War rages in Palestine and once again we are witness to the intractable reality that wherever they go in the world, Jews seem to bring conflict and chaos with them. Watching the destruction safely from afar, one wonders if there has ever been a Jewish population, diaspora or Israeli, minority or not, that has enjoyed a peaceful existence and the full acceptance of their neighbours, one not beset by animosity or the emergence of violence. The answers are far and few in between over the past 1000 years, but a viable candidate would have to be the Jewish community that took root in the eighteenth century in a country located about as far away from Europe as one could possibly go.
The nature of Jewish behaviour and in-group strategy and the resultant hostilities this engenders when it encounters gentile society have been discussed in extensive detail by writers at The Occidental Observer over the years. Whether it’s shaping immigration policy in the U.S. and launching destructive wars in the Middle East for the benefit of Israel, promoting multiculturalism in the U.K. and Australia, or inflicting critical race theory on Ireland, the pattern of Jews aggressively promoting their own interests at the expense of the gentile majority is simply impossible to ignore.
In light of this, my familiarity with Australian history, in particular Australian Jewish history, has often given me pause. If racial nationalism is such a universal danger to Jewry, why is it that I have never encountered any critical responses by contemporary Anglo-Jewry to the foundation of the White Australia Policy. Have Jewish historians simply forgotten to investigate such an important topic? Can it be that the interests of Anglo-Jewry and the White majority were so well aligned that there was no need to undermine the majority in the first place?
As this essay will seek to lay out, the history of Jewry in Australia prior to the 1930s is one that gives even the most hardened White identitarians a reason to believe that co-existence between Jew and gentile, without the need for any kind of legal or political restrictions on Jewish behaviour, could actually be possible. If you are willing to forgive their occasional involvement in financial scandals or in anti-Catholic politicking, neither of which were behaviours exclusive to Jewry, Australian history seems to provide the perfect example of Jews peacefully reconciling themselves to an explicit White racial and cultural status quo, at least prior to 1933.
The resulting outcome of this seeming paradise of White Nationalism and Judaism exposes the fantasy, and instead reveals to us what eventually occurs when Jews abandon the culture of critique, make peace with racialism and live in harmony with a White supermajority.
The Goldene Medine
Of all their diasporas throughout history, the Anglo-Jewish community that existed in Australia between 1788 and 1933 may hold the distinction of the safest, most secure, and most accepted Jewish minority in a homogenous Christian society, a ‘Goldene Medine’ (Golden Land) which many a Jew in Europe dreamt of migrating to. Where the Jews of Europe fought for the eradication of legal discriminations during the nineteenth century, and campaigned for the equal rights promised by the Enlightenment, Jews were present in the Australian colonies from their very foundation and there was never any question that the rights owned by gentiles applied equally to Jews, all being British subjects one and the same. Fully emancipated, the most prominent fights over legal discriminations against Jews in Australia, if they could even be considered as such, were on utterly mundane topics such as state aid for the erection of religious buildings, Christian prayers in secular education, or the aversion to government funding for religious schools.
The security of the Anglo-Jewish community was owed to its status as a well-assimilated community that identified itself exclusively as ‘Englishmen of the Mosaic persuasion’ or ‘Australians of the Jewish Faith.’ Religious life and observance were uniformly based around the teachings of British Chief Rabbi Nathan Adler, who promoted the Anglicising of Judaism in order to adapt it to English cultural life and strengthen the position of Jews in a modern, emancipated world. In Australia, every effort was made to avoid the creation of enclaves and remove or minimise outward differentiation between Jew and non-Jew other than in religious practice, and even then, certain practices such as keeping Kosher were poorly maintained.
Anti-Judaism was rarely heard of in Australia—a prejudice of the Old World that had no function in a nation dedicated to freeing itself from the religious tensions of Europe. Examples of prejudicial incidents in Australia identified by Jewish academics tend to be limited to minor insults or aspersions to Jews as financially tricky. The latter took the form of the Yiddish-speaking pawnbroker or the Shakespearean ‘Shylock’ character, the scheming Jewish financier that still persisted in English cultural and literary memory. Anglo-Jewry were keen to distance themselves from both embarrassing stereotypes and gentile Australia generally made the distinction between foreign Jews abroad and “our Jews” in Australia who were of a far superior type.
As a result, Jewish loyalty to Australia as a British society and to the British Empire was utterly unquestioned, and Australia’s protestant-liberal elite operated free of tensions with the Anglo-Jewish community, sharing identical commitments to political liberalism and a hostility to Catholicism. Contrast this to the reality within the multi-ethnic empires of Europe such as Austria or Russia with significant Jewish populations, where Jews clashed with a solidly anti-liberal and Catholic/Orthodox establishment.
When it came to political radicalism, Australian Jewry was shielded from the developments that swept through the shtetls of Eastern Europe. Communism was abhorred by the primarily middle-class and upwardly mobile community, Jews being absent from any kind of leadership positions within the Communist Party of Australia until the post-World War II era. Zionism arrived almost dead in the water; an unpatriotic fringe movement criticised by virtually all of the Anglo-Jewish leadership for its insistence that Judaism was more than religion. As far as Australian Jewry was concerned, what was the need for a safe Jewish homeland if they already had Australia? In 1901, Theodore Herzl himself made a personal appeal to the Australian Jewish community, the only one thus far not represented at the Zionist congresses, to no avail.
With the arrival of racialism in the latter half of the nineteenth century and the political desire to form a racially homogenous Australia, these realities resulted in the small, highly assimilated and accepted Anglo-Jewish community being identified as White. Judaism itself had yet to be racialized in Australia and was still conceived of by gentiles and its Australian adherents as solely a religion, not a race. It was therefore possible to be both part of the White race in Australia and part of the Hebrew faith, or conversely to be an Oriental Jew or an Asiatic Jew who was thus not White. Though the boundaries of Jewish Whiteness were loose and hard to define, no effort was made to publicly counter this identification, and it stood as a measure to symbolise their acceptance as Australians.
The Foundation of the Policy
As far as the historical record is concerned, there is no evidence of a single prominent member of the organised Jewish community opposing the foundation of the White Australia Policy during the formative period of 1901 to 1906. Whereas Jews in the United States agitated against the 1924 immigration law which sought to stem the flow of migrants and retain America’s traditional demographic makeup, and at the same time launched the offensive against racial science under Franz Boas (events which would later have an impact on Australia), no opposition of any sort from Anglo-Jewry was evident towards the Immigration Restriction Act (1901), the Naturalization Act (1905) or the deportation of Chinese and Pacific Islanders that formed the basis of the White Australia Policy.
This can be strongly substantiated by the fact that modern Jewish academics and historians seemingly fail to point to any examples of Jewish resistance to the policy. Jewish history books and journal articles are lacking in all references to any pressure groups, deputations or lobbying during this period. An embarrassing reality for those so keen to present themselves as the ‘Light unto Nations’, one would readily assume that if such a figure or group existed, even if only minor, he or she would be dredged up from the historical record and loudly paraded as a visionary and exemplary Jewish figure, worthy of remembrance in the fight against racism and insular politics.
In fact, the White Australia Policy found one of its foremost defenders in arguably the most prominent and successful Jew of the Federation era, Isaac Isaacs. Whilst a Parliamentarian for the Protectionist Party, Issacs was a political ally of Prime Minister Edmund Barton and Attorney General Alfred Deakin of the first Government of Australia, which introduced the White Australia Policy. Isaacs would have been in a prime position to attempt to influence the Protectionist Party and Deakin to temper their policy and follow the line of the British government which feared repercussions of the strict racial barrier on their new alliance with Japan. Instead, Isaacs gave full support to the legislation and made one of the staunchest defences of the Australian racial mission in a speech to parliament:
I recognise to the fullest that here in Australia we have a white man’s war. It is a struggle for life; it is a struggle for that higher and fuller life that all progressive nations must feel and share in. It is that struggle for victory over adverse circumstances which is the pride and glory of all advancing civilizations. It is a white man’s war that we must face, and I would not suffer any black or tinted man to come in and block the path to progress. I would resist to the utmost, if it were necessary, any murky stream from disturbing the current of Australian life.
Isaacs retired from parliament in 1906 to become a justice of the High Court and later became the first Australian-born Governor General—the Crown’s representative in Australia. It was a testament to the almost complete absence of anti-Jewish sentiment in Australia that it was his native-born status that was seen as controversial for the job, not his religious heritage. Despite Issacs’ towering achievements in Australian politics, his commitment to White Australia and his opposition to Zionism has now rendered him a reviled figure to the modern Jewish community.
Two other Jewish members of the federal parliament were present in the period 1901–1906, Elias Solomon and Vaiben L. Solomon, both members of the Free Trade Party from South Australia. Neither is recorded as opposing the relevant legislation and Vaiben L. Solomon campaigned for the restriction of Chinese immigration into South Australia during the 1890s.
Rabbi Cohen Speaks Out
Perhaps the only recorded instance of a leading member of the Anglo-Jewish community criticising the White Australia Policy prior to World War II can be found in 1912. This occurred with a revealing set of exchanges surrounding a speech given by Rabbi R. L. Cohen, Chief Minister of the Great Synagogue of Sydney from 1904 to 1934, at a meeting of the Jewish Literary and Debating Society of Sydney. Titled “The Jewish Attitude toward the White Australia Policy,” Rabbi Cohen, basing his argument in scripture and on the superiority of Jewish moral teaching compared with that of the Christian (which was, according to Cohen, based upon the haughty spirit of the Germanic races), argued that acceptance of the policy was ultimately incompatible with Jewish moral teaching to not despise the stranger. Cohen concluded that:
“…it was not expedient for Jews to consent to recognise difference between man and man, for history showed that wherever a distinction had been permitted by Jews to be recognised it had recoiled on their own heads and the Jew was in danger in such a case. Therefore their attitude on the White Australia policy should be one of caution and one not at all over-sympathetic.”
Aaron Blashki, a prominent merchant and founder of the Sydney Jewish Aid Society, rounded out the discussion by stating he often felt ashamed of the policy when travelling overseas; however an editorial on the speech published in the Jewish Herald two weeks later remarked on the subsequent discussions by attendees, indicating a quorum of support for the White Australia Policy:
…the course of the debate in the Sydney society revealed, we are told a preponderance of opinion in favour of the political measures comprehended under the term “A White Australia.”… All the speakers readily admitted the ethical superiority of the Jewish doctrines governing the relations of man with man, but the majority of them seem to have considered that the particular circumstances of the Commonwealth rendered any attempt to practically, apply those doctrines injudicious.
Rabbi Cohen, perhaps responding to the sentiments of his congregation, appeared to have a more moderated take on the subject in a sermon a decade later from 1924, also pointing the finger at recently arrived Jewish migrants who were less keen on assimilation:
Now, if there is a matter on which Australians are determined, it is to take heed, and profit by American mistakes, and avoid them here. Hence the White Australia Policy, and the resolution-to keep the local population if not still 98 per cent, British in origin, yet overwhelmingly so in sentiment, and entirely free from sectional segregations. The happy standing of the Australasian Jews, excelled nowhere, and scarcely rivalled anywhere, has been recently attributed by the Chief Rabbi to their continuing the attitude of pioneer settlers in co-operating with their neighbours of other creeds. But latterly I have regret ted to notice, among some of the recent arrivals, a lack of appreciation of these communal traditions, and an inclination to another spirit. … Any Ghetto isolation would inevitably raise the question of restricting immigration here as in America; and we should have no right to complain.
Russian Refugees, Zangwill and Territorialism
The careful framing of the issues surrounding the immigration of Russian refugees and Jewish settlement projects also shows the deference paid to the White Australia Policy by local Jews and international activists. We now know that much of the claims of pogroms and atrocities against the Jews in Russia were fictitious and were used to cloak undesirable economic migrants as refugees (see Andrew Joyce’s three-part series), but this did not stop the emergence of significant international pressure groups for Jewish resettlement throughout the world that built upon the refugee narrative. The vast swathes of unoccupied land made Australia a prominent option for Jewish settlement, in particular for anti-Zionist groups such as the Jewish Territorial Organisation (ITO) that opposed Herzl’s insistence on Jewish settlement in Palestine and sought alternative solutions.
The prospect of large-scale Russian Jewish migration to Australia during the 1890s had aroused angst amongst mainstream Australia still reeling from an economic depression and such activists were keen to present the Russian Jews as White and an economic asset for Australia. Israel Zangwill, the co-founder of ITO, famous in America for his play The Melting Pot, framed the issue in a letter from 1907 in terms of the precariousness of Australia’s racial status in Asia:
I am quite aware that Australia will fight hard against giving away any territory or fostering our aims in any way, but Australia has to choose between a black population and a Jewish white one. Australia is waking up to her folly, and her possible future collapse. The Jews could possibly safeguard her future as white territory.
Australia historically feared that the underdevelopment of its northern regions would otherwise invite foreign settlement or invasion. The prospect of a Jewish settlement in the region, later to crystallise in the failed Kimberly Scheme, was touted as a potential solution for defending these vast unoccupied territories and settling it with White migrants. None of these plans ever came to fruition, but it demonstrates that at the time Jewry was able to work within the political confines of White Australia.
Overall, Anglo-Jewish attitudes to the White Australia Policy can be described as conflicted, but erring to the side of being generally supportive. Whilst some may have recognised that the policy was not ideal for the Jews, this did not translate into outright hostility or political opposition, and the consensus seemed to be was that it was nonetheless worthy of support even if only for the sake of maintaining impeccable relations between Jew and Gentile in Australia. The purported incompatibility of the Jewish teaching of moral universalism claimed by many post-Enlightenment Jews (in contrast to the moral particularism of traditional Jewish ethics) and racially restrictive immigration controls — substantively no different than similar claims made by Christian ministers who opposed the policy — was simply waved away.
Modern Jewish scholarship, where it does not outright ignore the discussion, seeks an excuse for the Jewish support for White Australia in all the usual places. Historian John Stratton blames anti-Semitism and claims that Australian Jewry, contrary to the widespread positive disposition expressed by most Australians towards them, actually existed in a precarious state due to the inherent ambiguity of the identification of Jews as White. He contends that the Anglo-Jews, in the aftermath of the minor debate on the undesirability of Russian Jewish migration during the 1890s, consigned themselves to Whiteness under duress or out of fear for their survival:
From this time on the fear for Australia’s assimilated Jewry, caught in the ambivalence of their white/non-white status, was that any increased visibility for the Jews, any signs of racial/cultural difference, would mark them as a threat to the homogeneity of the nation.
Using a handful of articles in the press that disparaged the character of Russian Jews (in particular The Bulletin) and the angst over the prospect of mass migration of foreigners during an economic depression, Stratton invents a sweeping anti-Jewish sentiment during this period in order to absolve Jews of any agency for capitulating to racialism. We are left with the bizarre conclusion that anti-Semitism can not only be used to exclude Jews but can also lead to them being included.
Furthermore, it is difficult to see the acceptance of Whiteness by Anglo-Jewry as not being at least partially genuine. Whatever ambivalence may have existed amongst the elite, this did not translate well to the rank-and-file members of the congregation who were clearly quite comfortable with the status-quo. One would not have seen the levels of intermarriage between Jews and gentiles and the extent of assimilation that was occurring if support for the White Australia Policy and the public identification of themselves as only a religious group was nothing more than a cover to protect the Jewish people from the emergence of a destructive anti-Jewish force in Australian politics.
In a strategy of external deception of the outgroup combined with internal cohesion, like the conversos in Spain who continued to secretly practice Judaism after outwardly converting to Catholicism, one would expect the rates of endogamy to remain high. Instead, intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles during this period was common enough to be utterly unremarkable, signalling a lack of perceived racial difference between the two communities and a genuine acceptance by one another as members of the same stock. At its peak in 1921, 29 percent of Jewish husbands in Australia had a non-Jewish wife and 16 percent of Jewish wives had a non-Jewish husband. Rates of intermarriage were even higher in rural communities with a skewed Jewish male-to-female ratio. Rutland concludes that, far from any negative pressures from gentiles, “the drift away from Judaism in Australia can simply be seen as a result of social factors of free intermixing and a virtual absence of anti-semitism.”
The Fall of the Jewish Paradise
“…during the 1920s Australian Jewry was not a viable community. It was not capable of reproducing itself, and without largescale Jewish immigration would have disappeared in the long run.”
The above quote from Susan Rutland lays bare the costs incurred by Jews through their assimilation into Australia and their acceptance of White identity. Structural assimilation was successfully breaking down the cohesion of the ingroup, and all around the country, Jewish communal organisations were deteriorating and synagogues losing congregants. The extent of intermarriage and assimilation into gentile society by such a small population generally spelt death for the Anglo-Jewish community. Lacking any sudden course corrections, in a few generations there would be almost no Jews left in the country.
Anglo-Jewry was left scrambling for a solution that would not upset the status-quo. Even in the realm of immigration—perhaps their only viable measure for arresting this demographic decline, the position of Anglo-Jewry fell in line with the White majority and government policy, opposed to the large-scale entry of Jews and supportive of the federal government’s attempts to limit the flow of refugees from Europe prior to World War II.
Combined with their snobbish dismissal of the Ostjuden and their destructive political ideas, Anglo-Jewry understood intuitively that the mass entry of Eastern European and non-White Jews into the country threatened to break the stability of Anglo-Jewish identity and the accepted position of Jews in Australia. Sympathetic to concerns that Russian and Eastern European Jews were almost impossible to assimilate en-masse and would form enclaves and bring political strife to Australia, Anglo-Jewry in the end created their own shadow of the White Australia Policy. This prioritised the entry of British Jews, supported immigration quotas and restrictions on the more problematic Eastern European Jews, and felt comfortable with the outright rejection of Jews who could not be classified racially as White—primarily Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews from the Middle East.
If combatting prejudice and anti-Semitism is a motivating force for adopting a ‘culture of critique’ and a radical criticism of gentile society, then a society where Jews benefit from full social equality and a complete acceptance by gentiles is cause for its abandonment. That acceptance comes at the price of assimilation, the end result of which is the eventual disappearance of Jewry, a price that no Jewish community can consciously accept. Seen from this perspective, Anglo-Jewish abandonment of Whiteness and their support for the White Australia Policy was inevitable if they wanted to survive as a separate entity.
A Declaration of War
In the end, the decision was taken out of their hands and salvation to the demographic crisis arrived on the back of the great calamity of the twentieth century. Change came, as so many other political and cultural changes in Australia eventually did, with the waves of Jewish migrants after World War II. The immigration quota system began to break down under sustained domestic and international pressure, in particular from protests from the newcomers known as the ‘Thirty-Niners’, the small trickle of Jewish migrants who managed to gain entry to Australia prior to 1939. The influx eventually saw a wholesale transformation of not just the demographic makeup of the Australian Jewish community, but also a transformation of its leadership structures through the displacement of the conservative Anglo-Jewish elite.
Restless and anxious from the events in Europe, Jewish refugees saw little appeal in behaving like the Anglo-Jews and making themselves seem as little Jewish as possible, forcing a fundamental re-assessment of Jewish identity in Australia. As far as they were concerned, Australia’s careful approach to the entry of Jewish refugees was nothing more than blatant anti-Semitism, a narrative that has persisted to this day. The strict racial barrier of White Australia was no longer a measure the Jewish community could accept, but rather a dangerous mechanism of intolerance that needed to be destroyed, with assimilationist policy merely finishing the job that Hitler started.
Extract from a pamphlet issued by the Australian Jewish Welfare Society to European refugees, encouraging them to assimilate as quickly as possible. Examples such as this were often pointed to by the refugees as evidence of the hostile opinion of Anglo-Jewry.
By this point, unambiguous public protests against the White Australia Policy were starting to emerge from the Jewish community, in particular within newspapers not under control of the Anglo-Jewish establishment. The Sydney Jewish News, founded in 1939 as a direct counter to the conservative Hebrew Standard which maintained the Anglo-Jewish line, is such an example. In a September 1949 edition, the Sydney Jewish News ran with the editorial “The Silence of the Rabbis”, criticising the rabbinical leadership on their refusal to speak against the Wartime Refugees Removal Act (1949) and the intolerance cloaked in the White Australia Policy. The migrant flow alleviated the threatened disappearance of Australian Jewry, but once migration rates had steadied and assimilatory trends reasserted themselves, it wasn’t long before these new Jewish leaders were again starting to worry about the long-term future of their community.
The End of Jewish Whiteness
The entrance of Walter Lippmann as a community leader in the 1960s bookends the transition that occurred within Australian Jewry. As a German Jew originally from a prosperous Hamburg-based family, had Lippman arrived in Australia in the early years of the twentieth century, he would have been classified as a highly-assimilable Jewish migrant who could be expected to effortlessly acclimatise to Anglo-Jewish life. In the aftermath of Hitler and World War II, this could no longer be the case. In an address given to a dinner in his honour in 1971, Lippmann enunciated the new mantra for the Jews of Australia to live by: I believe we are not Australians of the Jewish faith but part of the Jewish people living in Australia.
As arguably the architect of Australian multiculturalism, it was Lippmann’s unparalleled lobbying, networking, and activist ability that drove the concept far into the depths of the Australian political apparatus. His immense value and influence to the multiculturalist cause came not just from his position inside government bodies but from his community organisation skills where he initiated many of the key connections between future multicultural activists. His organisation, the Australian Jewish Welfare Relief Society (AJWRS), became the template for other ethnic multicultural advocacy groups formed by the Italian and Greek communities during the 1960s, Lippman practically teaching them how to organise and lobby the government on an ethnic basis. It was Lippmann above anyone else who shifted the discussion on cultural pluralism from a method to deal with uncooperative new migrants to an operating principle for the entire Australian society.
Lesser well known is the fact that Lippmann, who arrived in Australia in 1938, began his journey to multiculturalist crusader as a self-taught social scientist, keenly studying the trends in Jewish demography. Between 1966 and 1967, Lippmann carried out a major social survey on the state of the Jewish community in Melbourne, publishing his findings in a paper entitled “The Jewish Family in Melbourne.” The result worried Lippmann and he concluded that the Jewish community of Victoria was
a predominately immigrant community with a high degree of social and economic mobility. At the same time, it revealed a changing character of the community with an emerging Australian-born generation of a high educational level facing the dangers of decimation and possible gradual extinction through low birth rates and rising rates of intermarriage.
Subsequent surveys conducted by Lippmann continued to bear out similar trends. Lippmann discovered that 80 percent of the descendants of the members of the Great Synagogue in Sydney from 80 years ago were no longer Jewish and his concern reached a fever pitch in 1971 when the census revealed that the number of Jews in Australia was again on the decline. One thing was certain to Lippmann and the now invigorated Jewish community, to ensure the long-term survival of the Jews in Australia, the policy of assimilation had to be dismantled and any kind of support for White Australia that was once entertained by Anglo-Jewry was utterly off the table.
Thus, Jews set themselves on a collision course with White Australia and its homogenous, mono-cultural identity. Either these new Jewish migrants would be forced to accept the government policy of assimilation and the racial status-quo carefully negotiated by their Anglo predecessors, and therefore begin down the same path towards dissipation, or Australia would submit to the will of the Jews and accept cultural pluralism, better known as multiculturalism. The end result of this confrontation is now plain to see.
- Lopez, The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics: 1945-1975 (Melbourne University Press, 2000).
- Medding, From assimilation to group survival: A political and sociological study of an Australian Jewish community (F W Cheshire, 1969).
- Rutland, Edge of the Diaspora: Two Centuries of Jewish Settlement in Australia, 2nd ed. (Brandl & Schlesinger, 1997)
Rutland, The Jews in Australia (Cambridge University Press, 2005).
Stratton, Coming Out Jewish: Constructing Ambivalent Identities (Routledge, 2000).
 Rutland, S 1997, Edge of the Diaspora: Two Centuries of Jewish Settlement in Australia, 2nd Edition, Brandl & Schlesinger, Rose Bay Australia, p.87.
 See Chapters 2 and 3 of The Culture of Critique
 Commonwealth of Australia, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 12 September 1901, retrieved from: https://historichansard.net/hofreps/1901/19010912_REPS_1_4_c1/
 The Hebrew Standard of Australasia 1912, ‘JEWISH LITERARY & DEBATING SOCIETY OF SYDNEY. THE WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY’, Friday 16 August, p. 7, retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/13433409
 The Jewish Herald 1912, Editorial, Friday 30 August, p.8-9, retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/17606706?
 The Hebrew Standard of Australasia 1924, ‘Whom to Blame’, Friday August 15, p.2, retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/129356428?
The Hebrew Standard of Australasia 1907, ‘The I.C.O in Australia’, Friday 10 May, p.7, retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/page/12623021?
 Stratton, J 1996, ‘The Colour of Jews: Jews, Race and the White Australia Policy’, Journal of Australian Studies, Vol.20 No.50-51, p.56
 As Windschuttle points out, left-wing academia in Australia has a bad habit of pointing to radical magazines such as The Bulletin as a kind of ‘voice of the nation’ which encapsulated the feelings of the majority. In reality, The Bulletin was a minor publication that hardly had a monopoly on public opinion – see Windschuttle, K 2004, The White Australia Policy: race and shame in the Australian history wars, Macleay Press, Sydney Australia.
 Rutland, Op. Cit., p.141
 Ibid., p.145
 Ibid., p.142
 Ibid., p.169
 The law, which allowed the government to deport non-Whites who arrived in Australia during the war, was designed to nullify a recent High Court decision which allowed an Indonesian refugee to remain in Australia.
 The Sydney Jewish News 1949, ‘The Silence of the Rabbis’, Friday 2 September, p.2, retrieved from: https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/261691322
 Address by Walter Lippmann to the “Y” club dinner in his honour, re-published by the Australian Jewish News: ‘TRIBUTES TO MR LIPPMANN’, Australian Jewish News, 19 February 1971, p.7.
 Markus, A & Taft, M 2016, ‘Walter Lippmann, Transformative Leader,’ Australian Jewish Historical Society Journal, Vol. 23/1, p.93–110, retrieved from: https://collections.ajhs.com.au/Detail/objects/53983