necessity, so important to them - are generally catered for by the mainstream political parties, and therefore most of the common people feel no great or desperate need to begin a new political party. Of course, those who view immigration as the main concern facing Australia may try to begin a new political party in response to objecting to the current mainstream political party, but this is as easy as starting a new mainstream newspaper in response to objecting to the pro-multiculturalist and anti-Australian bias of the current mainstream newspapers - the points are the same: 1) voter/client trends are so well entrenched as to favour the existing mainstream bodies, 2) much money is needed, and 3) the media support, coverage, and validation (which is so very important) are just not available. Of course, Pauline Hanson (at the time of publication) is doing admirably in striving to create a new mainstream political party, but the original rush of support for her was generated by the simple media reporting of her activities (albeit negative reporting), whereas (at the time of publication) now the cosmopolitan- internationalists in the media have realised this and are instead continually carrying out deliberate media "hatchet jobs" (heavily and actively biased "reporting") upon Pauline Hanson and her new One Nation party so as to damage her support (a "clever" tactic which appears to be working, judging by a lessening of support for Ms Hanson as reported in subsequent public opinion polls).

The Asianisation of Australia:
Opinion Polls, the Traitor Class, and the Yellow Peril (Volume 3)

Australian Nationalism Information Database -