An effort to understand Australian Sinophobia

Since I spend my holidays in Australia, I find a need to understand the extraordinarily vicious Sinophobia thereabouts. In our time, perhaps New Zealand is the only country where it is worse, but that is not by much. Russophobia is part of the picture as well, but not as bad as in that very weird country, the United States.

So let me suggest the following:

1. The weakness of Australian governance, especially at a national level. No matter what party has been in power over the last decade or more, it has characteristically been weak and torn by inner strife. They spend most of their time turfing out one leader and finding another, so much that elections are a waste of time and money. When a government is weak, it likes to find an external threat.

2. There are two caveats here. To begin with, the general populace is largely positive with regard to China. Survey after survey indicates around 65 percent are positively disposed. Further, the political subclass is split, with significant portions across the limited political spectrum engaging with China. For now, the Sinophobic element is able to set the agenda, making use of a gaggle of rabid ‘commentators’ and ‘advisors’ who do not realise they are being used. Australia also has a compliant corporate and state-owned media (ABC and SBS) playing the same tune.

3. At a deeper level, the Sinophobic narrative – with its distortions and deliberate misinformation – taps into a vast storehouse of Australian racism from the past. This comes form a time when the population was less than 10 million and was largely descended from British immigrants. In this context, the ‘yellow peril’ was invoked, an obviously racist trope and part of the white Australia policy. This is really nasty material, which many of us thought had been left behind.

4. The Sinophobic propaganda is a signal of an ongoing identity crisis. Since 1972 and the end of the white Australia policy, Australia has seen British descendants become a minority. Western European descendants (like myself) will also soon be a minority. Most immigrants come from East Asia, the Subcontinent and Africa. For example, Chinese is the second most spoken language in Australia now. As this shift happens, with about 200,000 immigrants per year, the demographics and culture have been changing. In this context, the racist invocation has become more shrill as Australia makes the transition to a Eurasian nation. That it alienates a significant portion of the population should be obvious.

5. The rampant Sinophobia may also be seen as a symptom of the difficulty of figuring how to deal with a declining United States. That the USA is in decline is obvious to everyone. Asian countries have by and large figured this out and have been working to solve their own problems. But Australia is trapped. It gambled on alliance with the United States after the Second World War, but the governing bodies know full well that the USA today would neither want nor be able to lift a finger to help Australia. Further, for some time now, Australia’s number one economic partner has been China, which has enabled Australia to avoid a recession for 27 years. Australian policy setters, along with the woeful media, are unable to manage this situation. Either break with the United States or break with China. The latter option would have severe economic and social consequences, while the former would simply challenge the whole political culture of the last 70 or more years.

6. At the deepest level, this Sinophobia is part of the long-standing colonial and anti-colonial struggle. The anti-colonial project I have in mind is the one that came to the fore in the twentieth century. As the Soviet Union realised (in the 1930s) that the Russian Revolution was in part an anti-colonial revolution, and as it began to support at many levels the global anti-colonial struggle in the name of opposing capitalist imperialism, the century was determined at many levels by this struggle.

With its immense economic power and socialist political structures, China has now taken the lead in the anti-colonial project. We see this with the world-changing Belt and Road Initiative, Africa-China Cooperation, the Asia Infrastructure Bank and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. The latest element of this is the shift away from the US dollar in international transactions and reserves (for example, China plans in March to trade oil in Renminbi, the most significant shift from the last item that is still almost exclusively done in US dollars).

In response, a small number of countries – 15 at most – have made an effort to counter this anti-colonial project. Of course, they are former colonial powers, pushing a tired agenda that is too little, too late. The catch is that some of the former colonies have joined this new colonial bandwagon. These are not the countries that achieved independence in the twentieth century, but earlier. The United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are the culprits. While we may think this is perverse, it is useful to recall that each of them has been a colonial power on their own. Australia, for example, was for long a colonial master of Papua New Guinea and still sees itself as a master. That China has now engaged with Papua New Guinea and is doing what Australia never did – improve the basic infrastructure in Papua New Guinea so that it may actually develop economically – is seen as an affront to Australia’s continuing colonial arrogance.

 

Political weakness, a storehouse of racism, an identity crisis, a declining and angry United States, and the anti-colonial project – these are the factors that seem to be important. There may be more, but none are particularly pleasant. No wonder, then, that in 2017 and 2018, Australia was voted the least friendly country by Chinese surveys.

What did Joseph Goebbels and General George Patton have in common?

Let me begin with Joseph Goebbels:

While National Socialism brought about a new version and formulation of European culture, Bolshevism is the declaration of war by Jewish-led international subhumans against culture itself. It is not only anti-bourgeois, it is anti-cultural. It means, in the final consequence, the absolute destruction of all economic, social, state, cultural, and civilizing advances made by western civilization for the benefit of a rootless and nomadic international clique of conspirators, who have found their representation in Jewry.

Behind the advancing Soviet divisions we see the Jewish death squads [Liquidations-kommandos], behind these rise the Terror, the ghost of the starvation of millions, and complete European anarchy.

To be expected, of course. ‘Judaeo-Bolshevism’ it was called in Germany, and it was one of the most effective propaganda efforts to bolster support for the invasion of the USSR, and indeed defend against the Red Army as they destroyed the Wehrmacht.

But now we have General George Patton, commander of the US Third Army in Europe and regarded as the most able of Allied leaders. Apart from opposing the denazification of Germany, he described both Jews and communists as ‘lower than animals’. Jews were ‘greatest stinking bunch of humanity I have ever seen’. As for the Red Army:

I understand the situation. Their (the Soviet) supply system is inadequate to maintain them in a serious action such as I could put to them. They have chickens in the coop and cattle on the hoof – that’s their supply system. They could probably maintain themselves in the type of fighting I could give them for five days. After that it would make no difference how many million men they have, and if you wanted Moscow I could give it to you. They lived on the land coming down. There is insufficient left for them to maintain themselves going back. Let’s not give them time to build up their supplies. If we do, then . . . we have had a victory over the Germans and disarmed them, but we have failed in the liberation of Europe; we have lost the war!

We would easily be able to arm the German troops that we have at our disposition and drive the Russians back. They hate those bastards.

We have destroyed what could have been a good race, and we are about to replace them with Mongolian savages. And all Europe will be communist.

Patton felt that the USA had fought the wrong enemy. Instead, he would have preferred an alliance with Hitler against Stalin’s Soviet Union. No wonder the Germans preferred to surrender to troops from the USA and UK.

Footnote: Winston Churchill held similar views.

Winston Churchill: white supremacist

More great material from Losurdo’s book on Stalin. In his long demolition of the myth of Stalin’s anti-Semitism, Losurdo also makes a few observations on Winston Churchill’s racist views. To begin with, in the famous ‘iron curtain’ speech of 1946, Churchill saw the British Empire as the champion of liberty and ‘Christian civilisation’ – or rather, ‘English-speaking’ people: ‘Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organization will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples’. Innocent enough at first sight, since he was seeking a closer alliance with the USA, where he gave the speech.

But his use of “Christian civilisation’ and ‘English-speaking world’ are codes for a deep-seated racism. In a letter to Eisenhower, he wrote that ‘English-speaking world’ is actually a synonym for ‘white, English-speaking people’. And in 1953, he called the USA to assist England in Egypt to ‘prevent the massacre of white people’. (Eisenhower shared such views, describing the Chinese as an ‘inferior race’.) This is but the tip of the iceberg, as Christopher McMahon observes:

Winston Churchill made no secret of his racism, stating to Leo Amery, “I hate Indians…They are a beastly people with a beastly religion”. The racism didn’t stop at insults, Churchill was an advocate of genocide, he said that “I do not admit…that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia… by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race…has come in and taken its place” and “I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes”. This genocidal attitude towards everyone that wasn’t white manifested itself when Churchill was in power with famine in India. The policy of Rice Denial during World War Two was essentially an order from Churchill to starve India.  Millions of people in India died as a result of the imperialist actions by Britain. Churchill even attempted to blame the famine on Indians themselves by claiming that Indians were “breeding like rabbits”. Churchill saw Indians as nothing more than animals that he could treat as he wished for the good of the British Empire.

On top of the genocide, Churchill also viewed eugenics favourably and held anti-Semitic views. Churchill advocated sterilization of those he deemed “feeble minded” and stated that “the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes…constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate”. Churchill’s anti-Semitism becomes apparent when we look at his attitude towards the USSR.  He thought of the Soviet Union as a “world wide communistic state under Jewish domination” and an aggressive form of “semi-asiatic totalitarianism.”