The Inevitable Republic: Should White Australia Ditch The Monarchy?

As the vote on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament referendum looms, Australian dissidents and other supporters of White Australia should also begin casting their eyes to the next item on the left-wing constitutional amendment agenda: a second referendum on whether Australia’s constitutional ties to the British monarchy should be severed. Prime Minister Albanese publicly poured cold water on a republic move in the days after the death of Queens Elizabeth II, stating that the federal Labor government has no plan to pursue a referendum on the monarchy within the current term of office. Behind the scenes however, moves are being made to prepare the groundwork for another referendum push. The result of the failed referendum in 1999 has shown once again that a democratic vote in support of a change desired by progressives is binding, but a democratic vote against is merely a temporary setback to be overcome at a later date.

In June 2022, just months before the death of the Queen, Federal MP Matt Thistlethwaite was appointed to the newly created position of Assistant Minister for the Republic, a role dedicated to officially campaigning for an Australian republic on behalf of the government. The Reserve Bank of Australia decided, without much outcry, that King Charles III would not replace Elizabeth II on future Australian $5 banknotes. Then in October 2022, the Australian Republican Movement (ARM), a nationwide campaign group first formed in 1991, elected a fresh group of directors, led by former soccer player and refugee activist Craig Foster.[1] The stalwarts of the ARM appear invigorated by the scandals of Princes Harry and Andrew and the passing of Elizabeth (and with her the weakening of the popularity of the institution she represented for 70 years), which has presented the perfect opportunity to renew the fight.

How should patriotic Australians approach the question of a republic? Certainly the debate is older than the formation of the country itself and there are no hard or fast rules on whether a defender of White Australia must necessarily be a Republican or a Monarchist. The recurrent split down the centre of pro-White activism in Australia over the years has always been between two broad camps. On the one side are those who favour a nativist republic and look towards an Australian ethnogenesis and a new national identity that has, with geographical distance and the arrival of non-British White migrants, evolved away from its strict Anglo-Celtic origins. On the other are those who side with the monarchy and highlight the “necessity of Britishness” and British race patriotism in the construction and maintenance of Australia’s identity, that Australia is but an extension of the history and culture of the British Isles.[2] Lest it get side-tracked by the above ethnicity debate, this essay contends only with how the broad racial principle or ideal of a White Australia (one that sits above questions of ethnicity) relates to a position on the republic question.

Delving into Australia’s pre-Federation history, in the latter days of the colonies it was republicanism which once found strong association with the burgeoning cause for White Australia. The first large swell of fervour for an Australian republic came in tandem with the workers strikes and the economic upheaval of the late nineteenth century that spurred the growth of a radical nationalist and socialist movement, one ultimately leading to the formation of the Australian Labor Party. Republicanism swam with a political current that clamoured for national manhood through some form of independence from the Crown, and was resolutely opposed to Chinese immigration and the importation of cheap Pacific Islander labourers. The fear that British imperial policy, in particular in matters affecting immigration, was no longer wholly in-line with the interests of native Australians was a common refrain.

Cartoon from The Bulletin, 1888: “The Imperial Connection” providing the access point for the Chinese migrant[3]

A series of republican riots hit Sydney in 1887 in the leadup to celebrations of Queens Victoria’s Golden Jubilee and the radical nationalist magazine The Bulletin raised the cry on July 2, 1887 with its editorial “Australia for the Australians!”, a credo that would soon appear on the masthead of the magazine until replaced with “Australia for the White Man” in 1908:

…all men who leave the tyrant-ridden lands of Europe for freedom of speech and right of personal liberty are Australians before they set foot on the ship which brings them hither. Those who fly from an odious military conscription; those who leave their fatherland because they cannot swallow the worm-eaten lie of the divine right of kings to murder peasants, are Australians by instinct—Australian and Republican are synonymous. No nigger, no Chinaman, no lascar, no kanaka, no purveyor of cheap coloured labour, is an Australian.[4]

A string of republican magazines and associations cropped up across the country proclaiming the inevitable arrival of a republic (a tradition continued to this day[5]), and among those enthralled by the fervour in Sydney was the young poet Henry Lawson, whose famous poem Song of the Republic appeared a few months later in The Bulletin:

Sons of the South, make choice between
(Sons of the South, choose true),
The Land of Morn and the Land of E’en,
The Old Dead Tree and the Young Tree Green,
The Land that belongs to the lord and the Queen,
And the Land that belongs to you.

A strong republican sentiment reared its head again in 1972 with the election of the Whitlam Labor government and reached a crescendo in the aftermath of the constitutional crisis known as the Dismissal. On November 11, 1975, the Governor-General Sir John Kerr, the Queen’s representative in Australia, had taken the drastic step of using his reserve powers to dismiss the Whitlam Labor government from office, in order to resolve a parliamentary deadlock that had created a loss of supply. The exact role played by the British royal family in the constitutional crisis is still up for debate, but the Dismissal invigorated a generation of Labor leaders, leading to Prime Minister Paul Keating’s unsuccessful republic push in the 1990s.

What I seek to sketch out in this essay is that, given the current state of the country, defenders of White Australia — whether they be Anglo or Nativist — would be wise to hold to the side of constitutional monarchy, irrespective of any historical alignment republicanism has had with White Australia. Many Australian nationalists who considered the issue in the leadup to the 1999 referendum came to similar conclusions, but the situation has devolved further over the last quarter-century and calls for another stocktake of the nation of sorts.

This conclusion is not derived from any particular sentiment in favour of the British Monarchy itself or any delusional belief that the royal family is somehow a supporter of White Australia. Instead, it comes from the recognition of the fact that the current republic alterative on offer will leave the country worse off and is not being pursed on terms that are acceptable to the maintenance of the principle of White Australia. Should the political conditions of Australia change, it may well be that republicanism can, as it did in the nineteenth century, find co-existence with White Australia. Furthermore, should the monarchy itself expire in the UK, a republic may simply become an administrative necessity devoid of any symbolic change. But as it stands now, with the monarchy still firmly in place in the UK, an Australian republic is a poisoned chalice that should be spurned.

The Republic as Political Asset

Two key questions provide us the framework for making this decision. The first question to ask is a more technical one; will becoming a republic improve the Australian political system and/or make the defence of White Australia an easier task politically?

As modern-day monarchists often point out, history shows us that there is nothing axiomatically beneficial about casting aside a constitutional monarch and becoming a republic. It does not overnight turn your country into a more successful or cohesive nation, and there is strong reason to suggest that a constitutional monarchy is a more politically stable arrangement. In such countries, wilder democratic passions can find an outlet only in the legislature — a place where parliamentary convention, the need for compromise, and the presence of an opposition tends to temper the intensity of the demands of  voters — and ultimate power or the trappings of royal pomp and presidential status are always out of reach of an upstart despot or demagogue.

List the names of some of the most highly developed, peaceful and politically stable countries in the world — Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Japan, Canada, New Zealand and Australia itself — and you will find they are all constitutional monarchies. Likewise, if you had to pick the most politicly divided and chaotically multi-racial countries in the West right now, you would have to pick the USA and France, the birthplaces of modern republicanism. Historical and modern-day tyrannies also tend to bear the name republic: the USSR, the German Democratic Republic, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and the People’s Republic of China. Of course, republics exist amongst the ranks of the highly developed, such as Iceland or Finland, though these tend to be parliamentary republics — recent converts to republicanism after long histories of monarchy, where the president is as ceremonial as a constitutional monarch and there is no real possibility of him or her coming into conflict with the legislature.

As regarding republicanism specifically in the defence of White Australia, the benefits also remain elusive. Historically, the racially conscious republicanism of the late nineteenth century quickly dissipated in favour of the realisation that national pride could peacefully co-exist with British imperial pride, and that White Australia was safer from Japan and the “rising tide of colour” within the Empire than without. Constitutional monarchy and the Westminster System of government turned out to be no significant impediment on the adoption of the White Australia Policy in 1901. The Policy was assented to over protests from the British government, and with the right government in charge again, it can be re-adopted by parliament just the same.

Nor is it possible to envisage how a republic could have succeeded in saving White Australia in the 1960s and 1970s where possession of a strong presidential republic failed to avert a similar outcome in America. Neither multiculturalism nor multiracialism were implemented in Australia via a democratic process that could have been opposed democratically. Instead, both outcomes were accomplished by stealth, in a form of elite (substantially Jewish) conspiracy carried out in the depths of the Australian bureaucracy, using “salami-slice” or “thin-edge-of-the-wedge” tactics that would have left voters in a hypothetical Australian republic just as much in the dark.

Furthermore, if the minimalist republican model presented to voters in 1999 had been implemented, a ceremonial position whereby a candidate would be exclusively chosen by the Prime Minister of the day, the Australian president would have no more power to arrest the current demographic situation than the Governor-General currently does. The new Australia Choice Model of a republic developed by the ARM for use in a new referendum would fare no better. Even if given significant executive powers, a president elected by the Australian people with a popular mandate to end multiculturalism would still be impotent against an oppositional legislature, or cause political chaos at best. Ultimately, in the Australian political system, power to affect Australia’s cultural and racial makeup lies with the legislature and hopes for a political revival of White Australia must be focused on that body alone.

The Republic as Symbolic Act

This leads us to the second and far more important question. If becoming a republic does not benefit White Australia in the sense of the country’s political structure, then benefits of its adoption lie solely in rhetoric or symbolism, with a cultural argument that puts forth a statement of Australia’s destiny. In that case, what is the current symbolic positioning for the creation of an Australian republic?

For the longest time, mainstream supporters of a republic defended it as an egalitarian patriotic cause allied with nationalism, and believed it symbolised a positive identity for Australia’s future, not a violent break with its British past. To them, a republic was the pronouncement of an Australia that wanted to show the world it was an independent nation-state that could now go along without the ties to the motherland. The direct British connection was seen as a colonial leftover, an obstacle to the development of a truly Australian national identity, and once cast aside, the country could pursue its own place in the world with a born-and-bred Australian, not a foreign monarch, occupying the role of head of state. The popular imagery of republican arguments was one of filial affection, a mutually beneficial departure from the home by a child that had now reached adulthood and wanted to function on its own terms, and the parent that knew at some point it had to let the child leave the nest in order to grow. Republicanism of this type is perfectly consistent with the principle of White Australia and offers no barrier, in symbolic terms, to its conservation and continuance.

This twentieth-century republican sentiment, prefigured by the writings of nationalist P.R. Stephensen in the 1930s and moulded later by prominent voices such as Donald Horne and Geoffrey Dutton[6], still held true for the majority of republic-supporting voters in the 1999 referendum, and was the main symbolic argument presented to the voting public by the campaign, but there was another type of sentiment at play then too. This alternative sentiment had germinated amongst the cultural revolutionaries in the 1960s but was still hidden in the background in the leadup to the referendum for fear of needlessly jeopardising the Yes vote. Though subtle, both nationalists and monarchists identified the link between Keating’s republicanism and the ascendant multiculturalist ideology which sought greater enmeshment in Asia and indigenous reconciliation.

In the years since, the “multicultural republic” sentiment has mutated beyond even the worst fears of patriots and has come to the fore to be the dominant positioning of republican sentiment in the country, the one publicly held by the leaders of the ARM and espoused by the media, academic and political elite who speak for the republican case. If the republic campaign is launched today, it is this sentiment, not the old one, that will drive the debate and animate the discussions of its supporters, and be the one that would ultimately carry a victory.

This is the republicanism borne not out of love for Australia, but out of hatred. A republicanism that, whilst retaining its original egalitarianism and desire for a local-born head of state, has almost nothing to do with national unity, patriotism, or a sense of pride in Australia and its unique history as a European country on the other side of the planet. Instead, it is driven by a destructive anti-White impulse, one that seeks to sever the ties with Britain as a way of immunising the country from the moral contagion of colonialism and slavery and all the other racial ills lain now at the foot of the British Empire and Western Civilisation as a whole. It is a republicanism borne out of rejection of Australia’s racial, political and cultural origins in Britain and wider Europe; articulated in the loathing of the fact that Australia’s head of state is an “old white man,” and the aggrieved realisation that unless multiple royals in the line of succession die early deaths, it will continue to be an old White man for at least the next 70 years.

Scenes from anti-monarchy protests held around the country in September 2022.  Republicanism has also become an intimate companion to the “indigenous sovereignty” dogma, which claims that the scattered nomadic tribes somehow possessed legal sovereignty over the Australian landmass prior to 1788.

In this form of self-flagellating republicanism, Australia’s inheritance from Britain is not something to cherish and value, but something to scorn or destroy. References are always made to the supposedly detrimental impact of the monarchy and the British connection on “first nations people”, and the words “modern” and “multicultural” are always present on the lips of these types of republicans, as it was when Minister for the Republic Matt Thistlethwaite recently appeared on the television program QandA:

But over the longer term, we see Australia as a mature, independent nation, making its own way in the world, reflecting our true multiculturalism, our unique culture and identity by having one of our own as our head of state in the future.[7]

Craig Foster, the leader of the ARM, appearing on the same program a few months earlier, went a step further and made the case that the push for the republic is an integral part of the “decolonisation” of Australia:

The answer for Australia is yes, and it has been for some time. And so, overwhelmingly, the research says that Australians are in favour of…decolonisation, really, and this is one part of it. That’s another part of it, right? Decolonisation of thinking and moving and walking together [8]

For academics and leading public intellectuals who speak on the debate[9], the issue has become overwhelmingly enmeshed with the ‘Black Armband’ view of history, arguing that a republic has no moral or symbolic weight unless it is combined with the push for indigenous reconciliation. For prominent republican scholar Mark Mckenna, this means that a republic has to be based on “an entirely different conception of Australian independence”, one that re-writes Australia’s history and grounds it not on British settlement but on “thousands of generations of Indigenous occupation”.[10] Another republican, Dennis Altman, contends that:

A republican movement that begins with the Uluru Statement from the Heart[11], rather than concerns about the symbolic links to the British crown, is a project more likely to capture the imagination of Australians.[12]

Elsewhere, Federal Greens Senator Mehreen Faruqi, a Pakistani-born migrant, has no fear in publicly declaring the British Monarchy to be a “racist, colonial institution[13] and that the death of the Queen is a reminder for Australians of the urgency of becoming a republic and of carrying out reconciliation.

If the Australian republic is to be pursued for symbolic reasons, then the first act of symbolism that would be pursed under a new “decolonised” and “indigenously reconciled” Australian republic should be now clear to us — the first Australian president (or whichever title it ends up being) must not be an “old white man.” The person chosen will almost certainly be some sort of intersectionality concoction; perhaps a disabled Aboriginal woman, a transgender Asian man, or a Jewish Lesbian.

Whatever the eventual combination, this new president will be hailed as a symbol to the world that White Australia is on its way out and that the new multi-racial Australian republic has succeeded it. His or her speeches will surely be replete with references to the success of multiculturalism and a racially diverse Australia with 60,000 years of history, and the need to correct the alleged genocidal dispossession of First Nations people by Australia’s illegitimate founders. Would-be migrants from around the world will take it as a sign of a conquered nation where the White man is no longer in control of his destiny.

So long as Australia remains a constitutional monarchy and it is King Charles III, King William V, or King George VII that sit on the throne as Australia’s Head of State, White Australia is spared this indignity and this symbolic vanquishment. If Australia is to become a republic, it must be done on terms that are acceptable to and compatible with the nation’s foundational principle of White Australia, even if this means the “inevitable” republic must wait for another century.

[1] Also on the new executive board is long-time multicultural activist Vic Alhadeff, the former CEO of the New South Wales Jewish Board of Deputies.

[2] See the article “Revolt of the Anglophiles” by Australia First Party leader Jim Saleam, where Alan James and The Occidental Observer contributor Andrew Fraser intervene in the comments section. A similar dynamic could be seen between Australia’s two most prominent patriotic historians, the republican Manning Clark and the constitutional monarchist Geoffrey Blainey — J. Saleam 2013, ‘The Revolt of the Anglophiles: The New Political Anglos & Frank Salter’s Deconstruction of Australianity’, Counter Currents, December 26, retrieved from:

[3] The Bulletin 1888, The Imperial Connection, Saturday 14 April, p.10, retrieved from:

[4] The Bulletin 1887, Australia for the Australians, Saturday 2 July, p.4, retrieved: from

[5] The notion of “inevitability” has ironically enough long since been a detriment to the republican case, with successive republicans citing the inevitability of an Australian republic as a reason why it is a change that should not be vigorously or urgently pursued – See: M. Mckenna 1996, The Captive Republic: A History of Republicanism in Australia 1788–1996, Cambridge University Press, New York.

[6] Anti-racist undertones were present in the writings of both Horne and Dutton, though its impact on their republican arguments was limited.

[7] QandA – Words That Offend and Referendums 2023, television broadcast, 6 March, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney, Australia, transcript retrieved from:

[8] QandA – The Year of the Voice 2023, television broadcast, 30 January, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Sydney, Australia, transcript retrieved from:

[9] See Jones. B T & McKenna. M 2013, Project republic: plans and arguments for a new Australia, (B. T. Jones & M. McKenna, Eds.), Black Incorporated, Collingwood, Australia.

[10] M. McKenna 2021, ‘The Stunted Country’, The Monthly, Dec 2021-Jan 2022 Issue, retrieved from:

[11] A statement of principles derived from the Final Report of the Referendum Council in 2015, which recommended a constitutional amendment to enshrine an ‘Indigenous Voice to Parliament. ‘ The referendum council was co-chaired by Australia’s leading Jewish activist Mark Leibler.

[12] D. Altman 2022, ‘The republic debate is back (again) but we need more than a model to capture Australians’ imagination’, The Conversation, January 19, retrieved from:

[13] M. Faruqi 2022, ‘There’s nothing to celebrate about the British Monarchy, The Greens Magazine, 25 March, retrieved from:

23 replies
    AYTONOHTON says:

    The british monarchy is an obsolete, archaic and anachronistic institution. It serves nothing and costs a whole lot to the people to whom it is imposed, for absolutely no practical or even sentimental reasons. It needs to be abolished or at least the members of the commonwealth (yeah, common wealth my …arse) abandon it as soon as possible.

  2. David
    David says:

    I was very heavily involved in the campaign to keep the Constitutional Monarchy in Australia from 1992 until the referendum in 1999. It was a very unfair and extremely one sided debate, every single newspaper, tv station and most politicians were pushing the republic side! Yet we won against all the odds. The people who scream the loudest for a republic are those pushing multiculturalism, yes there were some nationalists, but they were few and far between. I still feel a republic would be used to further multiculturise Australia.

    • Terry Bull
      Terry Bull says:

      @ David
      You are right about this.
      Republicanism and multiculturalism are two forked tongues on the same reptile.
      The British “Dominions” were originally British and a head of state located mainly in another hemisphere was a source of unity. The immigration of other white people, including refugees from communism in Europe and persecution in Indonesia, did not automatically undermine this common allegiance. Australia and New Zealand were “Europe” overseas, and racially and culturally the British were and are European.
      The whites of Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and indeed Europe itself must make it their priority to overthrow Woke and stop Afro-Asian immigration. This job is up to the people to make the politicians change their tune, and the Crown in the UK and the Governors-General will have to follow suit.
      It is still up to US, not Camilla and William, or Welby and Sunak.
      The approach of avoidable death can concentrate the mind wonderfully.

  3. Steve
    Steve says:

    White Australia is gone because Australians didn’t give a damn about it.
    There will be no referendum on Immigration until after Australians are a minority.
    The entire Diversity ideology is pushed by multinationals everywhere to ensure they can undermine nations & use the cheapest labour they can source globally- anywhere.

    • What’s up Skip
      What’s up Skip says:

      White Australia is gone because of jewish influence and dishonest propaganda.

  4. Robiul Hoque
    Robiul Hoque says:

    The British Monarchy doesn’t care about their own people. They only care about their power and wealth.

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      01 In case you haven’t heard yet, the Empire [Power] was changed into the Commonwealth [ culture and tradition sustaing Influence ].

    • Terry Bull
      Terry Bull says:

      @ Robiul Hoque
      You obviously know nothing about the inherited duties of the Royal Family, the court circular, the constitutional duties of the Monarch, or the hard work gratuitously done for his country and people by the King when Prince of Wales.
      As in Australia, the media is not that friendly to the monarchy. The TV Channel 4 has run a sustained attack on the head of state and his ancestral history, including a call by a woke “comedian” during the Coronation procession for people to go out in the streets and make an end of the King by petrol bombs. This seditious incitement to murder was celebrated by the “intellectual” and “entertainment” media, while the authorities have said and done nothing. Republicans are organizing protests along the royal route and elsewhere, including one near the statue of King Charles I who was assassinated in public in 1649. As I write, 1 AM GMT, I learn that someone has already thrown explosive substances into the grounds of Buckingham Palace.
      The big problem is that whatever the King may be induced to concede to “diversity” and “inclusion” the third element of the unholy trinity of neo-Marxism, “equality”, is ipso facto suicidal.

      • Brian Rockford
        Brian Rockford says:

        About a hundred years ago Nesta Webster summarised the five aims of the conspiracy against western civilization: The abolition of (1) monarchy, (2) private ownership and inheritance of property, (3) national patriotism, (4) the family unit and values, (5) religion.
        All COMBINED.
        How far have we got since then?

  5. Edward Harris
    Edward Harris says:

    At the beginning of the 20th Century, Australia, Canada and New Zealand had been granted Dominion Status by the British Government which was working on giving Dominion Status to India, South Africa and Ireland.
    In 1904 five men decided to create a War.
    It took them ten years to create enough fear and hatred so that Trotsky could be sent to organise the murders of the Archduke and Archduchess. Trotsky was one of the people sent around the World in those ten years to bribe and blackmail important people.
    Trotsky’s family were a friends of the Jew side of my family.
    WW1 was only made possible by the stupidity of the arrogant German upper and middle classes. The German working class consisted of good peace loving people who were usually Socialists.
    So while the British were freeing as much of the World as possible, the Germans and Americans were setting up empires.
    Negroes are now living in Australia. The only people in the only place in the galaxy stupid enough to cause that are found in the American state Dept.
    I hope it does not happen but I believe the White Man will lose Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Siberia because of that failed experiment called the United States of America.

  6. charles frey
    charles frey says:

    01 California Dreamin’ ! Naturally there, our masters have concocted a new recipe for cooking up helpful legislation.

    02 Melodious, lifestyle ameliorating legislation is proposed, passed and enacted under stringent, state constitutional specific rules.

    03 Subsequently merely AMENDED requiring less stringent rules and representatives , accompanied by a sharp left turn.

    04 Think about the ” merely liberal ” February Revolution in up to then Czarist Russia. Identical methodology, en route to the not so liberal October Revolution orchestrated by imports from bank-towns Zurich and New York, with ample pocket money from Schiff and the Kaiser on advice of his intelligence advisor Hamburg Banker Warburg; then Europe’s largest.

    05 Solve the problem in traditional Australian fashion: send in Crocodile Dundee to castrate those crocodiles before losing everything: and I don’t mean only at the increasing number of Red-Chinese owned Casinos.

    06 Anyway they will have to wait to discard the Monarchy until the enthusiasm engendered by the double coronation of both Charles and Camila has subsided.

  7. Captainchaos
    Captainchaos says:

    The British Crown is no longer hegemon under which Australia groans, that baton has been passed to the American ZOG. If White Australia is to survive the American ZOG must be destroyed. How can White Australians contribute to destroying ZOG? By actively encouraging Red State secession in America.

    PS. The only real Australians are of Northwestern European descent. Nordicism is good. Just say no to wogs.

    • Aleksy
      Aleksy says:

      The only real Australians are of Northwestern European descent? Try British. If Italians and Greeks need to leave then so do Germans and Dutch. It’s similar to what Abraham Lincoln said about America in his Electric Cord Speech.

      “We have besides these men—descended by blood from our ancestors—among us perhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men, they are men who have come from Europe—German, Irish, French and Scandinavian—men that have come from Europe themselves, or whose ancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equals in all things. If they look back through this history to trace their connection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of us, but when they look through that old Declaration of Independence they find that those old men say that “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, (loud and long continued applause) and so they are.”

      • JM
        JM says:


        I pragmatically agree with your point in the first paragraph but your selective quoting of Lincoln from that speech is either remiss in scholarship or dishonest.

        If you consider the whole speech, it is apparent that this is a manifesto of Civic Nationalism, making Lincoln an unfit authority for nationalists today because this is one of the main devices used to effect the total marginalization of America’s founding stock. That was surely not Lincoln’s intention, but the implications of the principle in the modern world indicate that it contained the seeds of that disaster.

        • Aleksy
          Aleksy says:

          I was just trying to show that Lincoln, at least, thought a divide existed between America’s Anglo founding stock and other Northwestern European groups as opposed to there only being a divide between Northwestern Europeans and Southern/Eastern Europeans.

  8. Space Cowboy
    Space Cowboy says:

    How true: “Expect this kind of draconian legislation to be forthcoming in any and all countries where White people reside, as we are ‘legally’ being prevented from even discussing our genocide. This follows right on the heels of Florida passing the most aggressive anti-1st amendment legislation of any state in order to protect the ‘chosen’ people who seek to enslave us all for eternity.”

    see also ->

    Sicily is also an island in Europe, but unlike Ireland, it has fortunately not (yet) been the main target of the oriental-negro invasion prepared and directed by Jewish influence and the effects of its geopolitical destructiveness. Mr. “Jazzhands” cruises this place and invites to a 3 h entertaining journey, because only behind closed (car) doors you are still shielded from ZOG agents in Jewrope.

    • JM
      JM says:

      @Space Cowboy

      Great documentation of most important developments in Ireland and Sicily.

      I particularly liked the video by Jazz Steves touring within Catania province and commenting very insightfully on the politics of it all on the way. What a refreshing change from the sickening sugary output of his fellow guide, Ric!

    • Aleksy
      Aleksy says:

      What are you talking about? Italy has been one of the prime targets for the migrant invasion. In fact, they have had it worse lately than pretty much anyone.

  9. Birhan Dargey
    Birhan Dargey says:

    I dont feel alone anymore. I am hopeful after reading the Essay by Joisiah LIPICOTT..There are no options left for Conservative America, the only path forward is VOTING/ELECTING BUILDING RED MAGA POWER LOCALLY from electing School Boards to State federal Senators. The DEM Blue left woke tyranny will soon outlaw MAGA, free speech, free press, free ELECTIONS..although MAGA talking oints/issues can NOT be the same in BLUE dominated states…than in RED states..that shoudl be the next debate for MAGA AMERICA,,

    • Space Cowboy
      Space Cowboy says:

      “Köksal Baba” literally means “Giant Nose”, but (according to self-disclosure) he doesn’t like to be called Turkish, he wants to be called “Khazar”. This makes it also very understandable why he is always greeted with “Shalom” everywhere.

      His Ottoman admirers even claim, “one has to be particularly very careful with him, because he likes to make valuable things of all kinds such as safe keys, luxury watches suddenly disappear”, which he then does not want to give back.

  10. Space Cowboy
    Space Cowboy says:

    “That Gypsies are unclean, do not work but instead thieve like a magpie, is a lie of white racists”, all Jews claim. Those who, in spite of all humanistic logic, still maintain that this is merely an inconceivably brazen lie, contrary to all historical experience, should be taken out of circulation once and for all and rendered harmless.

    It should finally be made clear what tremendous genetic potential also lies in Gypsies, whose talent is underestimated until today. After all, these poor systematically disadvantaged souls are in direct competition with the Jews posing as “whites” in terms of enormous financial claims for “reparations”.

    Therefore, my music recommendation today to the fellow citizens so discriminated against by us should be a welcome to their precious Balkan culture enriching all of us. You just have to give them a real chance! We are dealing here with a considerable hitherto untapped potential of culturally rich diversity, which teaches us sonorous tunes that have so far remained hidden from us.

  11. Jo Pope
    Jo Pope says:

    Australia’s 16th Governor-General had observed in 1951 that unless the Lucky Country doubled its white population, “in a generation our children will be pulling rickshaws”. Today its Chinese Lesbian “Acting” PM attacks English colonial history and advocates a polyethnic Indo-Pacific future population. The Australians must return to the self-preservation arguments of Blainey and Hanson, or this unique island of great potential, which resisted Japanese invasion and deterred Javanese immigration, will eventually become as Chinese as Hong Kong, Inner Mongolia, Taiwan and Tibet. Cultural defense and biological survival from Queensland to Quebec and Belfast to Belgrade are as urgent in our time as climate change and runaway robotics.

Comments are closed.