Divided Australia cannot withstand China

Divided Australia cannot withstand China

A leading Left wing commentator has written that an Australia at war with itself is ill prepared for Chinese aggression. In these dangerous times, Australia needs to be able to not only resist China, but in line with a broader strategy, contain, curtail and even defeat China.

The danger is not merely China, but the fact that Australia is in an internal conflict. As another leading Centrist commentator has written, “China exploits identity politics to ‘make us weaker and itself stronger’”.

The war within is just as important as the war without. China knows this. While China is involved on the international level influencing Australia through United Nations agencies, how much is China manoeuvring in local politics? How much funding and support does China give to The Greens, GetUp or the Same Sex Marriage campaign?

There is a global contest, the outcome of which will determine who the powers will be in the 21st century. Will the Communist “revolution” be able to overthrow the secular liberal democratic norm which evolved out of the First World War? Is this really a conflict to do with autocratic nation-states versus the US-led interconnected global liberal international system which has prevailed since 1945?

In recent decades the creation of economic blocs, including free trade, free travel, military and other mutual cooperation, has been a rising trend. Various conglomerates of nations have formed alliances. Perhaps these alliances have been uneven, in that they revolve around a particular leading nation. China has its subject nations, Russia hers and the US hers.

Unlike both China and Russia, the USA seems to change leaders relatively more often, and with the EU, power is much more diluted. This then could imply a conflict between more autocratic states that have client allies versus more democratic and bureaucratic states that have “partner” relationships with other nations.

What is being done about China? China recently claimed it had 14 grievances with Australia. This was largely because Australia is perusing closer relations with Japan, signing a major defence pact and issuing a joint communique decrying Beijing’s behaviour in the South China Sea, East China Sea and Hong Kong.

Laughably, China complained that the Australian government should do a lot more to curtail negative media coverage of China in Australian media. Predictably, this will not occur since it is beyond the power of a democratic government to muzzle the media or internet content. Even the Left know that freedom of speech is “their” right, and say that no self-respecting country could agree to China’s terms.

This brings us to reflect on the nature of authoritarianism. In China, authority is the stamping boot of the central government, the all powerful one party state which holds the lives and deaths of its own citizens as subject to its arbitrarily desires. Whereas, in Australia and the West we observe the rise of pervasive authoritarianism through cancel culture, demands for going woke and forced compliance with extremist identity politics.

Two other options present themselves, a kind of libertarian society with the lack of authoritarianism, or else, the introduction of a benign authoritarianism like an overtly Christian Robert Menzies on a caffeine or sugar rush.

While everyone is focused on China, Russia can be the biggest beneficiary of China’s actions if China falters.

Those on the Left who see China’s autocracy as a real threat claim that they would prefer a freer society. Therefore, there is a battle within Australia. Is it going to be choked by the far Left’s political correctness agenda which currently is taking over? Or will it be a more libertarian democracy?

The option for “liberty” looks promising for the more moderate Leftists and the Centrists. But they then may wish for an independent Australia, that is, to get rid of the monarchy, and to have some sort of founding documents in the steps of the United States’ declarations.

The centre-Left through to the centre-Right are now conceding that the lost of Christian faith on one side is a problem, and now the loss of faith in democracy, with the inability of secular humanism to actually achieve anything good or a perfect age is also a problem.

Liberalism as such has brought in the toppling of statues, cancel culture, ransacking of textbooks, historical revisionism, continued crime, rising mental health issues, unfulfilled lives and nihilism.

It is only the few brave ones who suggest a more Christian society would be better, like Martyn Iles, Lyle Shelton, Augusto Zimmerman, Bill Muehlenberg and a handful of people in minor political parties including a minority in the Liberal Party.

As one Leftist commentator wrote, “We live in an age that’s happy to celebrate the history and mythology of every culture but our own. Is it such a radical idea to suggest that some of it is worth defending and that there are lessons in it for modern Australia?”

Australia has inherited the Christian tradition, but to use the words of the same commentator, “we have abandoned its wisdom. We are now a house so divided that we can’t even settle on the baseline of what is just.”

“The intellectual project of some now appears to be a great unmaking of society. But they offer no viable alternative. They make a desert and call it progress.”

This is clearly no position to withstand China from. How can we resist China if we are morally no better or morally uncertain?

China’s aggression and propaganda push is real, we are going to have to accept one of the four options of autocracy, being:

  1. The autocratic and totalitarian state
  2. The autocracy of Left-wing critical theory ideology
  3. The “autocracy” of personal liberty and small government
  4. A benign autocracy of a Christianised-tradition