We Are Closed. Australia has become corrupted by a corrosive mix of nihilism and embraced a radical liberal ideology that celebrates the rejection of anything from the past that could stabilise society including any inheritance of previous forms of culture. You just have to look at the abuse thrown towards our staff in the past few years to realise this, what is old is no longer deemed necessary & indeed something that must be replaced. We had no choice but to close.
She has an East Asian name and an East Asian face, yet she does not speak a single East Asian language and can barely communicate with an entire side of her own family.
Raised white, married white, raising her children white, and having spent her entire career in the white monoculture of Canberra, she nevertheless condemns any suggestion of a monoculture.
She has advocated for LGBT rights throughout her life, yet has never seriously advocated for Asian rights — consistently placing her sexuality ahead of her cultural heritage.
She should go back to Malaysia and learn some Chinese so she can reconnect with her ancestors’ culture.
As Foreign Minister she does not appear to recognise that the Chinese-Australian community might have any useful role in shaping national security policy — yet somehow $150 million in donations to secret offshore trust accounts will keep Australia safer.
The Cruel Irony: Pauline Hanson May Be Chinese Australians Only Hope for Racial Equality
残酷的讽刺：保琳·韩森或许是澳洲华人实现种族平等的唯一希望
Australia banned Chinese immigration outright while every other Anglo nation merely taxed it. No major party can apologise — the historical baggage is built into their founding myths. So who is left to champion racial equality for Chinese Australians?
@PaulineHansonOz · @OneNationAus — the tweet that sparked the argument
The cruel irony for Chinese Australians is that Pauline Hanson (@PaulineHansonOz) and One Nation (@OneNationAus) may be our only option for racial equality.
In 2002, New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark stood up in the Beehive and apologised to the Chinese community in New Zealand over the “poll tax” imposed on Chinese migrants to NZ. No Australian leader will ever do the same. Here’s why.
The ALP is, in fact, the party of John Curtin, Australia’s World War II wartime leader (and the leader of Australian civilization in Civilization VI). After witnessing the atrocities committed by the yellow Japanese race and having lost the best of a generation of young men in the war, Curtin essentially turned the Immigration Restriction Act 1901 into a formal ban on the other yellow Chinese race to Australia under the policies now known as the White Australia Policy.
While other Anglo nations such as the US, New Zealand and Canada imposed poll taxes on Chinese immigrants, essentially tolls designed to limit excessive Chinese immigration, Australia was the only Anglo country to outright ban Chinese immigration. That legacy continues today, which is why mixed-race “halfies” such as Ella Gross, Alysa Liu and Eileen Gu are celebrated not merely as white-passing but as aspirational figures with their own fandoms in the US but Australia lacks anyone similar.
“Australia’s public discourse has never really left the ‘two Wongs don’t make a White’ (two Wrongs don’t make a Right) era — and neither major party can afford to leave it.”
“澳大利亚的公共话语从未真正走出‘两个黄凑不成一个白’的时代——而两大政党都承担不起离开它的代价。”
Public discourse in Australia has essentially never left the “two Wongs don’t make a White” (two Wrongs don’t make a Right) era. Although Gough Whitlam ended the formal ban on Chinese immigration, the ALP can never apologize for the White Australia Policy because it would undermine the entire legacy of John Curtin.
The Liberals love to remind the public that they are the party of Robert Menzies, who earned the nickname “Pig Iron Bob” during the 1938 Dalfram dispute. That dispute arose when Port Kembla waterside workers refused to load 23,000 tons of pig iron bound for Japan onto the steamship SS Dalfram, in protest against Japan’s invasion of China.
Robert Menzies, then Attorney-General and Minister for Industry, took a rigid stance against the strike, insisting that foreign policy and trade were strictly matters for the government rather than the unions. To break the boycott, Menzies enforced the controversial Transport Workers Act 1928 (the “Dog Collar Act”), which threatened striking workers with blacklisting and loss of employment through mandatory work licences.
For the Chinese Australian community, Menzies’ actions were seen as direct economic and industrial enablement of Japanese military aggression. Coming shortly after the 1937 Nanjing Massacre and the widespread atrocities of the Second Sino-Japanese War, the exported pig iron was understood to be raw material for Japanese weaponry used against Chinese civilians. Chinese Australians were actively organising relief funds and boycotts in support of China’s defence; Menzies’ actions were a direct slap in the face.
Whilst Pauline Hanson has supported aspects of the White Australia Policy, she does not carry the same historical baggage as John Curtin and Robert Menzies — hence she is perhaps the only ally Chinese Australians can look towards for racial equality.
“澳大利亚的公共话语从未真正走出‘两个黄凑不成一个白’的时代——而两大政党都承担不起离开它的代价。”
“Australia’s public discourse has never really left the ‘two Wongs don’t make a White’ era — and neither major party can afford to leave it.”
澳大利亚的公共话语实质上从未走出“两个王/黄凑不成一个白”（two Wongs don’t make a White）谐音“错上加错不等于对”（two Wrongs don’t make a Right）的时代。虽然高夫·惠特拉姆结束了对华移民的正式禁令，但工党永远不可能为白澳政策道歉，因为这将动摇约翰·柯廷的整个政治遗产。
自由党喜欢提醒公众，他们是罗伯特·孟席斯的政党。孟席斯在1938年的达尔弗拉姆争端中获得了“生铁鲍勃”（Pig Iron Bob）的绰号。这场争端源于肯布拉港的水边工人拒绝将23,000吨运往日本的生铁装载上”达尔弗拉姆号”蒸汽船，以抗议日本入侵中国。
A Myth of the Gods for Australian Politics · 众神的神话 · 澳洲政治
Stop Letting the Elites Redefine Populism as the Grievance Vote
别再让精英把民粹主义重新定义为”怨气票”
Prometheus stole fire from Olympus and gave it to humanity. In the temple of the Australian gods, they still punish anyone who makes the fire flow the wrong way.
⚡🏛🔥🦅⚱⚡🏛🔥🦅⚱⚡🏛🔥🦅
Stop Letting the Elites Redefine Populism as the Grievance Vote
Laura Tingle, the ABC’s global affairs editor, has declared that grievance is having a political moment. In Australia, she argues, a tide of voter grievance has delivered Pauline Hanson and One Nation to a position that threatens both major parties.
It is a clever frame. Call it grievance, and you never have to call it what it actually is: power moving in the wrong direction.
The subtext is unmistakable. The system needs reform, certainly, but it is not broken. Work hard, maintain the right attitude, follow the same path that Tingle and her class followed, and you too will rise. The outcome will be the same for everyone.
This is the elite’s favourite myth — that populism is merely grievance in disguise, a tantrum thrown by those who failed to thrive inside the machinery. But they have it backwards. Populism is not grievance. Populism is the natural, repeating correction of history, the moment when power remembers it belongs to the people, not the machine.
Before The Odyssey and the walls of Troy, there was Prometheus. He stole fire from Olympus and gave it to mortal hands. The gods did not punish him because fire was evil — fire warms hearths and forges steel. They punished him because fire was power, and power, in the divine order, was meant to flow in one direction only: downward. From Zeus to the lesser gods, from kings to subjects. A chain. A hierarchy. A one-way street.
Prometheus broke the chain. For that, they chained him to a rock forever.
There is a reason the Australian political class speaks of Pauline Hanson as chaos and contagion. It is not because her policies are uniquely dangerous. It is because she represents something far more threatening to the established order.
She represents fire flowing uphill.
♟
The Machine Man
Midwinter Ball · Press Club · Caucus
The Closed Loop
Anthony Albanese is the modern political ideal in crystalline form. He entered the system young and never left it. Young Labor, factional chess, caucus rooms, ministerial offices, the Prime Minister’s courtyard. Every Midwinter Ball. Every Press Club speech. He knows the rules because the rules wrote him.
When he speaks, power flows to him. The machine made him, and he runs the machine. A closed loop. A perfect circuit.
Pauline Hanson is the circuit breaker.
🐟
The Conduit
Fish & Chip Shop Queen · Ipswich
The Circuit Breaker
She did not come from the staffer-to-MP pipeline. She came from a fish and chip shop in Ipswich. She rose because enough Australians, in enough towns the political class flies over, decided she should. She has never been invited to the Midwinter Ball. She does not speak the language of the Press Club. She is not shaped by the system; she is shaped by the people the system forgot.
When Hanson speaks, power does not flow to her from the system. It flows away from the system, through her, to the people who put her there. She is not the product. She is the conduit.
This is why the machinery treats her not as an opponent to be debated but as a malfunction to be repaired.
“The system protects its own because the system is its own. Hanson is exposed by the media and the commentariat not because she is uniquely flawed, but because she is uniquely outside. Every crack is magnified because she was never given armour.”
“体制保护它自己的人，因为体制本身就是自己人。媒体与评论界暴露汉森，不是因为她格外有缺陷，而是因为她格外在体制之外。每一条裂缝都被放大，因为她从未被赐予铠甲。”
And yet she persists. Not because the system sustains her, but because a constituency, marginal and mocked, keeps her there. They vote for her. They send their own money. They make her possible in spite of the system, not because of it.
That is the fire.
The establishment does not fear Hanson because she is dangerous. It fears her because she is evidence. Evidence that power can originate outside the clubrooms and the Canberra bubble. Evidence that a woman from a fish and chip shop can sit in the Senate not because the machine selected her, but because the people did.
🔥Prometheus was not punished for the fire itself. He was punished for the direction it travelled.普罗米修斯受罚，不是因为火本身。他受罚，是因为火的流向。
⚱
And in Australian politics, there is no greater crime than showing the people that the fire was theirs all along.
“体制保护它自己的人，因为体制本身就是自己人。媒体与评论界暴露汉森，不是因为她格外有缺陷，而是因为她格外在体制之外。每一条裂缝都被放大，因为她从未被赐予铠甲。”
“The system protects its own because the system is its own. Hanson is exposed by the media and the commentariat not because she is uniquely flawed, but because she is uniquely outside. Every crack is magnified because she was never given armour.”
Many Chinese people deep down look down on Indians, Filipinos, Vietnamese, and other such Asians, always thinking of themselves as the top tier of Asians alongside Japanese and Koreans. To be honest, the least united and least concerned with protecting group rights are the Chinese. Look at other ethnic groups they all have their own advocacy organizations, and when something happens, they band together. But the Chinese? A bunch of people gloating over others’ misfortune. Scum like those “Hua Chuan” types who only cheer for anti-Chinese sentiment are still everywhere today. The way Indians stick together is incredibly tight not just in Silicon Valley. Something a lot of people don’t know: in the U.S., the budget motel and cheap hotel industry is almost entirely monopolized by Indians; it’s all about that tight-knit encroachment. In healthcare, Filipinos are the absolute powerhouse. Vietnamese Americans have a monopoly-level dominance in the nail salon industry too.
The underlying reason in my opinion is that fundamentally all Chinese want a strong and advanced China for purely selfish reasons: because deep down every Chinese harbors the dream of being the Emperor of China one day, even overseas Chinese diaspora, hope to return and rule over China.
The core contradiction if it can be called that, is that many Chinese don’t want to serve or work for other Chinese and help their dream of ruling China, so Chinese will help and work with other races to get rich to get ahead of other Chinese in the goal of ruling China by themselves.
Four of the children that were allegedly involved in a melee that led to the death of Victorian grandfather Van Viet Truong have been released on bail.https://t.co/37q9Hy7J3O
Pauline Hanson can’t govern the country from Ipswitch.
She needs a populist suburban core to balance the country vote.
Western suburbs of Melbourne is simply a better fit than Western suburbs of Sydney, because the Sydney establishment can just parachute tossers like Andrew Charlton into western Sydney seats like Parramatta, but Melbourne’s West and South East will reject a similar stage prop because they are dominated by Asians who can smell a fraud from a mile away.
The Right doesn’t care about Asian Lives, but they need Melbourne’s West, so the paradox becomes clear, the path to Power is via Asians
170 nuclear warheads 🇵🇰 G20 membership 🇸🇦🇹🇷 OPEC leadership 🇸🇦 NATO membership and one of NATO’s largest armies 🇹🇷 Total economic size of 3 trillion dollars 🇵🇰🇸🇦🇹🇷 1,000 fighter jets 🇵🇰🇸🇦🇹🇷 Total 2 million personnel in the armies 🇸🇦🇹🇷🇵🇰 7,000 tanks 🇸🇦🇹🇷🇵🇰 90,000 armored vehicles 🇸🇦🇹🇷🇵🇰 34 submarines 🇹🇷🇵🇰 500 combat and naval platforms 🇸🇦🇹🇷🇵🇰 Total surface area of 4 million square kilometers 🇸🇦🇹🇷🇵🇰 Soon F-35 for Saudi Arabia and Turkey 🇸🇦🇹🇷
Iran is now firmly locked in Sino-Russian camp. No other good options for Iran
Advance Australia might just be the biggest dumb cunts ever. They spent millions attacking the ALP’s China policy, what if the actual preference of the People’s Republic for PM of Oztraya is the small town Ipswich fish & chip owner, that just wants to restore Australia’s cultural ethos, close its borders and stop with its stupid Indo-Pacific policy. Advance can’t even attack One Nation because they are right wing, conservative and populist, attacking Pauline is tantamount to attacking the will of the people now.
The ALP-Greens Gaza Distraction: How Labor Works Hand in Hand With the Greens to Distract the Public About the One Issue That Could Fracture Their Actual Coalition: Immigration
Every few months the same theatre plays out. The Greens accuse Labor of complicity in a humanitarian catastrophe thousands of kilometres away. Labor accuses the Greens of moral grandstanding. Commentators treat this as a genuine ideological rift, the latest battle for the soul of the centre-left. It is nothing of the sort. It is a controlled argument between two factions who agree on what matters to the people who fund and staff them, played out on a stage where neither side risks anything.
To understand why, you have to go back to what the Australian Labor Party was actually built to do.
The Old Compact: Labor as the Party of the Wage Floor
The historical logic of the Labor movement was simple and, for most of the twentieth century, brutally effective. Organised labour exists to increase the bargaining leverage of workers against capital, and that leverage depends on scarcity. If labour supply is constrained, wages rise. If it is unlimited, wages fall regardless of what any award says on paper.
This is why the early Labor movement, for all the discomfort it now causes its descendants, was instinctively restrictionist on immigration. Arthur Calwell’s generation did not view a large, low-cost labour supply as a humanitarian gift. They viewed it as a threat to be managed, because every additional worker competing for the same job diluted the union’s leverage at the table. Protection of the domestic working class and scepticism toward open-ended immigration were not contradictory positions in the old Labor logic. They were the same position, expressed twice.
The Substitution: Three Patrons Who Replaced the Union Hall
That compact has collapsed, for a reason that has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with arithmetic. Union density in Australia has fallen from roughly half the workforce in the 1980s to under 13 per cent today. A party that draws its membership, donations, and activist base from organised labour cannot survive on 13 per cent. It has to find new patrons, and the substitution explains almost everything about its current behaviour.
The Administrative State
University faculties, the federal and state bureaucracies, and the broader public sector now form the institutional core of the modern Labor coalition. These constituencies’ salaries, grants, and status are tied directly to the apparatus of mass migration: international student revenue for universities, settlement portfolios for the bureaucracy, diversity mandates across the public service. For this constituency, migration isn’t an economic variable to be calibrated. It is the ecosystem they work inside.
Big Business and Corporate Australia
The large employers who once sat across the table from unions as adversaries are now, in effect, allies of the party that claims to represent labour. Their interest is simple: a deep, constantly replenished pool of workers willing to accept current wages keeps margins up. The “skills shortage” framing, endlessly repeated in business pages, is the polite vocabulary for this. A party of the worker that has become the preferred vehicle of employers who benefit from wage suppression is not a contradiction its base is encouraged to dwell on.
The Migration Industry
Migration agents, education consultancies, and higher education itself constitute a direct commercial lobby with billions in fee-paying international student revenue, visa fees, and downstream consulting work at stake. This isn’t an abstract “interest group.” It is an industry with a balance sheet, and that balance sheet is a function of visa volume.
None of these three constituencies has any stake in lower migration. All three have a direct, material stake in higher migration, or at least in volumes never becoming a serious subject of negotiation. Put them together and you have replaced a union movement that wanted fewer workers competing for the same jobs with a coalition that needs more.
Why the Wedge Is Existential, Not Inconvenient
This is where most commentary on Labor’s “immigration problem” goes wrong. It is usually framed as a messaging issue, how the government talks about migration rather than what it does. That framing assumes the underlying interest is neutral, that Labor could simply recalibrate intake to ease pressure on housing and wages without damaging itself.
It cannot. Not because of ideology, but because of dependency.
To address the housing crisis or wage stagnation by curbing migration would be to cannibalise the coalition’s own funding base, its institutional allies, and its activist class in one move.
A serious reduction in net overseas migration isn’t a policy adjustment for this coalition. It’s an attack on the revenue model of the universities, the caseload of the migration industry, and the self-conception of the administrative state. There is no version of “border policy reform” that addresses the heritage population’s grievances on housing, infrastructure, and social cohesion without also reducing the flows these constituencies depend on. The wedge cannot be managed with better talking points, because it isn’t a communications problem. It’s structural. This is why it has to stay off the table, and why something else has to occupy the space where the conversation would otherwise happen.
Gaza as Theatre: Two Functions, One Purpose
This is where Gaza enters the picture, and it’s worth being precise about its role. The conflict itself is real, and the human cost is real. But inside Australian domestic politics its function is almost entirely instrumental, operating on two levels at once.
Function One: Virtue Without Cost
Taking a position on Gaza lets Labor, and the Greens playing conscience, claim moral seriousness without spending political capital on a domestic trade-off. It’s activism with no local price tag. The activist class, increasingly disconnected from the traditional working class, gets a cause that confirms its self-image. Nobody’s rent goes up because of where the government lands on a UN resolution.
Function Two: Strategic Deflection
Every news cycle absorbed by a foreign policy crisis is one not spent on net overseas migration, international student caps, or housing approvals against population growth. It also forces the Coalition onto a battlefield chosen by Labor, where the politics (Israel, Palestine, antisemitism, Islamophobia) are combustible enough to dominate, rather than the ground where the government is genuinely exposed: the demographic and economic transformation of the country.
The genius of the arrangement, if it can be called that, is that the Greens are not really an opponent here. They’re a useful foil. Their maximalist position on Gaza gives Labor a “moderate” position to retreat to, while both parties remain united in treating immigration volumes as a settled question. The argument is loud precisely because it is safe.
Who Gets Sacrificed
The honest description of the modern ALP isn’t “the party of the worker that has lost its way.” It is a party that has completed a transition British Labour and the American Democrats have also completed: from a vehicle for the native-born working class to a vehicle for the globalised urban professional class and the institutions that service mass migration. These aren’t marginal factions. They are now its base.
When the interests of that base collide with the interests of the ancestral population, on housing, on wages, on the pace of demographic change, the ancestral population loses. Every time. The Gaza argument isn’t evidence that the centre-left is divided over something that matters. It’s evidence of how completely it has agreed, on the thing that matters most, to never let the argument start.
For comparison, China’s CGTN network operates on a budget of less than $500m, despite China’s economy and total population being orders of magnitude larger than the UK’s.
