The Massacre In Australia Is Proof That Diversity Is Not Our Strength

In 1955, Robert Menzies, the longest-serving prime minister in the history of Australia, sat for an interview with a radio station about the so-called “White Australia Policy.” This was a policy that, as the name implies, prohibited most people of non-European ancestry from entering Australia.

The “White Australia Policy” was not implemented with a law that explicitly banned any particular ethnicity. Australia’s parliament couldn’t have gotten away with that, because the British government — which still held authority over Australia, and which ruled over a vast empire of many different ethnicities — probably would have vetoed it. So instead, Australia’s parliament implemented the “White Australia Policy,” beginning in 1901, with a “dictation test” that was administered to new arrivals to the country. The test looked something like this:

Credit: National Archives of Australia

Credit: National Archives of Australia

Immigration officers would demand that migrants write down one of these passages in their presence, after it was read to them in a European language (not necessarily English). And if the migrant couldn’t do it, they wouldn’t be allowed into the country. 

Because the immigration officer could arbitrarily pick a European language for the test, it was an extremely easy test to rig — which of course was the whole point. Even if a foreigner was capable of speaking good English, immigration officers could still give him a test in French or Greek or something. There was a well-known case where the Australian government wanted to turn away a communist named Egon Kisch. But because he was fluent in many different European languages, they decided to administer his dictation test in “Scottish Gaelic.” And as predicted, he failed.

But for the most part, the policy was effective in the sense that it accomplished its goals. Australia remained a mostly white nation, without apology. When he was asked about the policy in 1955, the prime minister, Robert Menzies, forcefully defended it.

Watch:

Why Menzies supported the White Australia Policy: “I don’t want to see reproduced in Australia the kind of problem they have in South Africa, or in America, or, increasingly, in Great Britain.”pic.twitter.com/8JRlERUb5x

— Antipodean Empire ???????? (@AntipodeEmpire) December 14, 2025

Credit: @AntipodeEmpire/X.com

Even in the ’50s, they were tired of being called racist. It’s quite a piece of footage. 

What’s interesting is that, even as he defended the “White Australia Policy,” Menzies effectively gutted it. Just a couple of years after this interview, the dictation test was abolished, while Menzies was still in power. It was replaced with a system that, in theory, would still allow for the arbitrary exclusion of potential migrants — but in practice, it didn’t work out that way. Increasingly, non-Europeans were encouraged to migrate to Australia, particularly if they were so-called “high-skilled immigrants.”

There were strategic reasons for the change — the Cold War was underway, and Australia didn’t want to alienate Asian countries (in particular), or push them into the orbit of the Soviets. There was also a fear of “brain drain.” So the government of Australia began to compromise on its hardline, anti-immigrant stance. They insisted that, in general, they’d preserve Australia’s identity, even as they opened the floodgates.

That didn’t last long. By the end of the 20th century, Australia was rapidly becoming unrecognizable. In 1981, there were roughly 75,000 Muslims in Australia. In 1986, that number had increased to 109,000. Over the next five years, that number grew even further, to 147,000. By 1996, there was a similar jump, up to 200,000. The pace continued to the point that, by 2011, there were 479,000 Muslims in the country. And now, as of the most recent Census, more than 815,000 Muslims live in Australia. That’s an increase of nearly 1,000% from the 1980s. And it’s almost certainly a vast undercount of the true figure of Muslims in Australia, since that data is now several years old — and it relies on self-reported numbers from mostly legal migrants.

What happens to a nation that, within a half-century, stops caring about “homogeneity” and embraces foreigners from Pakistan, Lebanon, Turkey, and so on? As Menzies predicted, you get dysfunction. You get South Africa. You get Dearborn Michigan, or Minneapolis. You get Great Britain. And as we saw yesterday, you get mass shootings targeting innocent men, women, and children because of their faith, which is what took place yesterday in Sydney.

Watch:

That goes on for several more minutes, with no police in sight.

It was a few months ago that we explored the sudden rise of machete attacks in Australia, which really seemed to confound officials in Australia. They couldn’t figure out why these attacks were so common, given that it was illegal to possess a machete, much less use one to stab a random white guy in a shopping mall. All they were sure about, in Australia, was that the attacks had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that, in 2024, net foreign migration into Australia amounted to more than half a million foreigners, or the fact that many of these foreigners came from countries like Nigeria or Bangladesh, where machete attacks are common. If the machete attacks demonstrated anything, the Australians told us, it’s that their anti-gun laws were effective. After all, the assailants couldn’t access firearms. They were reduced to waving machetes around at their hapless victims, instead of handguns. Therefore, because Australia doesn’t have a Second Amendment, lives were supposedly being saved.

First of all, whenever Australians — or anyone else — tries to make this argument, in every single case, they’ll ignore who is committing gun crime in the United States, and where the gun crime is happening. The overwhelming majority of gun violence is committed by racial minorities in the hood, mostly black people. That’s a statistical fact. In other words, the very same Australians who will tell you that a “White Australia Policy” was horribly racist, and that no country should ever implement anything like it ever again, will also turn around and fault the United States for crimes that are overwhelmingly committed by non-whites. They’re trying to have it both ways. They want America to become a non-white country as quickly as possible, even though, as we’ve seen, the inevitable result of that kind of policy — in every case — is more violence. It’s true here. It’s true in Canada and the UK. And it’s true in Australia, as we saw on Sunday.

Australia’s gun laws did not, in fact, prevent mass murdering Islamists from gunning down Jews on Sunday. The shooters, a father (who is a confirmed as a Pakistani national) and son named Sajid and Naveed Akram, legally possessed six firearms, including bolt-action rifles and what appeared to be pump-action shotguns. But the gun laws did prevent the victims from defending themselves in any meaningful way. At one point, a bystander charged in, and managed to disarm the shooter. But it appeared he didn’t know how to work the bolt-action rifle, or maybe he didn’t try to shoot. So the jihadist simply retreated and grabbed another firearm.

Watch:

Credit: 7News Australia/YouTube.com

If this man — or any of the victims — had been allowed to legally own handguns in Australia, this shooting would’ve been over, very quickly. It wouldn’t have gone on for 20 minutes. There were a thousand people on the beach nearby. One of them would’ve shot these terrorists, or at least forced them to retreat.

This is not an academic or theoretical point. A few years ago, a mass shooter walked into a church in Texas, armed with a shotgun. Six seconds after he opened fire, he was shot and killed by armed parishioners. They all swarmed him with their handguns, preventing a mass-casualty event.

Watch:

Credit: ABC7/YouTube.com

You never hear about stories like this, even though it happens frequently. It’s in the Left’s interests to mock the idea of a “good guy with a gun,” and to act like it’s a cliche. But it’s not. Good guys with guns can stop bad guys with guns. They don’t have to stare blankly ahead at the people trying to murder them, which is what happened on Sunday.

Watch:

Credit: SkyNews/YouTube.com

It wasn’t just the bystanders who froze when the shooting started. Again, this attack went on for a very long time — more than 15 minutes, by some estimates. And it took place within walking distance of a police station.

Screenshot: iPhone

Here’s the map. The police station was right there. Imagine using one of those “Safe Trade Zones” or a “Safe Exchange Centers,” after seeing something like this. If the police aren’t going to respond quickly to a mass-shooting next door, what are they going to do if someone robs you during your Craigslist sale? It’s not exactly confidence-building.

In short, there’s no excuse as to why the entire police department wasn’t running towards these attackers within seconds. But they were allowed to pick people off with impunity. I watched a video where the two shooters just stood on a bridge, firing for five straight minutes. 

Here’s an image of what one of the police officers was doing during that time.

Screenshot: X

So she’s hiding behind a vehicle — in a tactical sense, of course. This is a very tactical maneuver, you see. And indeed, according to one witness, police officers (some of whom appeared to be women) simply did nothing while the attack was unfolding.

Watch:

???? POLICE OFFICERS DID NOT RETURN FIRE AT TERRORISTS.

An eyewitness says the shooting went on for nearly 20 minutes.

Two attackers.
Repeated reloads.
Sustained fire into a crowd of civilians.

And yet — according to that testimony — four armed police officers were present and… pic.twitter.com/qRbg3BEx3p

— Jim Ferguson (@JimFergusonUK) December 14, 2025

Credit: @JimFergusonUK/X.com

As Douglass Mackey said, this really is the mass shooting that has everything.

You’ve got the jihadis imported from abroad in the name of multiculturalism.

You’ve got a nation with one of the most aggressive forms of gun control imaginable, that somehow failed to prevent the jihadis from assembling a small arsenal.

Credit: Revolver News

And you’ve got the DEI police officers, who spend most of their time arresting grandmothers for being racist online, ducking for cover as the jihadis indiscriminately open fire in broad daylight, for 20 minutes.

You couldn’t invent a better scenario to expose the complete incompetence of Australia’s government, and the abject failure of the Leftist ideology that’s taken hold there.

And yet, in the aftermath of this shooting, we all know how the Australian government — and probably the Australian people — are going to respond. They’re not going to fault the police department for doing nothing. They’re not going to fault their government for importing Muslims from the third world. They’re not going to address any of the reasons this attack occurred.

Instead, they’re going to punish the native population. They’re going to try to ban all firearms for civilian use, including bolt-action rifles and shotguns. They’re going to attempt to completely disarm Australians, and eliminate the right to possess any firearms whatsoever. They’re going to say that, while they made tremendous strides in “reducing gun violence” by banning most rifles and handguns, now they have to “go all the way” and ban every other firearm as well. 

And Exhibit A, in their argument, will be this footage:

Credit: SkyNews/YouTube.com

They’re going to play that footage, on repeat, as evidence that bolt-action rifles can be just as dangerous as those dastardly AR-15’s.

And of course, that’s absolutely true. It was always true. A bolt-action rifle, especially in the hands of an experienced shooter, can easily result in far more fatalities than an AR-15. The hunting rifle shoots bigger bullets with more power. You might have a slower rate of fire, but not by that much. A lot of Australians probably didn’t realize that until today. But now it’s pretty obvious.

The problem is not simply that, once you ban all civilian ownership of firearms, you make it impossible for farmers to protect their livestock and land. The problem is not simply that feral pigs will destroy the crops, and wild dogs will kill the sheep. And the problem is not simply that the entire industry of recreational hunting will disappear overnight, along with tens of thousands of jobs. Make no mistake, those are very real, catastrophic outcomes. But they’re not the worst part.

The real problem is that, once you ban all civilian ownership of firearms, the population will become completely defenseless. The government, of course, will retain its firearms — firearms which its law enforcement agents will be too afraid to actually use against the bad guys. And they’ll have no problem using those firearms to enforce the next lockdown, or free-speech crackdown. The foreign invaders, meanwhile, will keep every firearm they own — which appears to be a large number, given that these two jihadists managed to legally possess six of them. There’s no doubt about that.

The only people who will be subjugated, as always, are the law-abiding Australians who are still pretending that Robert Menzies was wrong back in 1955. They’re entitled to that opinion, of course. They’re entitled to believe that borders are racist and that firearms are the root of their problems. “Just one more gun ban will fix everything,” they tell themselves. That will be their rallying cry. And it will be the latest rallying cry in Australian politics, for all time — because once they fully eliminate the right to bear arms, what’s left of Australian democracy will die along with it.

The lesson for Americans, once again, is to prevent the slippery slope from taking hold in the first place. Once Australia committed to gun confiscation, there was no going back. So-called “assault rifle” bans and restrictions on handguns are just the beginning. The NRA, as beleaguered as the organization may be, is right about this. It turns out that, when someone is determined to kill lots of people, they will kill lots of people — whether they use a cargo truck (as in the attack in France in 2016) or bolt-action rifles (as here, or University of Texas, or the Bath school disaster in Michigan), handguns (as in Virginia Tech or the Charleston Church), or pump shotguns (as in the Navy Yard shooting).

Australia has made the fatal mistake of allowing foreign terrorists into their country, while preventing the populace from defending itself, on the theory that rules are sufficient to establish order. But rules aren’t enough. You also need to ensure that your country is full of people who are willing to follow those rules. And in that very important respect, Australia has clearly failed. And Sunday was a very important reminder of what will happen in this country, if we repeat their mistake.