Before Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price was sacked from the front bench, former Prime Minister Tony Abbott had already been rattling the cage bars on mass migration.

Using his plot armour as a main character in the history of the Liberal Party, Abbott penned an article titled, Mass Immigration Across the Anglo-Sphere Must Cease.

He writes:

‘Just because immigration is a sensitive subject doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be discussed. In settler societies, there’s often a particular reticence because almost everyone is an immigrant or the descendant of immigrants and raising immigration issues can seem “personal” in a way few other debates are. But it’s more than possible to be pro-migrant without supporting an ever-larger and ever-more-diverse immigration programme.’

The material point about migration versus mass migration is incredibly simple. It is the difference between a glass of champagne on New Year’s Eve and being an alcoholic who routinely wakes up in the gutter.

Moderation. Control. And periods of sobriety.

Confusion between the two exists purely due to interference from Big Australia activists, vote-hunting politicians, and property developers who need housing demand to expand regardless of cultural upheaval.

These entities cannot be reformed, only controlled, because their aims do not match the needs of Australia. Voters, however, can be reasoned with…

Corner a pro-migration leftie and ask them what they think about the cultural integrity of a remote Aboriginal tribe with a few hundred residents. Allow them to go on a bit about the connection between land, culture, and heritage. Then ask them if they are okay with importing 20,000 Asian workers into the area to run a renewable energy project. The greater good, right? They are saving the climate!

If that same leftie so much as chirps about environmental damage or cultural harm – you have won the debate against mass migration in principle.

What you will discover upon running this experiment is the Left agrees that mass migration is culturally destructive.

Their point of difference with the Right rests in their desire to deliberately destroy what they see as Western colonial Australia. The erasure of ‘Australia’ is a feature, not a bug, of the current migration program.

Politicians cannot take this fact-check to the polls.

It is an extinction level event for political career.

That’s the real reason Labor jumped up and down on Jacinta Price and then called in the media reserve army. As for the Liberals, they didn’t excommunicate Price because she was wrong, they did it because they know she is right and being right makes her more powerful than the leadership team when it comes to public opinion. Hence all that muttering about disloyalty.

Most sane people do not want to unravel their country with anti-West activism. This leaves mass migration advocates claiming infinite numbers of arrivals, from anywhere, is a net positive. Dissent from this position is racism.

Remember, expose the lie first, then return to the framework of Australia.

Mass migration dilutes the culture of any country, and depending on the imported culture, the result can be fatal to the existing nation.

If Labor had chosen to bring in two million refugees from Sadiq Khan’s London, Australia would be able to re-adjust itself. There would be housing problems, economic problems, and social conflict, for sure, but it is easier to absorb capitalist, Christian, culturally similar peers of the Enlightenment than two million people from a collection of third-world, largely Islamic, nations including active war zones.

This is what Abbott is getting at when he mentions the ‘Anglo-Celtic core culture and a Judaeo-Christian ethos that can and should transcend racial, ethnic, and cultural differences’.

This is not a revelation, it is an observation.

Tony Abbott continues:

‘The argument for high immigration is generally that more migrants make a bigger economy and that individual migrants add to a country’s skills … then there are the Marxists whose deep agenda is not humanitarianism or anti-racism but to harness diversity to erode unity and to dilute an identity they reject.’

He then goes on to detail the many downsides of current migration patterns which readers of this publication are familiar with.

His point is that migration should only happen if it improves the country for Australian citizens. It is their country, after all. If migration is making things worse, then why not put a stop to it for a while until things calm down?

The idea that Australia must have a large migration plan is something that needs to be challenged. No one is compelling us to do anything. We do not have to take a single person. It is not as if the United Nations has the authority to parachute people in or ferry them across on a flotilla.

We can, and should, say ‘no’ for a while.

The so-called ‘moral obligations’ of migration are entirely fictitious and contrived as a convenience for politicians who have, frankly, run out of good faith with voters and would quite like a fresh crop to work with.

If the Opposition had a spine, they would use this to tear shreds off the Albanese government instead of banishing their most talented young voice and making fools of themselves in the press for a week.

In his address to CPAC, Tony Abbott called out the idea of ‘Hotel Australia’. He’s not wrong.

Living and working in the city for more than 20 years, I have seen Sydney transform from a modern corporate melting pot to an airport lobby with no soul, no common language, no common courtesy, and no social coherence. It is horrible. It does not feel like Australia anymore.

Poor Abbott, I feel a bit sorry for him running the apology speaking tour on behalf of the entire Liberal movement, given Sussan Ley didn’t have the nerve to front CPAC. Abbott is out there, using that magic duct-tape of nostalgia to fix the holes but he cannot change the fact the Liberals are on a damaged life raft while their ship is sinking into the political sea, having hit the Turnbull iceberg a while ago.

You can’t really come back from that. The ship is broken. No one wants to re-employ the guys who crashed it.

Abbott, alluding to Nigel Farage, added: ‘What we need right now in Australia is not a Reform Party, but if I may say so, a reformed party.’

Philosophically, Abbott is probably correct, but voters cannot reform the Liberal Party, it must reform itself. How can it reform itself if its powerbrokers and leaders do not attend the events Abbott speaks at when they are evidently his audience?

Voters are passengers. They buy tickets to the party they want to ride with. They have no capacity to switch out the engine, change the destination, or re-paint the cabins. At best, they can pick food from a set menu aka members the party puts forward. If the Liberals keep offering up moderates then audience members will keep shouting Pauline Hanson’s name in the general direction of Liberal speakers.

Tony Abbott will have the last word:

‘History teaches that civilisations pass and empires fall. As humans, we assume that what’s here today will last indefinitely; yet as students we know that change is constant and not always for the better. Are we at one of those moments, when the great tectonic plates are shifting, as when the mantle of leadership shifts from one country to another, or when the Roman era gave way to the Dark Ages; and what might our duty be to preserve what’s best through the coming storm?’