Ahead of the March for Australia tomorrow, politicians have spent the past few days condemning White Australians who have decided to march for their interests; and they have joined forces in spirit with the containment right to gaslight Australians about what they’re losing to immigration and what being Australian actually means.
This must be opposed, and will be opposed, tomorrow when Australians march for their country in a peaceful display of authentic patriotism.
So, why are Australians marching?
Because at this point in Australian history, the idea of multiculturalism has been thoroughly discredited by its own progression.
Gone are the days – which were always numbered – when a few people of foreign origin living in Australia could be seen as nothing more than a splash of colour in the social landscape that only demented people could find viscerally threatening to our otherwise rich and prosperous nation.
Australians were told then that we ought to share our country with any well-meaning foreigner who wanted to “contribute” to the national project. Why should his colour get in the way of imbibing our Western goodness and cheeky Australian spirit?
And what about their harmless foreignness – eating strange food (which we like!), wearing headdresses and other ornamental clothing, praying to a different God, and speaking in a different tongue at home – could possibly prove to be an obstacle for us if we were simply tolerant and learned to like it?
Any White person who saw in this rhetoric the seeds of demographic and cultural annihilation was (and still is to a significant extent) dismissed as a “racist” who had it in for harmless foreigners who just wanted a “fair go” in a fairer land than their own.
What one should notice about this, is the moral argument is always framed around what immigration can do for the immigrant, rather than what the immigrant can do for the Australian. This is part and parcel of turning immigration away from a policy proposal with specific aims, into a moral cudgel one cannot stop snowballing into the dismantlement of the nation itself.
I will come back to that.
However, so far as Australians are concerned, we can see quite differently today what “harmless foreignness” means for Australia in the long run.
I. What does immigration mean for traditional Australia?
First of all, it means that in order to “like it”, we have to abandon ourselves.
Immigration and multiculturalism fundamentally denationalises any people who is subject to it; and unless one’s group persists somehow despite it all, it will lose everything – all ownership, all right to decide one’s fate – and will retain no sovereignty.
Immigration means that your politicians need not bother governing you when they can simply import others who are less demanding and more easily governable.
When immigrants are imported, it means the government doesn’t have to care what you think. It doesn’t have to care about whether you can find a job, own a home or afford to rent, get a doctor’s appointment, or reliably trust you won’t get your head or arm chopped off by a machete-wielding African.
You can, and will, be replaced.
We saw this play out in the run-up to the last election. That was merely a taste of the future.
It should be noted that this kind of disregard for the host population is unavoidable regardless of whether you like the idea of immigration, and/or the immigrants being brought in. However, it only works if the immigrants are different enough to constitute a parallel and more servile population. If the Australian government was importing other ethnic Europeans, they would integrate and identify with Australia’s history and therefore fail to represent a distinctly complaint underclass. The contents of a glass of water may spill, but it cannot be replaced by putting more water into it.
Part of this denationalisation process is the lack of explicit representation in the political arena of our own country. Every issue is always about some contrived foreign “obligation” to another country or people. As a result, social policy becomes primarily about the necessity of immigration and the duty of mainstream (normatively European) society to stand aside and dismantle itself (this is “community cohesion”) for the sake of these invented global commitments embodied by “multiculturalism” and the obsession with foreign conflicts.
The message is that to stand as a people and nation with interests, and therefore, the unilateral and moral obligation to decide what’s best for itself is denied to us as traditional Australians. We are merely governed nominally as a people with implied autonomy, though we actually don’t have it.
The result of this is obviously replacement.
However, before the consequences of replacement can be fully comprehended, we need to dispatch with silly concepts propagated by the containment right.
Concepts like “integration” and “assimilation” of variable human groups would imply they could possibly meld together in such a way so as to become indistinguishable. This simply isn’t possible.
Human groups will always be distinguished by their phenotypic variance, which is not merely superficial and “skin deep”, but of such (social) significance because it holds in itself something as simple as the reflection of an implied group difference: the difference of history and heritage.
This has nothing to do with the heritability of IQ or behaviour per se – though these things are important of course – but it will always be the case that when a member of one group looks upon someone of another group that they will see the unfolding of human history before them in that person’s physical appearance.
This is to say that one will always see a person whose ancestors came from a certain part of the world, who may be inculcated with the religion, ideas and beliefs which predominate in that part of the world. And even if they do not, an empathy for the group in question among those people from whom they descend will exist. And in the cases where it doesn’t, the contrast of implied difference will compel it, even if it’s against their will, because to some extent all human beings are defined by their contrast to others. One cannot change the history of oneself after all, no matter how much of an “individual” one might be.
As a result of this, the fundamental questions are these: Do you want to live in India? Do you want to live in China? These are logical questions that follow from the trajectory of the government’s immigration policy. They have made that quite clear. After all, how else is Australia supposed to reach 50 million inhabitants by 2050? And what proportion of that number will White Australians be? The answer is obvious, not even fifty percent.
So, it is inevitable that unless immigration is stopped and reversed, Australia will end up as another India. This can be decried as “racist” as much as one pleases, but it doesn’t change the reality, nor does it answer the question: Is that what you want?
It doesn’t matter whether or not one “doesn’t mind” living around people of other races, or whether one even enjoys it. This is a myopic view which conceals the existential consequences of immigration as an identitarian concern for any native population which doesn’t want to lose its representation in the world.
The positive encounters with individuals from a foreign group, which certainly occur, pale in comparison to the wholesale transformation of the entire country which will occur. It’s a matter of tempering one’s sentimentality, if not exorcising it completely, to recognise that this “anti-racist” moral dogma will not prevent the nation from becoming a thoroughly undesirable third world place to live.
Even if you think a return to the White Australia Policy is “too extreme”, and that Australianism can be taught to a willing recipient ready to imbibe the “true blue Aussie spirit”, talk in ockerisms with an Australian accent and watch the football – it’s far too late for that.
Parallel communities have formed, and the genetic mesh has ensured that these groups are inoculated against superficial cultural conformity. However, I contend that this would have occurred anyway under the civic-nationalist model once these populations became large enough no matter how many language and culture tests they pass, because the genetic mesh would prevail in the end, leaving them unfettered from imposed societal expectations.
And so, it must be understood that the inevitable effects of unfettered and especially undifferentiated immigration is hyperopically cumulative and therefore a refutation of both propositional and multicultural concepts of the nation.
In human history it has never been the case that the racial majority has attempted to culturally mould, or cloak itself, as if it were more like a minority.
Moreover, there is more to a people than appearance. Even if foreign groups took on a Western veneer, they would simply not be the same people, because they lack the historicity.
II. Some moral considerations on immigration policy
It should be clear to everyone that immigration is not merely a “policy” that has gone far beyond proposals geared towards practical means, it is a rigid social dogma turned national identity.
In an ideal society, immigration would be purposeful and consensual. Instead, the idea of immigration is supposed to be part and parcel of what a “good nation” looks like; and so, immigration “policy” has exceeded the confines of what its merit affords and what would otherwise naturally proscribe the (necessary) restriction of it, so that it has become an unlimited symbolic effigy of morality itself.
Even those who favour immigration restriction cannot help but emphasise that they’re not conceptually opposed to it, lest they appear “heartless” or something. This is unnecessary in the society which recognises immigration as a privilege for the immigrants who have no unilateral right to decide nor contest what a sovereign nation decides its immigration policy ought to be.
This line of thinking also refutes the idea that one cannot “morally” restrict immigration based on race. This idea is predicated on the assumption that want-to-be immigrants have a right to immigrate wherever they want, if they want, and for whatever reason they want (hence, the “better life” excuse). This is obviously not so and has never been the case, for this would constitute open borders, which most people oppose (though it is effectively government policy) because it means your country effectively doesn’t exist. Nonetheless, being denied entry into a country you were never obligated entry into in the first place does not constitute being wronged, regardless of the reason for restriction.
Fundamentally, all immigration policy around the world is based on the principle of restriction; as Geoffrey Blainey, Australia’s most celebrated historian, wrote quite sensibly about the White Australia Policy earlier this year:
“Australia is usually condemned for its White Australia Policy, in force even before 1901. […] Perspective, however, is missing. Today, China and many Asian nations, as is their right, simply refuse to admit foreigners and grant them citizenship.” (The Weekend Australian, January 25, 2025)
This being the case, how is it that these countries aren’t acting wrongfully by not letting anyone in at all? The answer is obvious, because everyone implicitly understands that if you’re not Chinese you don’t have a right to live in China.
If the Chinese, or anyone else, didn’t want to allow White people to live amongst them, it doesn’t bother me. So, why is it that throughout Australia’s history, despite the founding stock being European, and the country consciously made a homeland for Europeans, that Australia was “obligated” to allow in anyone and everyone who wanted to come here? How is it even possible that despite having no dominion or influence over such people’s lives, good or bad, because we had nothing to do with them, that we have somehow wronged these people by deciding we didn’t want to allow them in? It’s completely backward, because this moral argument assumes the want-to-be immigrant holds the levers of sovereignty over Australia’s borders, and not Australians.
Nations and peoples have always the moral right to select whoever they want to be a part of their country. There’s theoretically no intrinsic morality embedded in the question of selection since exclusion is an inevitable part of the process in any case.
No other people on earth needs to justify why their nation ought to remain in the hands of the peoples who have staked the dominant claim in whatever territory they occupy. Australia is no different, and in our case the Europeans were particularly industrious, creating the nation everyone from around the world desired to come only after it was firmly established.
It’s quite arbitrary to hold nations like Australia responsible for the conditions which want-to-be immigrants find themselves in in their own countries, yet this is what immigration extremists attempt to do by making us responsible for alleviating the conditions of people whom we have no dominion or influence over, and therefore have nothing to do with, good or bad. Yet this is the moral argument that underpins their belief that in implementing the White Australia Policy, or stopping immigration nowadays, means a passive harm is being inflicted on the rest of the world, even though our interaction with it is ultimately neutral.
The mainstream line on immigration is largely the result of top-down unilateral and undemocratic policy changes going back to the 1970s. Its position is hypocritical, because the multiculturalists are just as race obsessed as the so-called “racists” they despise.
While White nationalists believe that Australia ought to be predominantly White and therefore represent European civilisation, the multicultural dogmatist operates on the same basic premise, albeit they assume it is preferable to be anything other than European.
In their view it is most preferable to be Indian or Chinese than it is to be Australian, and this comes through in their constant adulation of foreign cultures over the traditional Anglo-Celtic-European culture which founded and moulded Australia into the migrant receptacle it has become since the mid-1970s.
For them, “multicultural communities” – which are the only ones of worth – are synonymous with non-European communities. Did anyone see any member of any member of any major party at the last election even bother trying to win the vote of White Australians, let alone pose for photos with representatives of our community? Of course not.
The fact is that the mainstream preference for a non-European Australia isn’t based on a rational and empirical foundation, it is based simply on desire, and on what they want to see. It is not the White nationalist whose view of immigration is superficial and arbitrary, because at least we have the support of the historical and cultural precedent for what Australia was supposed to be on our side when guiding our moral obligations to the people most deserving of reaping Australia’s rewards. It is our people who made it possible, as the wailing of “coloniser” readily reminds us.
III. The destructive power of Australia’s obsession with immigration
The idea that immigrants have all the skills necessary to improve our country but none to improve their own is patently ridiculous if it were true. It is, of course not true, but this doesn’t justify bringing these people in either, because in that case their addition to our country is parasitic and harmful and not in any way “beneficial”.
So why are they here?
And why are hundreds of thousands brought in every year?
Obviously, there’s the political and monetary incentives for greedy corporations and traitorous politicians. But everyone knows about this. I’m more interested in the “logic” as it’s presented to us through their kind of backward moral framing.
The moral dimension is shallow: Migrants should come here because they’re “good” for simply being who they are. Nothing could exemplify this idea more than the justification that migrants are all deserving to move here for a “better life”, basically whatever personal reasons the potential migrant has is automatically considered valid and good, and this, we’re told, also makes them good (for some reason).
However, the flip-side of this argument is that they can be considered bad and undesirable also for being who they are. If they’re the wrong kind of people whom we do not wish to import for whatever our reasons are – that is if we desire to import anyone at all – this is just as compelling a reason not to import anyone.
Anyway. At this point in time, the most common reason we’re told immigration is “necessary” is because Australia is “multicultural” and it is a part of our “story”. So, if we were to abandon immigration – so the logic goes – treating it as a purposeful policy which is to serve whatever interest we give to it, then this is akin to cultural “suicide” and the loss of national identity and purpose itself. Which implies, quite preposterously, that our purpose as a nation is to import immigrants!
This is the insane idea that lies behind what Roger Cook, Premier of Western Australia, meant when he said yesterday that “anyone seeking to demonise migration to Australia, and Western Australia, are really just driving an agenda of hate and division”. Because to people like him multiculturalism is Australia’s identity, and immigration is what facilitates that identity to exist. This is why he makes no distinction between “migration to Australia” and social “division”. All the politicians do this, and you will notice it if you listen carefully to what they say.
This attitude shows us that that multiculturalism and the immigration used to facilitate it is a fait accompli. In other words: This way of thinking is the result of an extrinsic subversion brought about by immigration such as one could never have predicted until it had broken a generational threshold wherein the experience of the White Australia Policy had been officially dismantled from the top down. This subversion would never have occurred had non-European immigrants never been brought in.
And this was facilitated by moral guilt-tripping Australians into thinking immigration is a preconceptual moral characteristic of the “good country” which shares it prosperity, promotes equality and equity, and allows others to partake in it.
However, you cannot equalise upward, and so, when prosperity is defined against a global obligation to all humanity – disregarding the autonomy of a section of humanity which did the work to create a localised prosperity – any notch of prosperity higher than the lowliest is deemed to be in excess and must be distributed to the rest of the world via immigration.
This is why in so-called “rich” countries are told that the ever decreasing standard of living is justified on the basis that since the “rest of the world” never enjoyed the same standards you lose nothing you deserved (sprawling suburbs of family homes among other things) by being forced to surrender your prosperity by being priced out of the housing market and forced to live in utilitarian high-rise micro pods because what your nation once enjoyed was “in excess” of the slums of the third world.
So, when immigration is viewed as a preconceptual moral good it degrades the prosperity of a nation and destroys its standard of living because the reason for it is framed as “alleviating” poverty in the world, or “giving back” (when nothing was deserved or owed), because we have “more than enough”.
What the nation that operates an immigration policy on this premise will soon find, is that their nation never stops having “more than enough” until it’s lost everything and is no different from a slum.
The “moral” character of a universalistic immigration policy will always be to abrogate the nation’s perceived boundary of prosperity downwards. Therefore, the only way to maintain prosperity is to limit and define the boundaries of prosperity, and that means immigration must be stopped, and if allowed, strictly controlled to only those of ancestrally compatible types.
IV. A response to Australian politicians’ remarks prior to the March for Australia
Two days ago, on August 28, 2025, Liberal Senator Paul Scarr attacked the March for Australia, and the factual statement made by the organisers that more Indians have been brought into Australia in five years, than Greeks and Italians in 100. He said all the usual things: “It’s vile, unacceptable, outrageous, despicable, and seeks to divide Australians”. He also said that the pamphlet is “causing great distress” to Indians. He says this three times, as if each time he says it constitutes an argument.
What I can tell you Mr Scarr, is that the mass migration of Indians into Australia is causing great distress, and this march against immigration represents that distress. So, why don’t you care about how distressed we feel? Why does that not matter? The answer is because to be distressed about immigration and how it’s changing the country is to be immoral, because as I’ve established above, the view of politicians like Paul Scarr is that immigrations are good inherently because of who they are, and this means they’re allowed to come to Australia just because they want to. Immigrants for the sake of immigrants, human capital for the sake of human capital. That’s the line being taken.
Indians are distressed at what the pamphlet is suggesting, which is that too many Indians have been imported into Australia, which can only mean they’re afraid of Australian sentiment turning against the prospect of importing more Indians like themselves. And so, what? Why are they allowed to want more Indians, and we’re not allowed to want less? Why are the feelings of the Indian community given moral and political preference over what we want, and over what other Australians want? If there’s a conflict of interest here, then isn’t it the job of the government to resolve these issues fairly and recognise them as the faults of their policy? Yes, it is, but they won’t and can’t take responsibility for what they’ve done, because their opposition to the will of traditional Australians is ideological.
This tells us a lot about the aims of the government; and it even tells us what Indians want. They want more of their people brought to Australia, and they feel as if they deserve to be comfortable at our expense. And politicians like Paul Scarr are telling us that they don’t care how we feel. And that’s fine because it means that we’re under no obligation to care when all Australians want to do is peacefully march to express our frustration at the government’s immigration policy.
However, the most interesting remarks, I think, have come from Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and Multicultural Affairs Minister Dr Anne Aly, both also on August 28th.
Mr Burke stated that: “There is no place in our country for people who seek to divide and undermine our social cohesion.” And: “We stand with modern Australia against these rallies – nothing could be less Australian.”
The first quote from Mr Burke will be responded to in full once Dr Aly’s first statement is quoted, because it must be considered in conjunction with it. But what should first of all be said here, is that, shockingly, other people in this country have a very different idea of what constitutes the dividing and undermining of social cohesion in Australia.
The second quote from Mr Burke is interesting in that he specified “modern Australia”. His claim that “nothing could be less Australian”, harkens back to my point earlier about how these people see immigration as constituting Australian identity; and so, a rally against immigration is undermining our national purpose from his perspective; which is a thoroughly perverted view in my opinion. But, fortunately, Mr Burke is not the arbiter of what an Australian is – even if he is Home Affairs Minister – since every Australian is a citizen who lives in a so-called democracy, that means we get to decide what an Australian is, and the people going out to march tomorrow are entitled to voice their opinion about what an Australian is.
Also, for Mr Burke to tell us what is or is not Australian in such an assertive way, is not very democratic. It generally wouldn’t matter so much what someone like Mr Burke has to say, but because he works on behalf of a state which is trying to criminalise the opinions of those whom they disagree with, who they think are “spreading hate”, by voicing a view on government policy and a view of what an Australian is and should be that they don’t like, unfortunately matters a lot because he and his ilk are trying to enshrine their view into law as holy writ.
Next, Dr Aly provided three quotes.
In the third one she stated was that “racism and ethnocentrism has no place in modern Australia”. But this is an obvious lie because all other races are allowed, and are encouraged, to be ethnocentric and racist. Was it not Labor who has pledged to fund foreign language schools? Is that not even a state-funded act of ethnocentrism? And was it not the Greens who made a pact with Labor to include a clause in the new hate speech and vilification laws in Victoria, the so-called Sam Kerr clause, to decriminalise racism against White Australians? It was.
Anyway, in the first quote offered by the joint statement, and the most relevant, Dr Aly asserts that: “Multiculturalism is an integral and valued part of our national identity.” Which of course she would say seeing as she’s an Egyptian immigrant who’s incentivised to say such believe such nonsense because its in her own ethnic and professional interest. Having such an obvious vested interest hardly adds weight to her assertion which is noticeably undemocratic as well. After all, it’s obviously not true if there are thousands of Australians who want to come out tomorrow and march against immigration, and multiculturalism by extension.
Rhetoric like this from politicians who also bang on about “hatred and division”, are making claims devoid of any substance, and expressing opinions taking no account of perspective. For us, the majority of the Australian people, the immigration imposed on us against our will for 50 years has been the root cause of hatred and division in our once homogenous and peaceful country. To have politicians accuse us in opposition to these policies which they enforced – and refuse to stop, at our inevitable chagrin – is backwards.
It is a delusion of the politician’s megalomaniacal belief in their own divine omniscience to think they can tell us what is “hateful and divisive”, or what’s valued by us or not, and what kind of country we are. But this state of mind belies their wickedness, because it is not just about things which are determined and defined by them, it is about how much these opinions can be derived from things independent of opinion. So, what an Australian is, and what immigration policy ought to be, should be based on something more concrete and objective than simply saying, “this is what I want”.
More specifically, taking aim at Dr Aly’s assertion that “multiculturalism is an integral and valued part of our national identity”, we can observe independent of one’s own view, that it is not based on history, because the history of multiculturalism is one of top-down enforcement of a program against the will of the Australian people. It was, as described above, a fait accompli, which is now being presented to us as the status quo when we had no say in it at all. It was undemocratic, as, for instance, the respected political scientist Dr Frank Salter has pointed out for decades, and its result was asymmetrical multiculturalism at the expense of normative White Australian society.
It is very convenient for politicians in favour of immigration to invite millions of foreigners into the country, give them citizenship, and then declare that they’re “just as Australian”, as those who were already here, and then tell us to conform to this imposed state of affairs because they have done it whether we wanted it or not. Obviously, this is simply not a convincing argument or moral basis on which to proclaim the integral nature of multiculturalism to Australian society. It is a despotic justification at its core.
We cannot be told multiculturalism is integral and a valued part of our national identity unless in a democracy it’s based on something voluntary. Yet these pronouncements by our politicians are clearly not phrased in ways which are voluntary. These statements amount to, “just because” Tony Burke, Anne Aly, and whatever other mediocre non-entity career politician playing petty tyrant “say so”. That’s the most frustrating thing about the pronouncements from these people over the last few days. Nothing they’ve said is rooted in anything real or organic, it is all based on a moral framework imposed from the top-down in the 1970s.
So what legitimacy does multiculturalism have?
Tony Burke and Anne Aly can only legitimate their belief in multiculturalism on the idea that it’s “moral”. But morality is something which can only be imposed by will, or by force. The reactions by politicians to Australians who oppose immigration is a good example of imposing one’s morality by force. We saw on August 22nd in response to One Nation’s billboard put up in Mildura, Jacinta Allan the Victorian Premier threaten those who she saw believed were engaged in “hateful behaviour” with prison time by invoking the hate speech and vilification laws. Even such mild criticisms of the government’s immigration policy on a billboard which merely stated, “High Immigration = Rental Crisis”, and this was enough for Ms Allan to fire a warning shot. This kind of thing proves my point completely.
There is a bit more than a hint of irony in the fact that these politicians are lecturing Australians on what “divides and undermines our social cohesion”, when they have imported immigrants against the will of the Australian people for 50 years and are now presenting us with a moral quandary of their own making with how to maintain social cohesion when it’s all their fault.
White Australians are not to blame for undermining social cohesion. We are, after all, the ones resisting the undemocratic regime imposed on us – I cannot stress this enough – the unwanted multicultural program is not our responsibility to maintain or adhere to when we never wanted it and were never asked.
The responsibility lies with the politicians who are the ones who believe in mass migration, and who are the ones who actually sought to divide and undermine social cohesion. In-fact, the Australian government knew in the 1970s what would happen! One can go back and read Parliament Paper No. 164/1978, dated May 1978, and entitled “Report of the Review of Post-arrival Programs and Services for Migrants”, and read on page 104 under Chapter 9. “Multiculturalism”, where these frauds and hucksters admit that:
“It is obvious that a society which has multilingual, multireligious and multicultural groups will encounter problems in solving inevitable friction and tension and perhaps divisions between groups.”
Of course, we need not be concerned, for the Australian government 47 years ago must have surely had a brilliant solution to these problems it decided to introduce into Australian society. Anyone who thinks that would be wrong, for the paper proffers justifications that are upheld by flimsy assurances like “We believe…”, “We are firmly of the opinion…”, “We are convinced…”. And their solution to this particular problem of diversity endangering social cohesion was to encourage cultural differences, “then the community as a whole will benefit substantially and its democratic nature will be reinforced”. Which has not happened and is completely ridiculous.
If the belief was that people kept to themselves among their own groups, but within the same society, then there won’t be any tension, why on earth was the Australian government intent on bringing these people here? Especially when you know what’s going to happen? We cannot answer this question because it’s given no consideration, the paper simply states that “We are firmly of the opinion that these problems can be overcome”, and it proceeds to outline the utopian multicultural concept of parallel ethno-cultural communities.
But the worst is yet to come.
Of clear significance is the fact that according to the paper:
“… many migrants and migrant representatives argued strongly that they had a right to retain their cultural identity and heritage. They argued that our society should recognise this right and actively support and promote the various cultural affiliations.”
Which shows that even in 1978 the migrants who were arriving in Australia who were only in their tens of thousands were not interested in conjoining with Australia on its terms because they love the “Australian way of life” and Western civilisation. Even in these small numbers, these people were willing to complain to our government about their “right” to be recognised as who they are in our society. And the government agreed with them:
“We are convinced that migrants have the right to maintain their cultural and racial identity and that it is clearly in the best interests of our nation that they should be encouraged and assisted to do so if they wish. Provided that ethnic identity is not stressed at the expense of society at large but is interwoven into the fabric of our nationhood by the process of multicultural interaction.”
This is the most brilliant exposition of how the Australian government believed multiculturalism would work. And every Australian reading this should also be aware that these people believed themselves to know better than us and imposed this ideology upon us on that pretence, and it was this belief that has fuelled our successive governments for the last 50 years which finally led to the implementation of “hate speech” and “anti-vilification” laws that seek to punish us for pointing out their treachery and our dissatisfaction.
These geniuses believed that there’s no relation between society and ethnic identity and culture, despite linking the maintenance of culture with racial identity. So, to suggest, therefore, that culture has no impact on society – or such little impact – that it can be haphazardly discarded for the sake of some ridiculous concept of society divorced from culture, is mind bogglingly ridiculous. These people only needed to read the first few pages of Aristotle’s Politics written some 2,400 years ago to know that the state is formed concentrically outward from primordial pre-political associations:
“When several families are united, and the association aims at something more than the supply of daily needs, the first society to be formed is the village. […] [And when] several villages are united in a single complete community, large enough to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence, originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural […] Hence it is evident that the state is a creation of nature …”
This is why Aristotle says that:
“[The] state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the part; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot or hand, except homonymously, as we might speak of a stone hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that. But things are defined by their function and power; and we ought not to say that they are the same when they no longer have their proper quality, but only that they are homonymous. The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore, he is like a part in relation to the whole.”
For the Australian government to have claimed that there’s no connection between culture, ethnic identity, and society – that society exists somewhere outside these things where they have no influence – is a contradicted by their own statements of belief, because they tacitly concede that culture and racial identity is in the best interest of certain groups, and they believe that it’s legitimate, real and important!
Yet they somehow still find a way to divorce it from society. How does that work? It doesn’t and it can’t, and yet this is the blueprint for the country we now have, which is rapidly going to shit; and it’s this nonsensical faith-driven bullshit that people like Tony Burke and Anne Aly have based their policies of social cohesion on.
This disregard for the most foundational and obvious components of life that leads to the constitution of “society” in the first place – namely culture and ethnic-kinship – which cannot exist apart from society, because it is society, has proven to be a catastrophic misjudgement that could’ve been easily avoided with common sense.
Unfortunately, the only conclusion is that these people were morons who had blind faith in a policy which had never been tried in all of human history. It’s certainly not something which had ever occurred organically throughout all of human history (I wonder why Aristotle wasn’t as infinitely wise as Australia’s politicians?).
In fact, all of human history is a record of ethno-tribalist conflict and war, and we know that ethnic conflict occurs when groups, who are competing for cultural predominance and resources, who believe their culture to be the right and correct one, are living in close proximity to other peoples’ and cultures who think the same. Little did we know that the solution to this was to just ignore all that and import everyone in from around the world let them have their own cultural and racial identities, and it’ll be great!
As an antidote to this nonsense, every Australian should read Chapter 14 of Arthur Calwell’s 1972 autobiography Be Just and Fear Not, to remind themselves of what common sense looks like. And read books like Donald L. Horowitz’s 720-page doorstop Ethnic Groups in Conflict (read the 2001 Updated Edition), and Tatu Vanhanen’s Ethnic Conflicts: Their Biological Roots in Ethnic Nepotism (2012), and of course, Frank Salter’s On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration (2006) to see how human nature actually works, and how to be less stupid than every Australian government since the 1970s.
Dr Aly says in her second quote that Australians who want to express their cultural frustration at being sidelined, who want to march in defence of their nation “seek to intimidate migrant communities”; how she knows this is unclear, probably because she has been gifted the same divine powers bestowed upon all Australian politicians. Nonetheless, we might say in response that if migrant communities feel “intimidated”, then this is a sign that multiculturalism doesn’t work. And so, I would recommend to Dr Aly that she should take the advice of the Australian government of 50 years ago and put aside her multicultural project so that it does not conflict with society at large!
One of the final points made by Burke and Aly is that they both seek to defend the concept of “modern Australia”.
Mr Burke says that “We stand with modern Australia against these rallies” – one could take this to mean that he distinguishes between “antiquated” White Australia, and the “new” non-European, “modern” Australia – and Dr Aly stated that “This brand of far-right activism grounded in racism and ethnocentrism has no place in modern Australia.”
I said before that I found the use of the word “modern” quite interesting; and it’s because I imagined what the response would’ve been had the tables been turned in the 1970s had Australian politicians, like Arthur Calwell, who was attacked by the up-and-coming multiculturalists, for basically asserting that multiculturalism has no place in modern Australia anymore than it had any place anywhere else in the world where its implementation could only result in dispossession of any people whom its forced upon. It’s basically an assertion of the moral inviolability of the status quo, which Mr Burke and Dr Aly and their ilk would not accept if it came from the White Australia era.
Unlike the multiculturalists, White Australia was popular and the will of the people, and it still retains the moral high-ground on the issue of immigration. That we lost the normative White Australia of our forefathers and had it and our social cohesion taken from us by politicians who thought they knew better and replaced it with an ideology they preferred doesn’t give them legitimacy. Offices like that of “Minister for Multicultural Affairs” – which in 1972 Calwell was quite proud to state we were in no need of under the White Australia Policy – was created as a result of the ideological subversion of the Australian project.
So, why should grassroots Australians concede to Australia’s politicians what being Australian means and what has a place in Australia? What authority to these politicians have, other than invented titles, which represents illegitimacy because it’s based on usurpation and subversion of Australia’s national identity from the top-down? This is a historical fact, and yet Australians are supposed to take the politicians word for what’s good for us and what we’re supposed to agree with when policies like multiculturalism have no weight at all, are based on nothing, and are, at the end of the day, if they’re based on anything, based on the weight that is enforced by the threat of state violence and the threat of being thrown in prison for peacefully disagreeing with what our politicians have decided for us.
That is the only weight the politicians have to make assertions like they do. Their views have no cultural weight, they have no historical weight, they have no moral weight, they have no logical weight (which is why they’re terrified of debate and want to punish dissenters), they have nothing, no anchorage in legitimacy other than what they can legitimise at the end of the barrel of a gun.
That’s the full extent of the government’s “legitimacy”.
V. March for Australia
So, tomorrow Australians will peacefully march for their country and voice their peaceful opposition to the government’s immigration agenda.
Australians have every right to make their voices heard.
Header image: Tony Burke and Anthony Albanese hand out 700 citizenships at a ceremony in Melbourne this month (Facebook).
The post Ignore the immigration gaslighting and march for Australia first appeared on The Noticer.
The Noticer
