Written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_

“There is a view that right-wing violence is a pathology to be eradicated, whereas left-wing violence is a grievance to be explained”. These words by Smith & Tan (2025) pinpoint the glaring double standard at the heart of the political polarisation narrative being pushed by today’s media. Much like the dogma of equity, diversity, and inclusion which has entrenched itself within modern institutions, the caricature of the “violent right-wing radical” is a manufactured bogeyman, peddled relentlessly to stifle dissent and justify government control. Feminist academics dominate the literature, pushing narratives which connect nationalism, particularly in young men, to a rise in violent attitudes. Educational curricula have increasingly incorporated elements designed to address this purported rise, encouraging a sense of shame and guilt among young Australian males. This narrative has even permeated popular media, as seen in Netflix’s series Adolescence, which, despite its fictional basis, has been promoted as educational viewing in schools. If the “young, violent right-wing radical” narrative remains unchallenged, it threatens to silence legitimate nationalist movements and embed ideological conformity within the Australian community.

Media outlets, politicians, and security agencies continue to push the narrative that Australia is on the brink of a nationalist terror wave. In the wake of the Bondi terror attack, perpetrated by Islamist extremists, politicians seemed more concerned with the hypothetical threat of right-wing violence and remained reluctant to deal with the true perpetrators. Measures such as hate speech laws and protest restrictions have been enacted under the banner of “social cohesion,” a term synonymous with mandated multiculturalism. While “Nazis” serve as convenient rhetorical foils in this leftist fever dream, a closer examination of the evidence reveals scant support for the claimed escalation of right-wing violence.

Subscribe now

The emphasis on a rising right-wing extremist threat gained momentum after the 2019 Christchurch Mosque shootings, where the actions of a single individual triggered widespread scrutiny of Australia’s nationalist movements. ASIO Director-General Mike Burgess has stated that nationalist and racist violent extremism now comprises up to 40% of counter-terrorism caseloads, with young men radicalising online. The national terrorism threat level was raised to “probable” in 2024 and remains elevated. But ASIO’s own figures distinguish between investigations and actual violence: the principal completed attacks and deaths continue to come from religiously motivated (Islamist) extremism. This gap between rhetoric and reality has real consequences. It justifies expansive hate-speech laws, surveillance of nationalist groups, and pre-emptive bans, egged on by a compliant left-wing ecosystem.

Yet these same sanctimonious leftists turn a blind eye to the rhetoric and outright violence spewing from their ideological allies. Numerous examples illustrate this disparity:

• The British Australian Community has meticulously chronicled scores of vandal assaults on Australian monuments, peaking around our national day. These acts including beheadings of cultural icons, blood-smeared statues, and wanton destruction are the handiwork of Aboriginal extremists committed to terrorising “white colonisers.” This is ethnic intimidation, yet media coverage contorts it into justified protest born of “generational trauma,” refusing to condemn it as the assault on our shared heritage it truly is.

• Since 2000, all confirmed terrorist attacks on Australian soil have involved Islamist extremists, underscoring a pattern that warrants greater focus, yet we have seen politicians pandering to Muslim communities and seeking to repatriate ISIS-aligned extremists from Syria.

• An alleged terror plot targeting participants in the March for Australia in Brisbane elicited minimal ideological scrutiny compared to similar scenarios, for example, in Perth on Australia Day.

• Climate activist groups like Rising Tide and Extinction Rebellion employ disruptive tactics bordering on eco-terrorism, yet these are often portrayed as principled advocacy for urgent environmental action.

Subscribe now

Even high-profile international examples fit the pattern. The 2025 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk in Utah was carried out by Tyler Robinson, whose family and prosecutors have described as having largely left-wing views, yet media coverage avoided labelling the murder “left-wing terrorism”.

Right-wing and nationalist figures, however, face severe repercussions and condemnation for minor infractions. Pauline Hanson has encountered gaol threats for asserting “there are no good Muslims,” while leftist politicians like Lidia Thorpe have issued comparable provocations without consequence. Online nationalists like AUSPILL have endured condemnation and legal threats for a postering campaign highlighting the oxymoronic use of the term “Aussie” today. Drew Pavlou’s investigation into ethnic communities’ NDIS rorts faces defamation suits, Joel Davis was imprisoned without bail for online posts, and Brandan Koschel was gaoled for delivering a speech at a public rally.

Repeatedly, left-leaning activists benefit from contextual explanations rooted in grievance, inequality, or historical injustice, whilst right-wing figures face personal and legal threats. This creates an institutional asymmetry: right-wing expression is presumed dangerous and swiftly met with legal intervention, while left-wing activism is analysed through a more forgiving sociological framework. This bias originates in academic research that advances personal ideologies under the guise of objective inquiry, which ultimately influences government policy.

Much of the policy narrative rests on academic work that receives uncritical media amplification. A prime case is the June 2024 University of Melbourne policy brief Misogyny, Racism and Violent Extremism in Australia by Sara Meger and colleagues. Widely cited as proof that “misogyny and racism” drive violent extremism among young Australian men, the brief’s own data tells a more complex story.

Researchers surveyed 1,100 young Australians. They measured seven forms of “violent extremism” support with a single Likert-scale question each. Anti-feminist violent extremism, for example, was defined solely by agreement with: “Feminism is damaging to our society and should be resisted by force if necessary.” Nearly 14% of respondents agreed overall; men were at 19.4% vs 8.3% for women. Young men showed higher rates, but the study also recorded substantial female agreement — a detail absent from most headlines. In fact, anti-feminist sentiment was the strongest of the seven forms of extremism in women.

Subscribe now

Misogynistic attitudes (including questions such as “Women often make sexual assault accusations as a way of getting back at men” or “Sometimes a woman can make a man so angry that he hits her when he didn’t mean to”) and racist attitudes (e.g., “Usually, the lighter someone’s skin, the more natural intelligence they possess”) were tested as predictors. It’s unsurprising many of these questions received much agreement among the respondents. There are numerous documented cases of women making up or inflating sexual assault accusations, and many academic studies have found strong links between skin colour and IQ. Nevertheless, fact does not seem to be a consideration in this ‘scientific’ publication.

Using logit regression, the authors reported dozens of “significant” results at a p < 0.1 threshold. This is a lenient standard that is higher than the standard 0.05 metric and, across multiple tests, inflates false positives, bringing into question the reliability of the investigation conducted. Crucially, misogyny and racism predicted support for violence across the spectrum: religious, ethnic, economic revolutionary (left-wing wealth redistribution by force), economic reactionary, incel, anti-feminist, and white-supremacist forms. Racism was a strong predictor even for left-wing economic extremism. Universal correlations like this are a common problem with broadly defined and imprecise variables, with low significance thresholds.

The brief’s authors, whose prior work includes “Che Guevara and the Case for Revolutionary Feminism“ and “Morbid Symptoms: A Feminist Dialectics of Global Patriarchy in Crisis,” indicates a feminist foundation that influences the interpretations. There is clear evidence in their conclusions and public commentary that they have cherry picked their data to emphasise right-wing and misogynistic links while downplaying the cross-ideological findings. Unsurprisingly, the links between sexism, racism, authoritarianism and left-wing extremism, which was often stronger than with that of right-wing extremism, was deliberately ignored. Media outlets ran instead with headlines about radicalised young men and the “manosphere.” Yet the one form of ‘extremism’ with no link to misogynistic attitudes were the so-called white supremacists – the opposite of what most public commentary suggested. This selective framing betrays the work’s undeniable ideological contamination with the authors’ radical feminism. This is not neutral social science, yet it shapes government policy.

Subscribe now

Now the Albanese government has turned this bias into law. New 2026 hate-speech legislation, the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism Act, hands ministers sweeping powers to proscribe “hate groups” below terrorism thresholds, with very few limits and no legal recourse. The National Socialist Network (NSN), Australia’s most prominent neo-Nazi group disbanded in January 2026 rather than face automatic criminalisation. The group has faced zero terrorist convictions nor committed any attacks, whilst leading associates have faced Antifa led car bombings and imprisonment for online posts. The group’s dissolution removes a community for angry young men, driving them deeper underground where they’re harder to police; exactly what experts on European bans have warned creates group fragmentation and unpredictable lone actors.

Blinded by this view that “violent right-wing radical” is the pre-eminent threat to Australian society, the government will continue to threaten Australian society whilst they refuse to recognise that they have emboldened Islamist extremism, forgiven left-wing extremists and potentially created a lone-actor threat. Currently the data is unambiguous: Australia does not face a right-wing terror wave. Left-linked activism has delivered widespread cultural vandalism and economic disruption, routinely excused, and Islamist extremism has delivered the body count.

Yet guided by ‘science’ built on ideology not evidence, governments continue to weaponise hate-speech laws against nationalists, expand surveillance on dissenters, and shame young Australian men in our schools. While real threats persist, Australia’s security infrastructure is diverted toward silencing legitimate questions about immigration, identity, and national security – a blatant attempt at ideological control.

This two-tiered system erodes trust, breeds resentment, and leaves actual dangers unchecked. Far from strengthening community bonds, the Albanese government’s response can only be seen as a further attempt to disenfranchise ethnic Australians and entrench their own ideological control. There are legitimate questions to be asked about the role of multiculturalism in Australian society. The violent right-wing radical might be a good rhetorical villain but ignoring the clear and present threats to Australians entrenched in Australia’s left-aligned multicultural and activist communities will only continue to fracture our once homogenous society. The numbers don’t lie.

Written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_

Over recent weeks, a simple but powerful claim has gained attention in Australia’s migration debate: that there are “more Indians in five years than Italians and Greeks in 100.” The statement was heavily circulated by the March for Australia organisers, and I published a graphic on X illustrating the rapid growth of the Indian-born population compared with the European migration waves that followed the Second World War.

The claim quickly went viral. It was repeated at the nationwide ‘March for Australia’ rallies on August 31, featured prominently in speeches and materials, and since then has been widely discussed in both Australian and international media. Its traction reflects a growing unease about the unprecedented scale of migration that is reshaping our country.

Yet almost as soon as the claim entered the public conversation, it was targeted by a “fact check” from the Australian Associated Press (AAP). In his article March for Australia group's claim about Indian migrant numbers is false, reporter Matthew Elmas sought to discredit the claim outright. His piece uses the word “false” at least seven times, as though sheer repetition could make the argument convincing. But when one looks closely, the AAP fact check relies on a single cherry-picked dataset and one interview with Professor Alan Gamlen of the Australian National University - whose name, tellingly, the article manages to misspell. This is not careful analysis. It is pro-migration spin dressed up as fact-checking. And it reflects a broader pattern: rather than addressing genuine concerns about migration levels with honesty and transparency, critics are dismissed and accused of spreading “falsehoods.”

When the full range of migration data is properly examined, it becomes clear that the claim is not only defensible, but accurate. Indian migration in recent years dwarfs anything seen in Australia’s modern history, both in absolute numbers and on a per capita basis.

Subscribe now

Why the Claim Matters

Before delving into the numbers, it’s worth asking why this claim so contested. The answer lies in the role of migration in Australian identity. Policymakers and media commentators often invoke the “nation of migrants” story to defend high migration intakes, pointing to post-war Italian and Greek arrivals as a precedent. This narrative is used to reassure the public that what is happening today is nothing new, just another chapter in the multicultural story. Not only that, but it is also essential to our function as a nation. If today’s migration wave is qualitatively and quantitatively different, that narrative falls apart. The AAP’s eagerness to dismiss uncomfortable comparisons reveals how politically sensitive the issue has become.

The Population Evidence

Let’s start with the simplest measure: the number of migrants actually living in Australia. According to the 2021 Census, there were 712,040 Indian-born residents. By 2025, projections put that number close to one million. That is a staggering increase in just a few years.

Compare this to the historical peaks of Italian and Greek migration. In 1971, the combined total of Italian- and Greek-born residents was 449,676. That figure has declined since, as these communities have aged and the migrant intake has slowed. At every point in the past five years, the number of Indian-born migrants in Australia has exceeded the maximum number of both Italians and Greeks ever recorded. That alone should settle the matter. But because AAP tries to redefine the debate around “net overseas migration,” let’s examine that too.

Net Overseas Migration: The AAP’s Cherry-Pick

AAP bases its “false” verdict on net migration data from one specific five-year period: 2015/16 to 2019/20 (highlighted in blue below). During that window, the ABS records 279,450 net Indian arrivals, compared to 517,883 combined Greek and Italian arrivals between 1924 and 1971. This sounds damning, until you realise it is a cherry-pick. Why did they choose to end at 2019/20, just as Indian migration was accelerating? The choice is even more suspicious when you remember that 2019/20 was the first year hammered by COVID border closures. Migration numbers plummeted, not because demand fell, but because the government literally closed the gates. Using that year as the endpoint guarantees an artificially low figure. Either AAP’s author knew this and deliberately chose a window designed to mislead, or he failed to grasp the most basic fact about the dataset he was relying on. Neither explanation inspires confidence in the integrity of the “fact-check.”

Once you look at the data beyond 2020 (shown in red), the picture changes dramatically. The post-COVID rebound has been extraordinary, with Indian migration levels three to five times higher, in raw terms, than anything seen during the European post-war boom. Far from being “false,” the claim reflects the reality AAP tried so hard to conceal.

Moreover, the AAP notes that “The combined cumulative net migration (migrants arriving minus migrants departing) of Greek and Italian nationals between 1924 and 1971 alone was 517,883” implying that including a further 50 years of data would significantly increase this total. In fact, only 78,125 Italian and Greek migrants were added to that total between 1971 and 2025, giving a complete figure of 596,008 – 208,598 Greeks and 387,410 Italians – over the 100-year period to 2025.

The reality is that the ABS releases migration figures with significant lags, and the years after 2020 saw extraordinary increases in Indian arrivals. This lag hinders our ability to make topical and up to date commentary on the migration waves of today. The most recent available net overseas migration data is from the year to June 2024. Therefore the 5 years proceeding this still included the effects of Covid-19 which artificially decreased the migration numbers. There is, however, a clear trend in the number of net Indian arrivals from 2010 until today, as can be seen below in red.

Taking this artificial decrease into account, the expected number of migrants in 2020 and 2021 would have been significantly higher. Combining those estimates with the actual data from 2022, 2023, and 2024, the five-year period to 2024 represents roughly 420,000 net Indian migrants. That total surpasses both the 208,598 Greeks and the 387,410 Italians who arrived in Australia between 1925 and 2025, and it is set to climb further once the ABS releases the 2024/25 figures.

So, when AAP says the claim is “false,” what it really means is that if you pick one narrow dataset, ignore later years, and exclude context, you can tell a different story. That’s not fact-checking. That’s narrative protection. Ironically, even the 279,450 figure which the AAP leaned on, covering 2015/16 to 2019/20, is itself higher than the entire Greek migration to Australia across the last 100 years. In some ways, that’s the most damning comparison of all. Over back-to-back five-year periods (2015/16–2019/20 and 2019/20–2023/24), net Indian migration dwarfs the total Greek intake of the past century twice over.

Per Capita: The Strongest Rebuttal

Even more compelling is the per capita evidence. In the AAP article, Professor Gamlen argued that migration should be judged relative to Australia’s population size at the time. On this point, I agree. But his conclusion, that post-war European migration was “much larger still”, is flatly wrong.

Using ABS population estimates, the annual net overseas migration data can be adjusted to directly show the relative size of the migration waves. Even with this change, Indian migration is at an equivalent or higher level than the Italian migration peak in the 1950s. The bar chart specifically highlights the 5 years with the highest net migration per 1000 persons in the Australian population.

The key data from this representation is that:

• In 2022, Indian migration reached 3.61 net arrivals per 1000 people, the highest per capita figure ever recorded in Australian history.

• Four of the top five years for per capita migration since 1924 have involved Indians, all of them after 2008.

• Italian migration in 1952 is the only European year that comes close, and it still ranks below India’s recent surge.

On a per capita basis, the so-called “great European migration wave” is eclipsed by today’s Indian intake. There is no evidence to support Gamlen’s claim that post-war European migration was “much larger still.” In fact, the cumulative per capita data also shows the opposite. While Italian and Greek populations grew steadily across a decade, peaking in 1971, the Indian-born population has been expanding exponentially since 1980, with no sign of slowing. In every year since 1900, the past five years of the Indian migrant population have outstripped both Italians and Greeks as a share of the Australian population.

Why AAP’s Approach is Misleading

Fact-checking is supposed to clarify public debate, not distort it. By selectively quoting one figure, ignoring more recent context and data, and labelling the claim “false” with such force, AAP undermines trust in the very idea of fact-checking. People can see the Indian community growing rapidly around them. Census data confirms it. The number of protestors at the March for Australia confirms it. Yet the fact-checkers tell them it’s “false.” That creates dissonance and feeds the perception that the media is gaslighting ordinary Australians.

Moreover, by downplaying migration’s scale, the fact-check shields policymakers from accountability. High migration has enormous impacts: on housing affordability, infrastructure, wages, and social cohesion as we have discussed many times at the National Observer. Australians are entitled to a fair debate, grounded in the full evidence, not massaged numbers designed to shut it down.

Conclusion: Fact or Spin?

Let’s return to the original claim: that there are “more Indians in five years than Italians and Greeks in 100.” Look at the population figures. Look at the net migration. Look at the per capita data. On every measure, the statement holds true. What AAP calls “false” is, in fact, supported by the numbers.

It is also misleading to equate the post-war European arrivals with today’s flows. The Italians and Greeks came in a very different economic and social context. Their migration was largely permanent settlement, at a time when Australia actively recruited European labour for reconstruction and industry. By contrast, much of the Indian intake is temporary or semi-permanent: student visas, ‘skilled’ workers, who later convert to permanent residency.

The final graph shows the trend clearly: when averaged across five-year spans, Italian and Greek migration rarely exceeded 0.5 arrivals per 1,000 Australians per year. Indian migration today runs at three times that level, 1.5 to 2 per 1,000 annually. The churn is higher, the numbers are bigger, and the rate of growth is far faster. Saying “we’ve seen it all before” is not only wrong, but it also erases the unique scale and nature of what is unfolding now.

It is time we faced the facts. Indian migration is unprecedented in both scale and pace. Pretending otherwise is not journalism. It is political cover. Political cover to hide this reality until it is too late to do anything about it. It is clear the Australian public won’t stand for this and if the reality they know is true is continually ignored by the political elite, the rallies we saw on August 31 will only be the start of the political storm to come.

Written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_

Much time has now passed since the re-election of the Albanese Labor Government in May. While political analysts have rightly focused on Labor’s strong swings across the country and the abject collapse of the Liberal Party’s electoral footprint, less attention has been paid to the deeper crisis unfolding on Australia’s political right. Despite widespread disaffection with the major parties, the right once again failed to convert a significant bloc of support into coordinated electoral gains. The Liberals, having abandoned any serious invocation of Australian identity as a campaign anchor, find themselves at an existential crossroads: will they embrace Sussan Ley’s vision of a “modern Australia,” or return to their traditional conservative roots? Meanwhile, Pauline Hanson’s One Nation—though gaining three-quarters of Labor’s swing and two senate seats—remains stalled in both structure and ambition, suggesting that its long-standing dominance over the populist right may now be under challenge. In this fractured landscape, new forces are rising, and none more intriguing than Gerard Rennick’s People First, buoyed by strong support among election day voters and a distinctly different base to that of One Nation.

Subscribe now

One Nation: Success or Stagnation?

The 2025 election has once again highlighted the remarkable ineptitude of Australia’s electoral right. Collectively, parties notionally to the right of the Liberal National coalition obtained close to a full quota in all states, yet this only translated to the election of One Nation senators in QLD, NSW and WA. Clearly, a growing proportion of the Australian electorate is looking for political options beyond those offered by the major parties, yet to date this has not been capitalised on. The Australian Greens, by comparison, have successfully concentrated the left-wing vote to consistently elect multiple senators in every election since 2001. Voters were given copious levels of choice among the right-wing parties, from the personality parties of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation and Clive Palmer’s Trumpet of Patriots, to the ideologically purist parties like the Libertarians, the ‘Christian’ politics of Family First and the Australian Christians, and the fringe minors of the Great Australian and HEART Parties. Australia’s right-wing scene continues to remain splintered. The below graph shows the relative support for the most popular of these parties across the six states, highlighting the strong showing of One Nation and other right-wing parties:

One Nation dominated the right-wing vote across the nation, beating other right-wing parties in every state. Nationwide, they received a 1.4% swing towards them, three quarters of that achieved by the popular Labor government. The party returned three senators for the first time since the double dissolution election of 2016. A result like this should represent a strong victory for the party, cementing its legitimacy in the Australian right-wing sphere and providing a strong mandate from conservative voters. Why then did the party have at best a muted celebration of such a colossal victory? By contrast the election of three Greens members from Brisbane to the House of Representatives in 2022 saw the word ‘Green’ being attached to the entirety of the Oxford English Dictionary, whilst members begun preparations for the unending reign of Chairman Bandt.

The comparison with the Australian Greens is one which is not made frequently enough. This year represents the 28th year of operation for One Nation, contesting a total of 10 Federal elections. One might expect their vote share to grow - such is the evidence from comparable populist parties across the West. Yet despite this, One Nation have achieved 100,000 fewer votes this year than their debut at Federal elections in 1998. That is a remarkable level of stagnation, especially when compared with the Australian Greens who achieved a 1.66 million vote increase across the same period. It is perhaps with this context that One Nation’s response to their successful election result makes some sense. Clearly the party of Australia’s ‘fringe’ is not only failing to repeat the success of the European right but is being outdone by their leftist counterparts. Severely.

One Nation’s biggest post-election announcement was that they were looking to open branches. Take that in for a moment – a party of 28 years is only now looking for the input of their members. This represents a significant response to a long-term criticism of One Nation from their right-wing base. So why make this announcement now, after what was their most successful election in recent history? Long have One Nation been the preeminent right-wing party of Australian politics, yet despite their success this year, in every mainland state, except NSW, the collective right-wing minor party vote share outpolled One Nation (and in NSW the difference was just 0.02%). Clearly right-wing voters are unhappy with One Nation as a party to represent their interests. Whether this push for branch membership represents a turning point for One Nation remains to be seen, but I am sceptical. After all, when two thirds of your elected representatives leave the party before their term expires, the prospect of the party outliving Pauline Hanson are slim.

So, who stands to gain? Much was spoken of the potential of the Libertarians coming into the 2025 election, even at The National Observer. Yet they failed to reach even 1% of the vote in most mainland states, with the sole exception being the commendable performance of Craig Kelly and the NSW Libertarians. Evidently, libertarianism is not an attractive prospect to the electorate. The Australian Christians performed well in WA, continuing their presence in state politics in the West, but were at best a minor player on their NSW ticket. By far the strongest challenge to One Nation came from Gerard Rennick, the former Liberal National Party senator, with his newly established People First Party in Queensland. Despite minimal media coverage and a modest campaign budget, Rennick managed to gain almost 5% of the vote in One Nation’s strongest state. Here we take a closer look at the results from the Queensland senate election and the success of People First.

Subscribe now

The Rise of People First:

Gerard Rennick’s People First party has quickly established itself as a serious contender in Queensland politics, drawing support from both traditionally One Nation and Liberal National Party voters, turned off by the Liberal Party’s vacillation and One Nation’s stagnation. Despite operating with a skeletal mainstream media presence, People First outperformed both the Trumpet of Patriots (3.6%), and the Libertarians (0.5%), while narrowing the gap with One Nation (7.1%) to just over two percentage points.

An analysis of vote share by vote type provides further insight into the contrast between One Nation and People First. In Queensland, Rennick’s support came disproportionately from ordinary election day votes, a traditional indicator of strong grassroots engagement. By contrast, One Nation’s strongest margins came not from election day, but from pre-poll ballots, which reflects a legacy recognition among disengaged and habitual protest voters rather than active enthusiasm. The divergence suggests that People First was building electoral support up until election day, while One Nation increasingly relied on residual brand familiarity and passive voter identification, particularly as they are a mainstay of Queensland politics. The below chart illustrates this divide, showing People First as the only right-wing party which had ordinary election day ballots as their strongest vote type.

In the southeast Queensland electorates – Brisbane, Ryan, Griffith, and the Sunshine and Gold Coasts – the picture is even more striking. In many of these booths, People First beat One Nation outright, achieving strong results in the western booths of Ryan and Brisbane and the southeastern booths in Griffith. In each instance the One Nation result remained similar to their 2022 result, even with People First entering the field – suggesting that Gerard Rennick is attracting a demographic of votes not serviced by the politics of One Nation. These electorates are among the most advantaged in the whole of Queensland, indicating that Rennick has an appeal to a different proportion of the voting public across Queensland. Likewise, the endorsement of Bob Katter generated strong support for People First in the Northern Queensland electorates of Kennedy, Herbert and Leichhardt that have evaded One Nation’s grasp. For a detailed look at the booth by booth results for People First and One Nation across Queensland and the corresponding demographics, see our interactive map of the election results available HERE ←

Subscribe now

Who is voting for People First?

Using demographic data from the 2021 Census, the result from each Commonwealth electorate can be directly compared to the demographics of the region. This leads to some important insights about the types of voters choosing People First over One Nation, and where the party may target to improve their vote share in 2028. Unsurprisingly, electorates with larger proportions of Australian born residents favoured People First. Electorates with over 80% Australian born residents had a People First vote share more than two times higher than electorates with an Australian born population below 60%. This was also true of the One Nation vote.

The largest differences between the demographic of the One Nation and People First voters appears by looking at electorate differences by area and tertiary education (for a further breakdown, the booth by booth data can be viewed via the interactive map HERE). Most One Nation support comes from rural and regional electorates with low levels of tertiary education, with its strongest performances in the mining regions of Hinkler and Flynn and the agricultural districts of Maranoa and Wright. People First significantly underperforms One Nation in these electorates; however, they have equalled or outpolled One Nation in city electorates with higher levels of tertiary education. These results are telling. While One Nation’s base remains firmly regional and aging, People First appears to be building a coalition among younger families and suburban workers, precisely the demographic the Liberal Party has haemorrhaged support from since 2019. This mirrors the broader post-2016 realignment across the West, albeit to a lesser extent. Nationalist parties have been gaining traction among working- and middle-class voters disillusioned with major centre-right politics, exemplified in no better fashion than by the rise of Alternative for Germany (AfD) to the largest opposition party in the German Bundestag.

Perhaps most significantly, People First is cutting through in areas with higher levels of tertiary education, especially among socially conservative and younger nationalist voters – this can be seen in Rennick’s performance in the South-East of Queensland. These voters are drawn to Rennick’s combination of calm, technocratic critique and traditionalist, conservative values which are a distinct contrast to the right-wing populism of Australia’s history; notably Hanson’s bombast and Palmer’s bluster which is broadly seen as both unpalatable and insincere, especially within more educated and wealthier segments of the Queensland public. Where Hanson complains, Rennick reasons. It’s a different presentation, less about populist rage, more targeted towards genuine institutional insurgency backed by a self-consistent ideology grounded in Australian interest.

It is this key difference that presents People First as a more credible alternative to the other offerings of Australia’s populist right. Across the globe, successful nationalist parties have brought more substance than simply anti-establishment rage, rather they position themselves as defenders of sovereignty and identity in a professional way. This quality has been key to nationalist success across Europe as seen with Germany’s AfD, Italy’s Brothers of Italy under Meloni, and the Sweden Democrats—parties that advocated for institutional nationalism to varying extents (and subsequent commitment). This distinction was highlighted in The National Observer’s discussion with AfD insider Jörg Sobolewski, which can be watched in full here.

Whilst Gerard Rennick has much left to prove about the endurance and ideology of his party, a sign of preliminary success will be whether he can both pivot away from the COVID criticisms which saw his initial split with the Liberals and if he can eschew the slogans of Advance Australia, in favour of the coherent Australia First ideology to which his commerce education lends.

Subscribe now

Where to from here?

If One Nation marked the arrival of Australian populism in the late 1990s, People First may signal its disciplined successor—a party less defined by protest and more by purpose. In a fractured conservative landscape, Rennick’s model offers a compelling template: values-driven, culturally grounded, and member based. By looking to attract a new demographic of voter – urban, tertiary-educated, and patriotic – People First challenges the idea that nationalism in Australia must be loud, erratic, or reactionary.

What remains to be seen is whether this momentum can be sustained. Electoral success in 2025 was a promising start, but consolidation requires party-building, institutional depth, and a coherent ideological vision. If Rennick can achieve this – if he can turn a protest moment into a policy movement – People First may not only replace One Nation but reshape the future of the Australian right, offering a real option for young nationalists. In a country devoid of serious right-wing politics, still searching for a nationalist alternative, People First is certainly a step in the right direction.

Written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_

The injection of nuclear energy into the national energy debate by Peter Dutton during the 2025 Federal Election campaign, whilst appreciated by proponents of nuclear power, left much to be desired. The debate surrounding nuclear energy suffered the same pitfalls as the rest of the Liberal campaign; Dutton jumped frantically between surface level talking points hoping for something, anything, to permeate into the minds of the Australian public, all while voters were left wanting for specific details. If there was any broader vision behind the push for nuclear, word of it didn’t escape Liberal Party headquarters.

The current energy debate is saturated with vested interests, including the Clean Energy Council, CSIRO, and Unions, who all benefit from a non-nuclear renewable future. The obfuscation around the details of nuclear energy and the broader transition to renewable energy necessitates a balanced and independent review of Australia’s energy market, evaluating the merits and drawbacks of nuclear energy. Considering the nuclear debate, so pivotal to the security and wallets of all Australians, has been so mishandled by mainstream politicians and commentators, I believe it is a position primed for adoption by the nationalist movement.

In this article I will provide the Australia-first nuclear policy, articulating the broader vision the Liberal Party failed to.

Subscribe now

Nationalists need to go Nuclear

In a country with many salient issues around crime, culture and cost of living, a debate over nuclear power may seem to be uninteresting or a distraction. Others might argue that with our vast reserves of coal or our boundless plains and sunny skylines that our energy needs don’t demand a nuclear solution. You would be wrong. Nuclear technologies have had a defining impact on human history and will continue to do so. Australian politics has long been devoid of ambition and a proposal for Australian nuclear power presents us with an opportunity to drive the public psyche towards an embrace of national progress, self-reliance and world leading innovation, an opportunity which we would be foolish to let slip.

In what seems like a modern miracle, Peter Dutton and the Liberal Party of Australia put forward a proposition for a nuclear-powered future in this year’s election. This proposition included overturning the ban on development of nuclear power, which has been in place since 1998, and building seven new power stations across the country as our existing coal-fired power stations reach their expiry. Proponents of both renewable energy and fossil fuels were quick to dismiss the proposal deriding the high capital costs, lack of nuclear expertise and dangerous waste as prohibitive to the development of a nuclear energy industry in Australia – and they are right. The Liberal policy is flawed in many ways, not in the least because it proposes nuclear as a solution to soaring energy prices, without any tangible evidence about how it would solve this problem. The weak framing and cautious experimentation of this policy will inevitably lead us toward a costly and failing energy situation. To capitalise on the opportunities a nuclear future presents Australia, we need to go harder toward a nuclear future than the Liberals propose. If a nuclear energy industry is going to work for Australia, we need to do more than build a couple of reactors, we need to commit economy wide. Timid politics, as we have seen time and time again, leads to terrible outcomes for the average Australian.

Not only do we need a solid commitment to the construction of seven power stations, but we also need government investment towards the development of a nationwide industry. This will require support to build enrichment capabilities, so that our vast uranium reserves can be used here without needing to be sent overseas, suitable institutions for training the next generation of engineers and nuclear physicists and a commitment towards embracing innovative nuclear technologies.

This of course comes with a price tag, and a hefty one, but so is the cost of failure, or even worse – mediocrity. If Australian nationalism is going to triumph, we need a country that is not afraid to be ambitious, we need a country that is not afraid to be inventive, and we need a country that is willing to provide a future for its people. That future is worth investing in, and in this article, I will examine some key reasons why this is a sensible choice for a nationalist Australian future.

Subscribe now

Why Nuclear?

I should first point out that this is not an article debating climate change. There are numerous sources which go into detail about the environmental benefits of nuclear power, but I will not dwell on them here. Moreover, the environmental benefits of nuclear energy match that of wind or solar. Regardless of your views on this subject, a nuclear future should not be dependent on an environmental mandate to be successful.

Australia needs to replace its aging coal-fired power stations. Coal-fired power stations typically have a design life of 40 to 50 years, and an average operating life of 29 years. Today, over three quarters of Australia’s coal power stations are operating beyond their design life. This has a significant impact on Australian consumers, with frequent repairs to aging power stations contributing to energy price increases and unexpected outages. As we continue to push these power stations beyond their operational expectations, we can only expect their reliability to decrease. Furthermore, one third of the total National Energy Market is expected to retire by 2040, leaving a major shortfall in baseload power generation; with the remaining facilities facing the problem of having to stabilise an increasingly less stable energy grid. This consistent and reliable power supply (i.e. baseload power) is essential to any robust energy market and shortfalls in this energy supply could significantly hurt consumers.

This context presents Australia with an unparalleled opportunity to overhaul its energy generation capabilities. Coal-fired power was a by-product of the industrial revolution, with the first power station opening in 1882 in London. Despite remarkable technological advancement society wide since then, the operation of a coal-fired power station remains remarkably similar to this day, especially so in coal abundant Australia. Nuclear energy provides all the benefits of coal power - a stable power supply, employment opportunities, limited land use, cheap feedstock - and extends upon these. Nuclear plants have operational lives reaching 80 years, a feedstock which is 14,000 times more energy dense than an equivalent amount of coal, and a capacity factor (the level of actual energy generation divided by the total potential energy generation, basically the percentage of the year the power station is at maximum power) more than double that of a coal-fired power station.

It is often claimed that the economics of nuclear power don’t add up for Australia’s unique geopolitical landscape. The recent GenCost report produced by the CSIRO attempted to quantify the energy costs of many proposed generation technologies for Australia’s future. Whilst large-scale nuclear power was cheaper than both coal and gas generation, with carbon capture technologies, it was still deemed significantly more expensive than solar, wind and gas. This report is oft cited as evidence of the redundancy of nuclear power in Australia’s energy mix, yet there have been many criticisms of this report highlighting how different assumptions about market behaviour, production channels and environmental impact would lead to different conclusions about the net costs. Critically, this report overlooks three important economic considerations that tip the scale in favour of nuclear power.

The first of these is the capital costs of building such nuclear technologies. Building a power plant is an expensive endeavour, and global experience has shown that cost predictions often underestimate the true costs of building this infrastructure. Australia’s situation places us in a unique position though, when it comes to investing in nuclear technology – we are looking to replace our extensive coal powered network. Historically, Australia’s energy generation capacity has been driven by large, centralised power stations which have been sufficient to power our country. Our other energy infrastructure has therefore been specifically designed around this model; power is generated in centralised locations and then distributed along transmission lines to homes across the nation. A nuclear power station operates in a very similar fashion to a coal-fired power station and therefore much of the transmission infrastructure is already built and operational, were the nuclear facilities to be built on existing coal power station sites.

Note:

It should be noted that economic analysis of capital projects, such as the GenCost report, includes analysis that favours shorter-term projects. Behavioural economics, a field that applies experimental psychology to economics, has introduced a concept called ‘present bias’ into the literature of the field. This concept seeks to account for the experimental evidence demonstrating that individuals will prioritise benefits now over larger future benefits. This has led to the inclusion of a discounting factor in economic analyses, which progressively weights future periods as less important (as we perceive the return from these periods to be less important). Therefore, this type of analysis can deliver skewed results when comparing projects with different lifespans, favouring shorter-term projects with smaller upfront costs over projects with a larger benefit window. Whilst this type of analysis is of general benefit to policymakers, its drawbacks should not be understated.

Subscribe now

This contrasts with variable renewable energy (VRE) sources such as solar or wind power. These generation technologies are significantly more decentralised and cannot be built on existing coal-fired power station sites, due to the land necessary for solar or wind farms or the environmental requirements for their operation. These technologies will therefore need to be constructed in tandem with new transmission infrastructure and storage technologies to balance their intermittent nature. The cost of such a redesign of our energy infrastructure seems to be consistently underestimated, even as excess solar power has been noted as a contributor to summer blackouts and infrastructure damage. This cost will be passed onto the consumer, with between 40% and 50% of power bills comprising of payments for the maintenance of transmission infrastructure; so, more transmission infrastructure (under a VRE future) will result in higher electricity bills for consumers. The true cost of the transformation of the Australia’s transmission infrastructure to reliably deliver a VRE future is unknown, with conservative estimates presented in the AEMO’s ISP indicating that total network infrastructure costs for the next decade will total $16 billion, although this total is dependent on the nature of projects that are yet to be developed. There is still no doubt that renewable energy remains a cheap source of electricity needs, but maintaining the centralisation of our power generation capability should be a factor in assessing our investment towards future generation technology.

Linking into this is the economic effect of energy price variability on Australia’s industry. Many of Australia’s most critical industries rely heavily on large amounts of electricity. Tomago Aluminium, north of Newcastle in New South Wales, consumes approximately one seventh of all energy produced in NSW for use in its aluminium smelter. Having a stable price is critically important for companies such as this to budget appropriately and remain economically viable. VRE consisting of wind and solar produce cheap power, but the consequence of this is that the amount and cost can fluctuate quite significantly. One analysis by researchers at Griffith University found that the doubling of intraday price volatility over the last five years has cost our metals and mining industry 5% of their total share market value. Nuclear power can be generated regardless of the prevailing weather conditions and offers stable, emissions free power, which is not reflected in its average price. Australian industry will be a critical component of an independent future, yet it remains in decline to this day. A stable power supply offers more confidence to investors looking to invest in power-hungry Australian industries and will be an important consideration in a future where Australia looks to be more self-reliant.

A secondary economic impact of the destruction of Australia’s coal-fired power workforce in a shift toward renewables, will be significant. Across the country from the Latrobe Valley to the Hunter Valley and Gladstone, entire communities have been built around extensive coal mining and export industries. The advent of renewable energy poses an existential threat to these communities and the real possibility of significantly reduced wages and conditions for the many workers within these regions and across the nation. The economic impact of an entire workforce being let go cannot be understated and will threaten the viability of many regional communities. Analysis in The Conversation places the increase to unemployment with the closure of a coal power station across an SA4 of 0.7 percentage points per station closure, or approximately 1,220 people (assuming 290,000 people and a conservative 60% labour force participation rate).This would cause drastic and substantial flow-on costs to regional communities that rely upon mining for a majority of economic activity. Nuclear power stations operate on fundamentally similar principles to coal-fired power stations. They require similar mining processes, similar operational infrastructure and similar transmission capabilities. Replacing coal-fired power stations with nuclear offers an opportunity for this workforce to transition immediately into this new industry, using many of the skills and trades which are employed in our current set up. Due to the presence of a strong mining industry, Australia possesses the necessary skills and knowledge required for mega-projects of this scale, ultimately limiting the economic cost of transitioning to nuclear technologies.

Additionally, one common argument in favour of VREs is, as in the word of Chris Bowen, ‘they take their power from the sun and wind’, leading them to have the lowest wholesale price. Whilst this may sound beneficial, it is ultimately a sly statement obscuring the true nature of the National Energy Market (NEM). Whilst the wholesale contract market exists, virtually all energy in Australia is traded on the spot market; where all wholesale providers are paid the spot price (the highest marginal cost of any energy provided to the spot market). For example, if the market needs 200 GWh and there are two suppliers who each can provide half each at a cost of $100/ MWh and $150/ MWh, respectively; both suppliers will be paid at $150/ MWh. Therefore, the supposed wholesale benefits of a VRE only system will only be passed onto the consumer if all energy provided to the spot market is produced by VREs. This, however, is not realistic as it would require a vast oversupply of wind and solar generation (to offset serious capacity restraints). What is more likely, however, is that any market gaps will be filled by gas supply. This will hurt consumers as gas is around twice as expensive as coal, and approximately five times as expensive as solar and wind. Therefore, the owners of large-scale wind and solar projects will benefit substantially if the current function of the NEM’s spot market remains as Australia transitions to a VRE energy market. This would explain the fervent opposition that the Clean Energy Council has against nuclear energy; with the CEC’s board consisting of:

• Ross Rolfe AO (Chair): the CEO of Iberdrola, a Spanish offshore wind developer

• Angela Catt: the Executive General Manager of Tilt Renewables, an Australian solar and wind developer

• Brett Wickham: the Managing Director of Acciona Energia, a Spanish firm that focuses on wind power, solar energy, hydroelectricity, biomass and solar thermal energy

• Dennis Freedman: the ANZ Managing Director of Aquila Clean Energy APAC, a Singaporean company focused on solar, wind and battery technologies

• Robert Wheals: the CEO of Squadron Energy, an Australian company that focuses on wind, solar, and battery projects

  Subscribe now

Nuclear Nationalism

Solving the three important economic considerations indicated by the GenCost report with the development of a domestic nuclear energy industry is inherently a nationalistic endeavour. Nuclear presents an opportunity to provide baseload power which supports Australian industrial development, secure employment for Australian workers and a return to future focused national progress. To achieve this vision of stable, cheap and independent energy, we need to implement a nationalised nuclear industry. A true nuclear energy policy should focus on three core areas:

• The product: producing clean, cheap, consistent energy

• The opportunity: what can we innovate and what can we sell?

• The manpower: where do our workers come from?

We are a country blessed with abundant uranium deposits. Currently, this is exported in natural form, for countries overseas to enrich and use in nuclear industries. For nuclear to make sense in Australia, our first focus should be on building enrichment capabilities here. Enriched uranium offers significant potential for Australia as it more than doubles the value of natural uranium. Not only will this allow us to supply our nuclear power stations completely independent of any other nation, but the excess, higher value product can then be exported to maintain (or expand) our market share overseas. An enrichment industry would therefore benefit the country both financially and by providing our citizens with high-paying, skilled work. Both of these factors are critical to our national development as our industrial work continues to dry up and our mining industry undergoes significant change.

The biggest prerequisite for this industry is a nuclear capable workforce, and whilst we have a small number of Australians working for the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), we will need significantly more in the future. This presents nationalists with an opportunity. Australia is in the grips of a brain drain, many of our scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs see bigger opportunities available to them in the innovation hubs of Europe and North America. For Australia, this means a generation of aspirational young Australians are being driven overseas, and this deprives us of the innovative spirit we need to develop as a nation. We must work to attract these young professionals back to Australia and encourage the next generation of the science workforce to remain in Australia. One of the biggest barriers to retaining STEM educated graduates is our relative lack of industrial opportunities. A nuclear industry encompassing research, development and commercial operation would be an attractive prospect to address this problem.

Aspirational goals and strong future focused leadership both foster innovation capabilities. There is no better example of this than companies like SpaceX, originating in the innovation hubs of southern California. The introduction of a nuclear industry into the Australian market offers significant prospect for us to be at the forefront of nuclear development. Technologies such as small modular reactors, molten salt reactors and thorium reactors remain underdeveloped ideas with tremendous potential and benefits ranging from portability and scalability to reduced water consumption and a lower risk of nuclear proliferation. Such innovations are in Australia’s own interest, as they could expand nuclear technologies into previously untapped and future markets in Africa, south-east Asia and even Mars. That’s not even to mention the prospect of nuclear fusion as a power source of the future. Proponents of renewables often cite the remarkable innovations in battery technology and solar panel efficiency as reasons to back renewables, yet when it comes to nuclear, the thought of innovation and development is conveniently ignored. Nuclear technologies have a rich future ahead; we can either let the world innovate around us or capitalise on our resource advantages to the benefit of our nation.

Nuclear power is the natural choice for Australia’s nationalist movement. It is a topic that can be freely discussed, has support that bridges the traditional left-right divide and promotes futuristic framing of national ambition and progress. It presents us with an opportunity to drive the public conversation toward a common goal of national development and independence, encourages industrial development and world-leading innovation, all whist securing employment for Australian workers. And that’s an opportunity we would be wrong to let go.

Written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_

This week I heard the story of an international student from India currently living in Australia which exposed to me the lengths these students will go to in order to remain in Australia.

Fatima (name changed for privacy) graduated with a bachelor’s degree in communications at the end of 2024. Her visa has only a few weeks remaining and yet she has no plans to leave the country. She knows just how much better life is in Australia, and she is unwilling to give that up to return home to the squalor of family life in India. Through a combination of international student networks, university support and weak immigration laws, international students like Fatima are actively organising to help each other remain in the country. Her’s is only one story, yet it highlights a fundamental problem with our temporary migration system - a system that is being systematically exploited by international students to remain in Australia long after their student visas have expired. Worst of all, they’re doing so completely within the purveiw of the law!

Subscribe now

Despite many international students finishing their degrees with the conclusion of the academic year in October and November, under Australia’s current student visa system, international students are given until mid-March to leave the country after the completion of their degrees. This time is notionally a grace period to allow international students to organise their return home, but many are taking advantage of this leniency to devise ways to remain in Australia long after their student visas have expired. 1 in 3 international students who have completed their studies in Australia have continued to live, work and study here after they graduate. As just the latest in a long line of international students seeking a path to permanent residency, Fatima has used abundant ethnic networks to help her navigate Australia’s immigration laws and establish the path of least resistance toward securing her stay here for as long as possible.

Today, Fatima is ready to start on the next step of her journey towards permanent residency - the master’s degree. This degree program has been carefully designed in Australian universities to facilitate large numbers of international students and ensure a continued supply of money into university coffers. A coursework master’s degree is not a traditional part of Australia’s tertiary education system and has conventionally only been offered to students who are re-training into a new profession. The connotations of such a qualification, particularly from the research institutions of the United States, has encouraged Australian universities to design master’s courses with vague titles like "Sustainability", "Business Administration" or "International Business", marketed specifically towards international students. These courses are often conducted primarily online, with very little face-to-face teaching and feature content which would be simplistic in a bachelor’s degree.

Subscribe now

After discussions with her university’s international office, and fellow migrants living in her sharehouse, Fatima has chosen the Masters of Business Administration (MBA) offered through the University of Sydney. The MBA is the most common choice for international students studying master’s degrees in Australia and is offered by most universities and many private colleges looking to gain significant revenue from high international student fees. At the University of Sydney, this degree can be undertaken on a part time basis over the course of 3 years, costing upwards of $60,000 per year. The degree is advertised with vague descriptors like, “Master the art of taking theory and turning it into real-world practical solutions” or as having “content tailored to equip experienced managers with the knowledge, skills and attributes that they need to adapt, lead and succeed in the context of change” to attract many migrants with the appeal of appearing more employable in Australia upon completion.

All this may seem very legitimate, after all Australian universities are allowed to offer whichever degree programs they choose, but the veneer of legitimacy is removed by the reality of the sheer number of MBAs offered at Australian institutions. Today, Australia offers more than double the number of MBAs per person than any other region on Earth. With the business sector in Australia significantly smaller than that of Asia, Europe or North America, the fact that so many Australian institutions offer this degree program reveal just how much of a international student scam this degree is.

Subscribe now

Fatima doesn't care about the degree. Her undergraduate was in communications. In fact, she is more than willing to pay $180,000 solely for the opportunity to stay in the country. This offers her the chance to work 40 hours a week (probably off the books), to look for a boyfriend to make a permanent visa application easier and to pass all her courses with little effort because, for international students, most marks have a habit of rounding up to a pass standard. Whilst doing this she is also applying for rentals and occupying a sharehouse in an already overburdened Sydney housing market. None of this is to mention the bridging visa she will be granted while she waits for her new degree to start in August.

Not only is this a common occurrence in Australia's educational system, but it is also a process that is actively encouraged and advertised to prospective international students in their home countries. Australia's universities consistently rank inside the top 100 global institutions, yet their financial stability is dependent upon international students. With few prestigious universities across Southern and Southeast Asia, the lure of an Australian degree is an easy sell. In 2024 Australian institutions enrolled almost 1 million migrants combined. Of these students, 300,000 would be expected to undertake a similar process to Fatima, whether they continue to search for further study, or look for a job here before their visa runs out. Whilst our universities continue to rely on international students for their financial viability, this backdoor into permanent residency will remain open and we will continue to see tens of thousands of migrants just like Fatima use the university system to remain in Australia every single year.

The concept of education as Australia's third biggest export is one often quoted by politicians, and certainly universities, to justify the large intake of immigrants. Yet with the number of immigrants that continue to live in Australia so high, the net benefit must be re-examined. Temporary migration is a significant cause behind the stagnation of wages and rising house prices. It is reasonable to allow limited international students to study at Australian universities, but if we are to become serious about improving life for the domestic Australian student, we must be willing to significantly limit the proportion of international places our domestic institutions are allowed to offer, and reform the student visa to eliminate the opportunity for these students to stay onshore indefinitely. Australian universities need to focus on the education of Australian students and while their major income continues to be derived from international enrolments, they will remain institutions which are compromised by foreign interest, unable to satisfy the needs of a nationalist nation.

Written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_

Keith Woods’ aptly titled Nationalism: The Politics of Identity is a compelling anthology which succeeds on its promise, forming a robust defence of modern nationalism. Through a series of fifteen well curated essays and nearly 300 references, Woods introduces his readers to nationalism through his own experience, guiding them through historical, philosophical and moral arguments for nationalist thought. He elegantly dismantles nationalist critics from both the left and right, and in so doing, builds a work that is essential reading for both the prospective nationalist and the nationalist stalwart alike.

Subscribe now

“Nationalism will endure because it is moral, because it is natural and because it is necessary.”

This end to the first essay, The Endurance of Nationalism, sets the tone for the work and provides the three key metrics Woods uses as a foundation for his subsequent essays: nationalism’s morality, naturality and necessity. That these themes remain ever-present despite the nature of a collection of essays, is a credit to the coherence of Woods’ worldview and makes this anthology one which should be read from cover to cover. The structure of the work imitates the journey of a nationalist thinker, opening with a discussion of nationalism and the nationalist worldview, delving through history and finishing with modern politics. By proposing leading questions about the death of liberalism, society’s size and race politics, Woods diagnoses the ills of modern society. He then guides the reader through the historical naturality of nationalist thought using case studies from the Roman Empire, Germany and Ireland, bringing these threads together to conclude with a critical look at the modern political landscape.

The breadth of this work is both a strength and a weakness. Whilst Woods covers significant ground through his essays, and there is no doubt there is an essay of interest to all, at times the depth of argument can feel lacking. That is assuredly a consequence of the format, a collection of meticulously detailed essays, something I’ve no doubt Woods could pen, would be significantly less accessible than this work. For those wishing to delve deeper, the references provided by Woods are an excellent starting point. In sacrificing some detail, the breadth of the work does bring with it some of the most interesting moments. I particularly enjoyed the small essay on the re-wilding movement, Make Europe Wild Again, which leans into eco-nationalism. The essay offers a compelling repudiation of our current technocratic governments, in favour of a regime where preservation of native land is an extension of the protection of native people, an argument oft overlooked by contemporary nationalist commentators.

Subscribe now

Despite what the media may claim, it would be difficult to define Woods’ ideology as extreme. The essays which make up this book describe a man passionately patriotic about the survival of the western world, and every claim is backed by comprehensive evidence. Here lies the biggest strength of this book, Woods approaches important ideological topics in a way which requires no prerequisites of the reader. Whether he is dismantling Thatcherite conservatism or discussing the necessity of ethnonationalism, at no point does this work feel inaccessible. Each essay could be understood by both the nationalist novice and intellectual and presents an approachable and comprehensive ideology of national pride and preservation. The book is even complete with a frequently asked questions section about race you could give to your grandma!

Nationalism: The Politics of Identity is an excellent debut book by Keith Woods, and a great introduction to the origins of modern nationalist movements. By reflecting on the three key themes of morality, necessity and naturality, Woods builds a persuasive case for a nationalist third way, one which rejects the small government economics of the modern right and the social liberalism the left clings to, in favour of the unifying characteristics of culture, faith and heritage. Woods leaves us in no doubt about his passion and patriotism, and I challenge any reader to finish this book without a deeper appreciation for their own country, its culture and its people.

Written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_

As I sit here watching the disappointing effort of Australia in their first test cricket match against India of the summer, I ponder at the sheer size of the Indian crowd in an Australian stadium. For those watching Seven’s coverage of the test, you might not have even realised that the match was taking place in Australia. Between the special interest stories on the rags to riches journey of Indian opener Yashasvi Jaiswal, to the advertisement of Seven’s new Hindi commentary and the panning crowd shots of Indian supporters, it really makes you wonder where the allegiance of Australia’s most watched mainstream network truly lies.

As is often the case, the Indian crowd is presented as a positive story. News articles focus on the record crowds and the cultural ‘enrichment’ our Indian neighbours bring. For those who have followed much of my recent work, the nature and impact of migration on Australia has been of particular interest to me, but even so, the level of praise for the Indian crowds remains somewhat discordant with my own impression of the cultural icon which is the Australian cricket team. Can this even be called a home match, when the crowd and coverage appear to pander to the growing Indian diaspora?

Former MP Graeme Campbell addressed this topic of our multicultural reality in a recent episode of The Backbench Drivers,

“We don’t have multiculturalism, we have multiracialism. These people don’t have any loyalty to Australia”.

This is no more evident than when you flick on an Australian sporting event. The myriad of ethnic enclaves across the Australian capitals will turn out in large numbers, but rather than supporting their new country, they become loud and loyal supporters of their ethnic heritage. This is particularly apparent among these new Indian migrants, so-called new ‘Australians’, at this first test. It highlights how impossible the task of integration truly is, migrants don’t dissociate their ethnic identity from their new country, but rather their ethnic allegiance seems heightened. Far from multiculturalism, tribalism has overtaken Australia’s ethnic enclaves and disregard for our nation is encouraged. Naturally, I begun to question how the rising tribalism of Indian migration has impacted our recent cricket results against India on home soil.

Subscribe now

Since Indian independence from Britain in 1947, Australia has seen small levels of migration from the sub-continent, averaging approximately 1500 new migrants per year. This drastically changed from 2001. As highlighted by the red line on the graph above, Indian migration has dramatically increased over recent years. Today we average 39,000 new Indian migrants per year, and this has shown no indication of slowing down (to the contrary, 2023 and 2024 data reveal a migration rate which is only increasing).

Suburbs like Harris Park in Sydney, Werribee in Melbourne and Canning Vale in Perth have become unofficial ‘Little India’ enclaves. No doubt we will see these migrants grace the stands of our cricketing hallowed halls across the summer. Australia was once unbeatable on our own shores, the most successful team in cricketing history. Our fast bowlers stunned the foreigners with their speed and bounce. Our batsmen revelled in the raucous Aussie crowds. Today, we find ourselves facing a three series losing streak against the Indians, in Australia. To what level can this be explained by an increasingly hostile crowd on our own shores?

Subscribe now

In what is a somewhat crude analysis, due to the irregularity of our test matches with India, there does appear to be a correlation between the number of Indian migrants and the number of Australian wins or draws in test matches against India, in Australia. Whilst we emphatically won series’ against India in the 20^th century, our recent form has diminished, and this is reasonably well correlated (R² = 0.5) with the growth of Indian migrants in our community. You cannot of course determine a causation effect from such little data, but when the hostility of the home crowd is diminished by foreign supporters, this must weaken the fortress which has been the sacred grounds Australian cricket. There is no doubt the Hindi chants and support of Australia’s new migrants would boost the Indian team, to the detriment of our own, revealing the frailty of their supposed integration into our communities.

It may seem to be an inconsequential impact. There are much more pressing threats to Australia than a floundering national cricket team. But this test is broadcast into millions of Australian homes, and to the many politically ambivalent Australians, the attempted normalisation of multiculturalism continues. To pursue an Australia First agenda, we must be reclaiming and fortifying Australian cultural institutions, like the summer of cricket, against the undue influence of foreigners. If these new migrants can’t even support Australia at sport, what hope is there that they ever consider anything other than their own ethnic interest when it comes to politics? In the words of Campbell, “Unless we have a national identity, we will be subsumed by multiculturalism.” Sport has a way of bringing out one’s true loyalties and has formed an important part of Australia’s national identity. It is increasingly clear that Australia’s dogma of multiracialism has introduced enumerate migrants into our country. Migrants which are eroding our national identity. Migrants that don’t truly call Australia home.

Written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_

“They are not your protectors. They are not your providers. … They hate women. They hate POC. They do not give a damn about LGBTQ+. Let that sink in.”

“America is not safe for the majority of people anymore … So long as our government fails to represent America’s true diversity – this will always be the case. White male leadership is a lie.”

“I greatly fear for the type of America that my children could inhabit with a man like this having incredibly harmful opinions like this being the mainstream.”

These are just some of the comments published in the wake of the historic re-election of Donald Trump to the American Presidency. The depths of Reddit may not be the place to go searching for nuanced political commentary, but they give an insight into the mindset of liberals across America as they seethe about a second Trump administration. What is most notable about these comments is the sheer level of vitriol targeted toward one demographic in particular: white men. As the final votes are counted, it is becoming clear how demographic differences have driven America toward the first (officially) popularly elected Republican president in 20 years.

Subscribe now

Demographic breakdowns of voting data are a uniquity of American elections. Unfortunately for Australia, publicly available data of a similar nature does not readily exist, but the cultural and political similarity of our nations make the demographic trends in American political preference informative towards the development of Australian politics. As recently published in The National Observer, Australia’s voting electorate has begun to mirror trends seen in America pre-2016. Young male voters are turning away from progressive policies, such as the Aboriginal voice, and coming out to support conservative candidates in much larger numbers than their millennial predecessors. In this way, the 2024 American Presidential election offers unique insight into how demographic divisions could influence Australian politics for the years ahead.

One of the most apparent trends in American politics has been the growing political divide between men and women. Across several exit polls conducted by the US mainstream media (NBC , Associated Press) male voters supported Trump over Harris by 13% on average, with women voting for Harris by 10%. This advantage grows when looking at the gender effect by racial group. Carrying over 60% of the white male vote, Trump clearly asserted his dominance over his core white male demographic. Black people, as much as Republican boomer campaign managers wish otherwise, strongly voted Democratic, as they always do. However, a stark divide was recorded among the Hispanic population. Strong gains were seen particularly among Latino men, who voted for Trump over Harris by 13%. This represented a near 20-point divide between Latino men and women (who were convincingly won by Harris). This can be attributed to this group’s working-class foundation, to which Trump’s economic policies no doubt appeal, and the strong Christian roots of these communities, particularly among young working-class men. Christians overwhelmingly backed Trump, with Protestants recording a 46-point preference for Trump and Catholics a 26-point advantage.

Subscribe now

The enduring and growing appeal of Trump to the average American man is no doubt a consequence of the commentary I began this article with. Many bitter leftist women opine about the danger of Trump’s rhetoric on women yet ignore the basic facts of how a gendered political landscape began. It was women who opened the door to gendered identity politics when they demanded the right to vote. Feminist and anti-male sentiment has long driven women to the polls as single-issue voters, and this election presents no change. Harris’ rhetoric was heavily focused on the so-called rights of women to abort babies, and this delivered her the endorsement of numerous female celebrities, and subsequently a strong female vote. Ultimately, the fate of the Harris campaign was sealed by focusing on women’s issues, because they are exactly that – women’s issues. Men are tired of the hatred thrown at them by women as they push to win over their ‘sisters’. We are told we hate women; our leadership is dangerous and our opinions harmful. Human history suggests this is patently false. Men have successfully led societies for millennia, and clearly these new and increasingly hysterical female attacks towards men are having a decisive impact on the politics of the male voter.

An interesting subset of these women voters are the white women. Despite the strong push of Harris’ campaign toward female voters, this demographic voted for Trump by 8 points. This result is quite revealing about the future of American politics.  Even women realise they don’t want a female president. As one commentator noted this week, “The glass ceiling, … it’s a ceiling made of bricks.” Voters recognise that liberalism is the politics of the feminine, dominated by emotion, and this is why we consistently see men, rather than women, win on metrics of good leadership. In the same exit polling, voters were asked about the qualities of the candidates that appealed to them. Trump dominated on the ability to lead (66%) and the ability to bring about change (72%), characteristics of a strong leader, whilst Harris won over voters for caring about people like them (73%). Even when the electorate is presented with an ostensibly well-credentialed female candidate, her qualities are just not appealing for the office of President.

Subscribe now

The other demographic that Trump saw remarkable improvement with was 18–29-year-old men. The level of Trump’s victory in this demographic remains somewhat unclear, with the AP Votecast exit poll recording a 14-point victory, whilst the Wall Street Journal suggests this demographic favoured Trump by 10 points, and CBS reports an even higher difference of 18 percentage points. These differences are likely a result of small sample sizes and geographic variation. What is readily apparent though is that Trump’s strategy of targeting disaffected young men, through targeted appearances on podcasts such as those run by Adin Ross and Joe Rogan, flipped to him a demographic won decisively by Joe Biden in 2020 (a swing of nearly 30 points). This is a remarkable result. There is a clear backlash in this demographic over feminine identity politics. We have grown up in an era where young men are increasingly the scapegoats of a radicalised feminine political class. Here at the National Observer, we have published about this phenomenon extensively and it is becoming increasingly apparent that this anti-white, male and Christian rhetoric is turning young men towards conservatism. With this decisive shift towards Trump within this demographic, young men are being discussed as critical to Trump’s victory. Our political relevance has grown, and this will force political parties to address their politics towards the concerns of our demographic and this is of course something we endeavour to replicate in Australia.

A historic election result in the United States has left inner-city women crying on TikTok, whilst men celebrate in the streets. Quite clearly the Democratic strategy of almost exclusively targeting women and minority communities has proven to be one of failure. An appeal to women’s issues, diversity, equity and inclusion and weak positioning on immigration and trade was thoroughly shunned by the American electorate. Even among historical left-leaning demographics, Democrats have fundamentally misjudged a rising backlash against the leftist line of thought.

This bodes well for the Australian context, with a federal election likely in March, the successes of Trump’s campaign over recent months should embolden our right wing to embrace some of his campaign strategies and target a similar base. We should not feel dejected about our own politics, because now is the time we must act to ensure we have the right infrastructure and institution in place to capitalise on the coming shift in public opinion. We will have our ‘Trump moment.’ It will not be the same as in the United States, but that does not mean it can’t have a similar impact. We have a unique political landscape from our party structure to our voting and parliamentary systems and our politics are running 10 years behind our counterparts in the Anglosphere. But this gives us the advantage of learning from past failures and enables us to capitalise on the best components of American and European nationalism. As leftist rhetoric is sharpened against more and more of the electorate, their influence on the generational and demographic shifts of this recent presidential election foreshadows our next opportunities in restoring Australian excellence. We are entering a new era of politics, and that is something to be whitepilled about.

Written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_

Across the globe it is becoming increasingly apparent that the politics of young people are vastly different from generations past. We are eschewing the traditional party divides that have dominated western politics for over a century, and this is often seen as disengagement from the political process. Whilst party politics may not be the mechanism by which Generation Z actualises its political ideals, movements like Rising Tide and Students for Palestine have gained traction among high school and university students. These public displays of youthful progressivism have led many to develop the notion that Generation Z is irredeemably left-wing.

Many have preached about the existential crisis facing the Australian right wing because of the progressive slant young people are sliding down. This was further reinforced by the 2022 federal election, where the election of Anthony Albanese as prime minister can be attributed in some part to weak support for the Coalition among young people. Only 1 in 4 young people cast a vote for the Liberal Party. With the mandate of the people, Albanese went on to hold one of the most expensive referenda in Australia’s history, to determine whether Aborigines should have a “Voice” to parliament. It was widely predicted that young people would drive the Yes vote to victory.

There is no doubt that Generation Z leaned strongly toward the Yes position, with the 18–24-year-old age bracket recording the highest Yes vote across the nation. But new research by the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) suggests that the data hides a trend among Generation Z which bodes strongly for the future of Australian conservatism. The Yes vote was notably strong with 18–24-year-old women (74%), but the same can not be said for 18–24-year-old men, who recorded a majority (55%) for the No case. This represents a 29-percentage point gap between the vote of women and men, by far the largest gender gap of any age group examined. A smaller, yet significant, gap is seen between men and women in the 25-34 age bracket, but older age groups show only small, if any, difference between the voting intentions of men and women.

Subscribe now

These differences appear to have gone widely unreported. Legacy media narratives around the politics of young people still focus on their progressive credentials, seemingly wilfully ignorant of the stark gender divisions among our generation that this research demonstrates. When it comes to a vote on specific issues, younger Australian’s don’t speak with one voice. Ignoring the results of young men would be a mistake for the Australian right. A 29-point gap suggests Australia could be headed on a similar trajectory to young people in Europe and the United States. Recent elections across Europe, particularly in Germany, Austria, and France, have demonstrated that Generation Z men tend to favour right-wing politics. Parties such as the Alternative for Germany have garnered significant support with young men, propelling them to top the youth vote in the recent Thuringia state election. Similarly in the United States, there has been increasing support among young people towards Donald Trump in the lead up to the 2024 election, with many polls suggesting he is outpolling Kamala Harris among young men.

Yet in Australia our political landscape appears devoid of a party competent enough to capitalise on this trajectory. The major parties continue to offer weak policy proposals on issues that affect young people, from housing and immigration to the environment and wages. Instead, they spend their time pandering to immigrants and retirees.  Minor right-wing parties are even more guilty of this with an aging voter base occupied with combatting ‘woke’. The only party talking to young people seems to be the Australian Greens, yet the IPA’s work also suggests they are not attracting young men.

The IPA’s research examined the voting intention of young people at the next federal election, and again significant difference can be seen in the voting intention of young men and young women. Whilst overall 18–24-year-olds are the most progressive generation, showing strong support for the Greens and weak support for the Coalition, the gender gap is again abundantly clear. Women aged 18-24 reported that nearly 3 in 5 would support the Greens, whilst only 1 in 5 young men intend to vote the same way, a difference of almost 40%.

Once again it is clear that it is young women who are leading the charge toward progressivism, not young men. Quite clearly, The Greens aren’t the major party alternative young men are looking for. In fact, a near equal distribution of the voting intentions of young men among the Coalition, Labor, the Greens and Other (with a slight preference to the Coalition), suggests there is no one party which serves the needs of young men. The IPA reports that young male voters responding ‘Other’ tended to favour minor right-wing parties like the Libertarians and One Nation, whilst women and particularly older women, favoured the Teal independents. A competent Young Liberal movement would be able to capitalise on this ambivalent voter base, yet are left straddled with leadership apathetic with the idea of expanding their reach to young men.

Subscribe now

Australia’s politics is often seen as boring compared to what we are seeing play out in Europe and America — and for good reason! A long history of a naturally conservative electorate has given Australians comfort in relative political stability. Unfortunately, the one thing young people can agree on is that the current system has festered for too long and is inadequate to meet the needs of Australia’s future, yet a self-indulgent political class seems unable to recognise this. Australia’s left is mobilising towards the prospect of a generational shift in ideology which could ultimately change Australia’s politics, but this recent data suggests that the “progressive youth” label may be a misleading one, particularly for young men. For conservatives to capitalise on this, they must be willing to be a little controversial, break the mould of what it means to be an Australian politician and present a future that addresses the concerns of young Australian men.

All this is to say that the right should not be in despair about the future, in fact it presents a strong opportunity for us. What these Voice results clearly show is that young men are far more politically homeless than the media would like to admit. In the face of a changing world, we are grappling with what a future for us might look like. If the right can move the Australian political narrative beyond taxes, small government and the Labor Party, toward Australia’s future, there are a generation of young men out there that just might find a political home. And let’s be honest, when you have quality young men trending right, do we really need the women?

Article written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_. Article edited and data compiled by Matthew Fischer, find more of his content on telegram.

Commentary surrounding the impact of migrants on Australia’s housing crisis varies, ranging from platitudes about how migration could fix the housing crisis, to assertions that immigration is the primary driver of prohibitive housing prices. It is clear however that Australia is currently undergoing a severe housing shortage, which has caused significant tightness in the market and in turn caused prices to rise substantially and forcing rental vacancy rates to plummet.
Simultaneously, net overseas migration has risen to an all-time high, Australia let in over half a million new migrants in 2022/23. These immigrants need housing, yet the news media ignores the demand-side pressures this intake creates in order to focus almost exclusively on supply-side pressures. Journalists routinely highlight how this crisis is due to a lack of housing, supposedly remedied by massive government spending on social housing. Meanwhile, discussion of migration as a factor in the housing crisis is met with accusations of racism, yet even in spite of this, both the Labor and Liberal parties have implicitly acknowledged an ‘immigration effect’ by adopting commitments to lower immigration intake over the next decade. What seems to be missing from the discourse is a quantitative examination of the relationship between immigration and housing. To dispel media lies, half-truths and misdirection about immigration effects on housing, The National Observer has used publicly available Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data to investigate the numbers behind the housing crisis.

Subscribe now

Once the ideological speculation is stripped away, the best available stats tell a clear story; Moallemi and Melser (2020) conducted a detailed analysis of the effect migration has on housing. They showed that between 2006 and 2016, a 1% increase in immigration caused a 0.9% per annum increase in house prices. This effect was larger for the more recent years examined, as well as in the eastern states. Of particular interest, the authors highlighted an increased influence of both Indian and Chinese immigrants on house prices, corresponding with the growth of those two demographics in Australia.
More recently, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) conducted a report into the macroeconomic impact of immigration into Australia. The IMF found that migration was positively correlated with the house price index and demonstrated significant increases in the five years following known historical migration peaks. Given the high levels of recent migration into Australia, our analysis seeks to examine this effect with updated data and explore the monetary impact of migration on Australians looking to enter the housing market over the next 20 years.

Data for this study was taken from publicly available sources, primarily the 2011, 2016 and 2021 censuses conducted by the ABS, focusing on the Level 2 Statistical Areas in the Eastern states. Moallemi and Melser’s methodology was leveraged to uncover the most recent effects of immigration on housing. Importantly, there are a few statistical considerations that have been considered to ensure the results are robust.
The number of immigrants in a particular area is influenced by the existing number of immigrants and the current house prices in that area. This causes an immigration effect to be correlated with the error term in an ordinary linear regression analysis. As done in Moallemi and Melser, we have adjusted for these effects. Furthermore, as immigration is not the only impact on house prices, a series of covariates were included in the model to control for other drivers. These covariates isolate the effect of immigration on housing and were included based on the work of Moallemi and Melser, along with other variables considered to be influential in housing market fluctuations. Covariates used in the model include: median age, median income, population density, state, building approvals, level of tertiary education, apartment ratio, and the value of new construction.

Subscribe now

In plotting the percentage change in migrant population against the log of the change in house price, a clear positive relationship exists between immigration and house prices. When accounting for the covariates, immigration is a statistically significant explanatory variable for house prices, with a p-value < 0.001. Other significant predictors included median age, population density, state and number of building approvals. Interaction effects uncovered a stronger effect of migration on housing in New South Wales and Victoria. For Sydney, we found that a 1% increase in immigration contributes a 0.8% increase in house prices, broadly consistent with the work of Moallemi and Melser.

To quantify this effect for the average Australian, we have used the model and four immigration scenarios to examine the effect of immigration on the median house price in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane over the next 20 years. These migration scenarios are based on the ABS's 50 year population projections and have been amended slightly to account for known migration during 2022 and 2023, and to match the below scenarios. The four scenarios are:

• High: Assumes a constant level of migration set based on the 2022/23 intake.

• Medium: The current Labor governments desired immigration levels, going from a high in 2022/23 steadily decreasing until a level of 275,000 per year, approximately half of the current levels.

• Low: The Liberal Opposition’s immigration proposal to reduce permanent migration to 140,000 people per year.

• Net Zero migration.

Subscribe now

Applying these immigration scenarios to the model reveals some stark effects of migration over the next 20 years. In each of the cities examined, an immigration rate above net-zero increases the median house price. Under the high immigration scenario, the model predicts house prices would be 32%, 24% and 10% higher than a net zero scenario in 2044 for Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, respectively. This corresponds to an additional $1.2 million in the median house price in Sydney, $800,000 in Melbourne and $200,000 in Brisbane. Even under the low migration scenario, Sydney house prices are expected to increase by nearly half a million dollars ($500,000), compared to a net-zero scenario over the next 20 years.

Historically, Brisbane has experienced lower migration intakes than Sydney and Melbourne. therefore, there are lower effects in Brisbane. Under the low migration scenario, there is only a modest $94,000 increase in the median house price by 2044. As Brisbane continues to expand in the lead-up to the Olympic Games in 2032, migrant flows are expected to increase, which may lead Brisbane to experience a similar trend to Sydney and Melbourne.

Yearly increases in the median house price show much the same trend. Sydney has the highest impact, with the high immigration scenario seeing an increase in the median house price of $63,250 per year compared to net zero. This is closely followed by an increase of $41,180 per year in Melbourne and $12,110 in Brisbane. In Sydney, even the low immigration scenario will increase the median house price by $23,600 per year and this almost doubles for the medium immigration scenario. Similar trends are seen for Melbourne and Brisbane, with the magnitude of the cost reduced due to the current cheaper median house prices and different immigration flows compared to Sydney.

Whilst this analysis shows that immigration is not the sole cause of the housing crisis, with house prices predicted to continue to grow under a net-zero scenario, this model clearly demonstrates that migration has a positive and statistically significant impact on the housing market across Australia’s major cities. The expected increases in house prices of many tens of thousands of dollars each year does reveal that migration is exacerbating the upward pressure on housing, pushing it further out of reach of more and more Australians.

The National Observer will release part 2 to this story, examining more socio-economic effects of immigration in a future publication.

Written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_

The feminisation of our schooling system continues. Last week a group of boys were expelled from Yarra Valley Grammar for the horrific crime of ranking their fellow female students by attractiveness. This story is yet another example of the danger inherent in treating women’s emotions as a barometer of social acceptance, a phenomenon that is having detrimental impacts on society at large. Numerous commentators were quick to jump on the story as proof of the inherently evil nature of men and were more than willing to present private schools as a production line for future rapists. Not only does this framing distort the true events of the case, but it also ruins the lives of the young men involved in what was an ultimately harmless incident and is further evidence of the left’s intent to erode our institutions and erase our culture.

Subscribe now

I should preface this by saying that we do not endorse sexual assault in any way. Apparently, that needs to be said, because any defence of these young men could brand us as complicit in their ‘crime’. When a chance to virtue signal arises, commentators are quick to flaunt their progressive credentials, in this case, former students started a petition to have the boys expelled (which was successful), the school principal condemned the students for ‘targeting’ students in a “cruel and highly offensive online post”, and even Victorian Premier Jacinta Allen attacked the “disgraceful” young men. But it’s important to put this incident in context. There was no targeted attack, this was a private document leaked to the media. The boys have not acted on any of their supposed ‘fantasies,’ but apparently clumsily worded group chat banter warrants investigation by Victoria Police. In fact, the only targets of an attack here are the young men who have had their lives thrown into chaos, humiliated in front of the nation, and expelled from their school social circles.

Of particular concern is the school principal’s response to the media furore. His severe condemnation of the students and subsequent expulsion should raise questions about his commitment to his duty of care towards the children entrusted to him. The Victorian Children, Youth and Families Act of 2005 Part 3.7, Section 161B specifically outlaws the use of any form of psychological pressure intended to intimidate or humiliate children and the use of any form of emotional abuse on children under the care of a teacher. Does accusing students of vicious and targeted attacks on their fellow pupils constitute psychological pressure? Perhaps that remains up for debate, but there is no doubt about the immediate and far-reaching impacts on their lives and future.

Whilst it’s impossible to put a monetary cost on these impacts, jurors in California awarded $1 million plus tuition fees to teens wrongfully dismissed by their elite Catholic School for posting photos supposedly showing them in blackface. With many parallels to the Yarra Valley Grammar case, these Californian students were also dismissed only hours after the media got ahold of their photos. Not only did this impact the boys’ schooling, but it also forced them to move states to continue their education and hindered their future career options – all for a photo that was revealed to have been taken out of context in the subsequent court case. It would be no surprise to see such a case in Australia if the crusade against the Yarra Valley boys continues.

This here is the crux of the issue. The leftist elite’s underlying assumption is that women are always right. If women’s feelings are hurt, there must be a problem. Never mind that the fact that women experience more intense negative emotions than men is well-documented, or that this dynamic is most certainly enhanced in the hormonal school environment. You will notice something in common among these leftist commentators – most of them don’t even remember their schooling years, let alone the normal mischief and antics of teenage boys. The National Observer reached out to several current and former students and the overwhelming consensus confirmed that these types of rankings are both extremely common throughout both public and private schools nationwide. This is without mentioning that these sorts of ranking games are played by both men and women. As one former student noted, “boys and girls often objectify the other sex in such ratings of attractiveness. The only difference is that boys are expected to cop it and not complain.” One must ask what the media response would be to a similar ranking of male students compiled by female students? It would certainly receive decidedly less attention, perhaps even be praised for empowering women.

Subscribe now

Smart, successful, well-educated young men are a danger to the progressive agenda. As we have previously reported, there is a sustained effort by leftist elites to silence young men and remove spaces for men to engage with one another freely. Whether that be by over-policing banter or forcing schools to go co-ed, they want to silence young men and fundamentally change the next generation of the institutional elite. The commentary around this incident has centred on the term ‘unrapeable,’ but what the commentators often omit is the terms “wifey” and “cutie”. These aren’t boys looking to rape women. These are young men building their social connection and thinking about their future progeny. This development of young men scares the left and that’s why these incidents are so strongly exaggerated. They need to hide that, in the very same week as these boys were expelled, a Year 7 girl at Melton Secondary College was bashed close to death by a female Sudanese student, and yet this physical violence barely made the news.

Boys will be boys. They like to test boundaries and joke with mates. This has been the case for as long as schooling has existed and, in fact, is a critical component of a man’s development. The targeted attacks against these Yarra Valley schoolboys are symptomatic of a society intent on radical change to our established institutions They are intent on taming men, removing male spaces and fundamentally changing our culture to diminish the role of men. We can expect many similar cases of attacks against young men, and we must be uncompromising in our defence of them. These educational institutions are instrumental in developing the generation of male elite, and we cannot let them fall to whims of feminism.

Written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_

Why have conservatives have turned against science? This question is a fundamental mischaracterisation of the relationship between science and right-wing thinkers. As a young scientist and a conservative, I find myself straddling this so-called divide and in the unique position to offer analysis on the state of the relationship between the right-wing and science. It is true that today, with issues such as climate change and vaccine efficacy, right-wing criticisms of the scientific elite have overwhelmingly dominated the discourse on scientific distrust. But if one is to truly interrogate the disconnect between modern day conservatism and the scientific mainstream, you must also consider the converse; why has science turned against right-wing thought? Or perhaps more notably, how have left-wing idealogues used science against conservatives?

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE FOR FREE

Written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_

In recent years, Australia has been grappling with a stark decline in fertility rates, plunging to historic lows that threaten to reshape the country's economic landscape. According to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), women are now expected to have only 1.6 babies over their fertile years, significantly below the replacement level of 2.1. This trend, which has persisted despite a brief uptick in 2021 likely due to pandemic-related lockdowns, signifies profound demographic shifts with far-reaching consequences for Australia's future.

Subscribe now

Economic Impacts of Declining Fertility Rates

The declining fertility rate in Australia will have economic implications across the short, medium, and long term. Critically, this economic impact will disproportionately affect young people, the working population of Australia’s future. As the proportion of elderly Australians grows relative to the working-age population, the burden of supporting retirees through pension and healthcare schemes will intensify, leading to fiscal challenges for the government. As more and more resources are funnelled into public health and aged care, there will either be less money to spend on infrastructure, education and housing or otherwise there will be an increased tax burden on a smaller taxpaying cohort. Either situation leads to an inevitable decline in the living standards of the working-age population.

The impact of an aging population in the medium term is even more concerning, particularly with the prospect of demographic shifts compounding the secular stagnation of our economy. A shrinking pool of young workers will dampen Australia’s capacity for productivity, growth, and innovation. This pool of workers is traditionally more inclined towards entrepreneurship and technological advancement and the portending dearth of fresh ideas and risk-taking could stifle innovation, ultimately hampering Australia's competitiveness on the global stage.

Why are we here?

Australia's experience echoes broader trends observed in Western countries today and throughout history. Periods of low birth rates have most notably been triggered by unfavourable economic conditions and societal change, such as during the Great Depression in the 1930s, the post-war period in Eastern Europe and the ‘sexual revolution’ throughout the 1960s and 70s. Societal shifts, including delayed marriage, increased educational attainment, and economic hardship have contributed to the postponement of childbearing among young couples.

Several factors have underpinned Australia's declining fertility rate since the global financial crisis in 2008. Economic uncertainty, exacerbated by high housing prices and job instability has dissuaded many from starting families, and this only continues to worsen with the current housing and cost of living crisis. Shifting trends over recent years have seen women remove themselves from the home and enter the workforce in overwhelming numbers. The female employment rate has increased by 20 points since 1978, and this has been accompanied by a 20% decrease in the fertility rate of Australian women. Many women have favoured career development and personal aspirations over natural maternal instincts and most have chosen to postpone or forgo parenthood altogether.

Another cause of declining fertility rates is the increasing secularism of Australian society, with self-identifying Christians nearly halving in number over the last 45 years. It is well known that religious families have more children, with one Austrian study finding that practising Christian parents have twice as many children as secular parents. In particular, irreligious women today have increased access to contraception and abortion, which has played a role in their reduced childbearing.

Subscribe now

Addressing the Challenge: What Can Be Done?

The conventional approach to ‘solving’ this issue is to import a mass number of young immigrants to artificially bolster Australia’s working-age population. This is a poor solution for several reasons.
Immigration is a purely short-term solution; it is well known that second-generation immigrants increase in wealth and education compared to their parents, thus mimicking the same causal factors of the current population’s lack of fertility. Whilst importing a working-age population may temporarily mitigate the impacts of a low fertility rate, ultimately the decline will continue. Not only is it only a short-term solution, but importing immigrants could actually have a net negative effect on the current population’s fertility rates. More immigrants into Australia means increased competition for the available housing stock, leading to a price spike, disproportionately affecting the prospective young families by increasing their financial burden and reducing their incentive and ability to raise large families. Moreover, the well-documented immigration fuelled crime creates dangerous communities no one would want to raise a family in, just another strong disincentive to raise children.

So clearly immigration is not the solution, but what is?
Policymakers need to explore targeted approaches to encourage native-born Australians to have more children. Restrictions to abortion access is a controversial method by which the fertility rate among the existing Australian population could be raised, a solution often ignored due to the political impracticality of implementation. The pro-life argument against abortion is a compelling one, murder of innocent life is never justified, by restricting this abhorrent practice which has taken root in most Western nations, the fertility rate problems in Australia could be swiftly addressed. Several historical cases show the impact of abortion laws on the birth rate. Take, for example, communist Romania during the 1960s and 70s — after a period of freely available abortion, abortions and contraceptives were severely restricted from 1966 to encourage population growth. One recent analysis showed that this policy decision saw an average increase in fertility rate of 0.5 babies per woman.  A similar analysis of the effect of the Roe v Wade decision in the United States in 1973, concluded that the decriminalisation of abortion in America led to a 4% reduction in the national birth rate. Clearly restricting this practice will positively impact both the morality and economy of Australia.

Subscribe now

Improving economic conditions and lifestyle affordability for young families is another important aspect of saving the Australian economy from disaster. Policy proposals such as financial subsidies for childcare, tax benefits for large families, and simplified adoption systems could all play a role in encouraging more couples to start families. Whilst it is hard for some to admit, we must recognise that the biological role of women is to birth and care for children. Encouraging female workforce participation has had a negative impact on fertility and coercive policies aimed at pushing more women into the workforce could exacerbate demographic challenges by further delaying childbearing, only compounding the problem.

Australia’s declining fertility rate presents a complex challenge with profound economic implications for Australia’s future. The growth of the retiree population presents a major burden for the coming working populace and invariably the political class will propose immigration as a solution. Not only will this have a negative effect on Australian society at large, it will undermine any real solutions to revert halt and reverse Australia’s crashing fertility rate.

Written by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_

This week in a tragic turn of events 70 year old grandmother Vyleen White was carjacked in a supermarket carpark by a gang of Sudanese teens, when she handed over the keys to her car she was brutally stabbed to death anyway, in front of her 6 year old granddaughter. This attack was not impossible to foresee. For decades, and truly ever since our founding, Australians have pointed to the cruel and rampant crimes perpetrated in the third world, Africa in particular, and in the interest of Australians advocated for various programs of immigration restriction in order to protect our countrymen from becoming the victims of these crimes on Australian soil. Even the most mainstream of individuals voicing such criticisms such as current opposition leader Peter Dutton were labelled ‘racist’ and accused of possessing some ignorant prejudice against Africans for suggesting various immigrant populations in Australia have a crime problem. Today, an innocent 70 year old grandma would still be alive had we adopted these ‘racist’ stances.

Of course, the murder of Vyleen White is not a standalone incident or anomaly. To the casual observer, it is clear that crime, and in particular violent crime, is increasing, fuelled by the rising cost of living and uncontrolled immigration. School children are being targeted by violent criminals (SBS), young workers are being killed by customers (SKY) and businesses are being broken into periodically (News.com.au) and yet governments remain hesitant to implement tough-on-crime policies.

Subscribe now

Causes of this latest crime wave have become contentious, with any reporting of the racial dimension labelled “racial profiling”, “fear mongering” and “racist” by sections of the Australian mainstream media. With the cost-of-living crisis, rising housing costs and now crime waves, Australia’s elite would seemingly rather sacrifice the jobs and savings, and even the lives, of everyday Australians than ever reduce immigration, the undeniable root cause of this degradation. How can government’s affect a better country for Australians if they refuse to address the issues head on? This latest crime wave and the subsequent lacklustre government responses will likely be important issues for the forthcoming 2024 Queensland state election and a key focus for former-police-officer-turned-politician Peter Dutton as he heads into a federal election in 2025.

The National Observer will not be deterred from confronting controversial issues as we seek to bring Australians the facts. Following on from our article statistically analysing White replacement in Australia published last year, the National Observer has once again in this article laid out in unflinching detail the key trends in recent national crime data, and explore who is driving this latest crime crisis.

Are we in a crime crisis?

Recent rises in crime, particularly in Queensland and Victoria, have been widely reported. With every assault and home invasion politicians are facing more pressure to address these acts. The general public is increasingly concerned with these rises in crime, and victims are beginning to take to the streets to demand the government intervene.

There is no doubt that incarceration rates have increased in recent years. Data on the prison population from 1994 to 2022 shows that the number of prisoners in Australian gaols has nearly doubled from 9.5 prisoners for every 10 000 people in 1994 to 17.1 prisoners for every 10 000 people in 2018. Whilst there has been a decline over the last few years, likely attributable to Covid-19 lockdowns during 2020 and 2021, the trend over the last 30 years has been one of increasing criminal offences.

Subscribe now

Incarcerating a person in 2024 is not cheap. The Institute of Public Affairs estimated in 2023 that it costs $405 per prisoner per day to house a prisoner in Australia’s criminal justice system (IPA). This is a total expenditure of approximately $6 billion in 2023 alone. Increasing levels of incarceration are therefore not only a danger to Australian society, but they also impact the Australian taxpayer. In fact, the average Australian taxpayer is paying $114 more per year today, than if incarceration rates were at 1994 levels.

By breaking down the incarceration rate by crime category, some trends in crime over the last 28 years are revealed. Whilst most crimes are stagnant or trending down, alarmingly rates of sexual assaults, drug offences and acts with intent to cause injury (assaults, stalking, drugging) have more than doubled.  This will come as no surprise to victims of these crimes from Cairns to Alice Springs and Melbourne, but it is a stark reminder that action needs to be taken in order to ensure that Australia remains a safe and moral nation. 
So, what is driving this crime wave?

Subscribe now

Aboriginal Offenders:

It is incredibly important to understand why crime in Australia is increasing, and by extension who is committing it. Unfortunately, willingness to name the perpetrators of certain types of crime will see your name dragged through the mud as a ‘racist’ and assorted other pejorative’s in the modern West. Yet, for those living near the hotspots, similarities among many of the perpetrators have become impossible to deny. Aboriginal crime has long plagued civil Australians, but recent media coverage of crime waves in Queensland and the Northern Territory has favoured language like “youth crime” and “juvenile offenders” over more apt descriptions of “Aboriginal youth.” Here we reveal the facts behind Aboriginal crime in Australia over recent decades.

Subscribe now

Aboriginal incarceration rates are increasing significantly faster than other populations. From 1994 to 2022, the Aboriginal prison population grew by over 360%, while the non-Aboriginal Australian prison population peaked at 114% higher than 1994 in 2018, before shrinking over the last 5 years.  The result of this is that Aboriginals now make up over 30% of prisoners in Australian gaols, despite representing only 4% of the general population, and are significant contributors to our growing crime issues in Australia.

A closer look at Aboriginal offenders leads to some alarming distinctions between Aboriginal crime and other offenders. 2022 prisoner data shows that Aboriginals are incarcerated at a higher rate than other races across ALL crime categories examined. Significantly in 2022, Aboriginals were 7 times more likely to commit homicide and 6 times more likely to commit sexual assault than non-Aboriginal Australian offenders. Perhaps most concerningly, Aboriginals were 22 times more likely to commit acts which are intended to cause injury, that is assaults, affray, stalking and other crimes of that nature. The types of crime where Aboriginals are most overrepresented – acts intended to cause injury and unlawful entry – are also those which have seen spikes in North Queensland and the Northern Territory. It is also worth noting that this data represents the most serious offence, and so each data point represents a unique prisoner, each potentially responsible for more than one of these crimes. Whilst data for 2023 is currently unavailable, the high Aboriginal population within these regions, combined with these high crime numbers, support the proposition that it is Aboriginal offenders which are driving the crime waves seen in Australian towns.

Subscribe now

The common rebuttal to this conclusion is that Aboriginal overrepresentation in Australia’s criminal justice system is a result of systematic racial discrimination and racial profiling against Aboriginals. However, a simple look at the offender distribution over the last 30 years tells a different story. The following graph shows the percentage of Aboriginal (and non-Aboriginal) offenders in gaol for each crime out of the total Aboriginal (and non-Aboriginal) prison population. For most crimes the Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal proportion of offenders is not significantly different. For example, sexual assault offenders make up, on average, 10% of all Aboriginal offenders and 12% of non-Aboriginal offenders, an almost identical percentage of offenders. There are only two significant differences present in the data; non-Aboriginals have a far higher proportion of drug offences and Aboriginals have a higher proportion of acts intended to cause injury. This is entirely consistent with known crime increases in assaults committed by Aboriginals across Australia (as seen above) and therefore the overrepresentation in this category is attributable to increases in crimes committed, and not to police racial bias. The otherwise similar distributions of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal offenders suggest no significant racial bias against Aboriginals across any other category of crime. Clearly the rises in intent to cause injury offences are attributable to increases in Aboriginal crime.

Subscribe now

Deaths in Custody:

The final component of Aboriginal incarceration which is often discussed as evidence of racism in the criminal justice system is Aboriginal deaths in custody. Using data from the Australian Institute of Criminology on deaths in custody we have calculated the expected number of Aboriginal deaths in custody based on their proportion of the prison population and the number of non-Aboriginal deaths in custody. Highlighted in red are the years which actual Aboriginal deaths exceeded their expected level. As can be seen, 2005 was the last year in which Aboriginal deaths exceeded their expected level.

In fact, recent years have shown significantly fewer deaths than non-Aboriginal prisoners. Whilst we agree any death in custody is tragic, and effort should be made to prevent them, it is clear from the data that there is no Aboriginal deaths in custody “crisis”. This narrative is misinformation designed to divert attention from legitimate questions about the rises in Aboriginal crime which Australians are experiencing right now.

Subscribe now

Migrant Prisoners:

From the Chinese counterfeiters on the Ballarat goldfields to the post-war crime waves, immigrants have a long history of fuelling crime in Australia. Today migrants make up nearly 1 in 5 prisoners in Australian gaols. Whilst, ethnicity data of prisoners is not currently recorded by any Australian state or territory, the ABS do provide country of birth data for prisoners in Australian gaols. In all but 2 years since 1994 (1996 and 2021), the migrant population in Australian gaols has shown a larger increase than the non-Aboriginal Australian population. Note that Covid-19 immigration restrictions likely reduced immigrants in Australian gaols in 2021, and this reduction is not an indication of an overall reduction in immigrant crime. In fact, with over half a million new migrant arrivals into Australia in 2022, the migrant prison population increased by 7% whilst the non-Aboriginal Australian population decreased by 5% over the same period. This rise is particularly concerning, with the continuing demographic replacement of White Australians, we can only expect these crime waves to worsen.

Subscribe now

Breaking the data down by crime reveals stark regional trends which align with the increases observed in both drug offences and sexual assault over recent years. Migrants from Asia and the Middle East are strongly overrepresented in convicted drug criminals.  Sixteen Vietnamese are imprisoned for every 10 000 Vietnamese immigrants, compared to just one imprisonment per 10 000 for immigrants from the United Kingdom. Such a stark difference between Anglo and Vietnamese immigrants suggests that a similar disparity would be seen between ethnically Vietnamese and Anglo Australian residents. Therefore, much of this rise in drug crime could be attributable to longstanding South-East Asian and Middle Eastern immigration into Australia.

Subscribe now

Sudanese immigrants are drastically overrepresented in most crime classifications, highlighted by the fact that 42 in every 10 000 Sudanese immigrants are incarcerated for intent to cause injury crimes. Sudanese immigrants are 7.5 times more likely to commit homicides than Australians, 3.6 times more likely to commit sexual assault and 12.7 times more likely to commit extortion. Sudan itself is one of the most violent nations in the world, consistently ranked near the bottom of the Global Peace Index and this data suggests that Sudanese immigrants are bringing this pre-disposition to Australian shores. The left can call us racist, but as the recent stabbing of Vyleen White viewed in conjunction with the data shows that African crime gangs are a contributing factor to our current crime crisis.

Commentators would argue these huge crime statistics can be explained by the large youth component of the Sudanese population compared to the Australian population at large. As can be seen, the rate of incarceration of Sudanese far outnumbers many other migrant populations, which are similarly younger than the average Australian. Immigrants are bringing crime with them. Overrepresentation particularly in drug crimes, but also sexual assaults and acts intent to cause injury reveal a pattern of behaviour inconsistent with a civil Australian society. With ethnic data of Australian-born inmates unavailable, it is likely the crime rate of Australians would reduce by
accounting for 2^nd and 3^rd generation immigrants. Limiting immigration is the only viable option to curbing high rates of immigrant crime in our communities.

Subscribe now

The Left Ignores the Facts

Aboriginals and immigrants make up nearly 50% of Australia’s incarcerated population. Aboriginal crime has increased by over 350% in the last thirty years. Immigration levels are at record highs. These are all facts that policy makers conveniently ignore as they propose weak laws to curb Australia’s crime problem. As the voting power of these immigrant populations increases, and governments further refuse to address the causes of these rises in crime, our streets will become less and less safe. White Australians are demographically replaced, and our prisons are being filled with imported criminals.

So ask yourself, are we truly a successful multicultural nation when drugged up criminals target Australian children, when assaults in our streets are rising exponentially, w hen families are hiding from intruders in their own homes and when grandmas are being stabbed for their car keys in front of their 6 year old granddaughter?
I believe anyone working impartially in Australia’s interests must reply with a decisive ‘no’.

Data and maps by Flynn Holman, find more of his content on 𝕏 @Flynn_Holman_, Article by John Lawson

In 2001, American Presidential Candidate Patrick J. Buchanan published his book ‘The Death of the West’ in which he forecasted the demography of various Western nations in the year 2050, when he came to the land down under he stated that; “In Australia, a nation of only 19 million, where the white birthrate is now below replacement levels, the European population will have begun to disappear.” He was not the first, or last, to speak of this demographic replacement.

Before Buchanan, in 1996 Pauline Hanson in her maiden speech made the bold statement that if Australia’s immigration policy was not seriously reassessed it was her belief that “We are in danger of being swamped by Asians”, a statement which immediately sent mainstream media, academia and the major parties into a flurry of denouncements, disavowals and, of course, countless accusations of ‘racism’.

Subscribe now

Before Senator Hanson, in 1995 Western Australian MP Graeme Campbell published his book ‘Australia Betrayed’, in which he criticised several aspects of Australian multiculturalism, noting that: “Even a report by the Bureau of Immigration Research has supported this, though high immigration spokesmen had earlier contended that immigration was needed to offset a supposed population decline which would result from Australia being below replacement fertility levels.” He was subsequently ousted from the Labor Party.

Before Campbell, in 1984 best selling author, Australian historian, academic and commentator Geoffrey Norman Blainey, criticised the rate of Asian immigration into Australia and warned of the social problems that would result from it, MP Campbell recounts that Blainey “criticised the policy of multiculturalism and noted that during his time on the Australia Council he was directed by the government to give preference in funding to people of ethnic background.” Blainey’s fellow academics savagely attacked him for this remark.

Subscribe now

Before Blainey, Arthur A. Calwell, Federal Labor leader from 1960-67, wrote in his 1972 book ‘Be Just and Fear Not’ the bold proclamation; “any man who tries to stigmatise the Australian community as racist because they want to preserve this country for the white race is doing our nation great harm... I reject, in conscience, the idea that Australia should or ever can become a multi-racial society and survive.”

Long before Calwell, Australian historian, educationist, politician and journalist Charles Henry Pearson in 1893, published ‘National Life and Character, a Forecast’, in which he prophetically warned that “The day will come, and perhaps is not far distant, when the European observer will look round to see the globe girdled with a continuous zone of the black and yellow races, no longer too weak for aggression or under tutelage, but independent, or practically so, in government, monopolising the trade of their own regions, and circumscribing the industry of the Europeans” In 1902 Prime Minister Edmund Barton quoted this segment of Pearson’s book while addressing a crowd.

Subscribe now

According to our mainstream media and academia, the above quoted men and women from extremely disparate backgrounds and time periods are not only lying, but doing so with malicious intent. Anytime the claim that White Australians are being replaced is referenced by mainstream media figures or academics it is almost always accompanied by various adjectives intended to discredit it. The Sydney Morning Herald, news.com.au and Monash University have all declared it a ‘conspiracy theory’, and the Guardian has labeled the theory ‘racist’. Unfortunately for these political partisans, the only two adjectives the National Observer team is concerned with are ‘true’ and ‘false’, so we decided to take a look at the data ourselves and conclusively answer the question, are White Australians being replaced by non-Whites as a result of government policy?

Subscribe now

Over the course of the last several weeks an anonymous member of the National Observer research team, @Flynn_Holman_ on 𝕏, took it upon himself to carefully sift through the official population data published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and painstakingly produce the following maps displaying the largest migrant population per region in each of Australia’s major cities.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

As is clear in the maps above, over the course of the last two decades the Australia government has sourced increasingly less of its migrant population from White-European nations and has instead admitted increasing amounts from the various non-White nations with a significant portion of this new migrant population arriving from various Asian nations. For a breakdown of the various Asian ethnicities that dominate migrant populations in the orange portions of the above maps I will direct you to the interactive SBS multiculturalism map, though for the purpose of this article this level of detail is unnecessary. Simply by pairing the above 2001-2021 maps with other datasets we are able to answer the question posed in the title of this article.

Demonstrating the growth of Australia’s non-White population satisfies half the definition of ‘replacement’, it’s worth bearing in mind that were Australia’s White-European population growing in conjunction with Australia’s non-White population the data presented above would not demonstrate replacement. Unfortunately, when paired with birthrate data we can determine conclusively that the growing non-White population is demonstrably taking the place of Australia’s White population.

Below are some maps created based upon ABS birthrate data, credit for these great data visualisations belongs to the account ‘nonebusinesshey’ who originally posted them to a 𝕏. The maps have been colour-coded to represent the each regions corresponding total fertility rate (TFR), a measure of the number of children per woman. Any region with less than 2 children born per woman has a below-replacement birthrate and (excluding immigration) is undergoing a population decline.

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

By comparing all the above maps we can observe that most non-white immigrants are congregating in the inner-city areas where White-European brith rates are lowest. Australia’s population is highly urbanised, with 61% of our total population residing in our top 5 most populous cities alone and another 22.6% residing in the next 45 largest cities and towns meaning that below-replacement birth rates in these urban hubs is having a seismic impact on Australia’s shifting demography.

From ancestry data we can say with reasonable certainty that in 2001 White-Europeans accounted for ~86% of Australia’s population and that in 2021 that number had sunk to ~70%. ABS data is notoriously unreliable regarding ancestry so It’s worth explaining the process we used to ascertain these numbers; The National Observer team took the non-White ancestries and the ‘other’ category, added them and divided by the population total to determine the non-White population as a percentage. This means that individuals with mixed heritage who nominated both their backgrounds on the census will be double counted, though we believe this will not skew numbers significantly. So taking all this into account, and assuming that the immigration rate remains the same as the last two decades, our best estimate shows Australia’s White population declining to 50% as early as 2034.

One medium-term impact of this population shift is the so-called ‘White Flight’ that is likely to result from it. We know that one effect of increasing diversity in an area is a general degradation of community, which in turn pushes families, especially those with children to move elsewhere, thus accelerating the demographic transformation of certain regions of the nation. If these trends continue unchanged, Australian cities will grow increasingly diverse and increasingly non-White, while Australia’s interiors and regions experience a very gradual growth in their White population. Considering that the centres of power in our country, as is the case in any country, are her major cities and commerce hubs we can reasonably expect that our most powerful business leaders, politicians and academics will increasingly be formed from populations with no link to the heritage, culture or ancestry of Australia’s founders, current population or inland population. Considering the present left-leaning voting patterns of these non-White populations, it is reasonable to expect this trend to become irreversible the voting power of the White-European population is eroded.

Subscribe now

To conclude, I’d like to quote, of all things, an article published by the ABC in 2016. For all their obfuscation throughout, this article fact-checking Pauline Hanson’s maiden speech corroborates everything I have written in this article:

“In 1996, the proportion of the Australian population born in South-East Asia, north-east Asia or southern and central Asia was 4.78 per cent…The proportion of people in Australia who were born in Asia almost doubled between 1996 and 2011. By 2011, the proportion of people in Australia who were born in Asia had almost doubled to 8.08 per cent. The proportion of people born in Australia fell from 73.93 per cent to 69.83 per cent — more than eight times the proportion of people born in Asia. The proportion of people born in Australia has declined over the past four censuses.”

On the topic of immigration, the article mentions the same trends observable in our above published graphs, namely that:

“‘There's been increases in migration [since 1996] from just about all countries, except [those in] Europe,’ Professor Raymer said.
‘The only major migrant groups that haven't grown are north-west Europe, south-west Europe has declined, and the UK has basically held flat.’”

and on the topic of demographic change in Hurstville, the article once again can find no fault in Senator Hanson’s remarks:

“The proportion of Hurstville SLA residents born in Asia relative to the rest of the population, at 10.7 per cent, was much higher than the national average in 1996.

By 2011, that rate had risen to be 2.5 times higher, at 25.64 per cent, meaning one in four residents were born in Asia.”

Of course, the ABC believes this demographic trend is extremely beneficial for Australia and makes no mention of possible drawbacks, this has become a noticeable trend when it comes to mainstream media reporting on this demographic trend in both Australia and in the Western nations - the great replacement isn’t happening, its good that it is.

So, are White Australians being replaced by non-Whites as a result of government policy? The answer is an unequivocal, yes.
I guess the ‘racist’ ‘conspiracy theorists’ were right. again.