A New Idea of Australia, Part 2: A Conquered People

Go to Part 1.

4301 words

An Aboriginal-Nationalist Alliance?

Upholding the principle of White Australia brings us neatly to a common objection heard from the uninformed masses: What of the Aborigines? The question is not always meant in bad faith or as an attempt at launching a ‘linguistic kill-shot’ in a debate, but also out of genuine curiosity for the Nationalist position, for there is much on the matter that has been deliberately obscured. It is difficult to speak of White Australia without ‘The Aborigines’ being somehow invoked as a reason for mass immigration and too often Nationalists are slandered with the false accusation that we wish to subordinate or eliminate the Aboriginal peoples — true as this accusation may be when leveled against many CUNTs. We have an answer and the detractors of nationalism have have never been able to tell us why the Aboriginal presence means we cannot have a White Australia; there is an important distinction between Australia the nation (which the Aborigines were absent from) and Australia the continental landmass. But by the same token, members of far-right can never tell us why a White Australia means we can just ignore the Aboriginal presence.

We say that those in the far-right act as if the Aborigines don’t exist at all. It’s a fanciful position. They want to pretend that this continent was bare before the arrival of the First Fleet and that considering the Aboriginal race in any form is worthless: they’re brown people and it’s a leftist cause — who cares. But they are here and have been for a long time and Nationalists care nothing for the political formulas of ‘Left’ and ‘Right’. Nationalists have always known that the Aboriginal tribes — for they could not ever be described as a coherent nation — that roamed for 50,000 years before Cook have claims to this continent too and that above all they deserve justice and a ‘fair go’ after many decades of maltreatment (Listen closely for the screams of rage from the far-rightist as he reads this passage). How this justice can come about and in what form is yet to be seen, for no Nationalist and Aborigine have met on equal terms to respectfully discuss the matter for more than 80 years.

Australia’s premier Nationalist writer P. R. Stephensen made some early steps in this regard during the 1930s. Stephensen understood that a Nationalist response to the Aboriginal Question would be informed by Australian decency and not British rapacity. It was under his guidance that many Aboriginal motifs were first introduced to Nationalist poetry and literature, but Stephensen and the Australia First Movement went beyond mere appropriation of imagery. Stephensen developed close relations with the early Aboriginal activist leader Jack Patten and was the key figure within (along with W.J. Miles and The Publicist providing the funding, offices and printing press) the Aboriginal Progressive Association. He lent his support to the ‘National Day of Mourning’ on Australia Day 1938 (some say he even wrote the accompanying pamphlet) and became honorary secretary of the Aboriginal Citizens Committee. This alliance is difficult to comprehend for modern-day observers, mostly because few are aware that these early Aboriginal leaders took inspiration not from Marxists, Zionists or assimilationists, but from Black Nationalist leader Marcus Garvey.[1] Certain aspects of inter-war Nationalist interest in the Aboriginal cause can be safely discarded (the pseudo-scientific Aboriginal Aryan hypothesis for one[2]) but nevertheless the Australia First movement understood that the Aborigines needed justice, and that Nationalists were uniquely placed to understand their concerns. Sadly the project has stalled ever since.

The first edition of the newsletter ‘Abo Call’, printed by The Publicist.

Once you strip away all the left-liberal linguistic coverings and all those anti-White political demands that come rarely from the Aboriginal tribes themselves, what is the Aboriginal grievance at heart? Displaced and abused by strange foreigners who slowly but surely swamped their tribal territories with waves and waves of newcomers. Sound familiar? Palestinians tell us a similar story (only with a more violent dimension) which is why we give our sympathies to them too. The Palestinian cause is the rightful cause supported by Nationalists worldwide. Nationalists see a people under existential threat, their future called into question by an entity that knows of no national boundaries, one that draws its power from a vast global conspiracy that has ensnared many a nation into performing acts against their will. Zionism cannot be spoken of in any terms recognisable to Nationalists and we accept no religious mandate or a God-given right for possession of a land.

Nothing is more natural to the Nationalist than the protection of the land or the intensity of feeling for one’s home soil, for nationalism is environmental, not extractional. Nature is a precious resource, one that should never be stripped bare and made infertile for all future generations for the sake of fleeting economic prosperity. We have a duty to be stewards of our land and Aborigines make good land custodians too. This all places us in stark opposition to the far-right, who don’t seem to care for the environment and so often find themselves doing the bidding of conservative economic forces. Many of them were pulled into the land rights dispute of the 1970s and 1980s, seemingly unaware they were working in the service of the mining corporations who saw Aboriginal custodianship of rural Crown Land as a permanent blockage of their profit streams. During the Voice Referendum, their ideological descendants began regurgitating Geoff McDonald’s book Red Over Black (1982). Nationalists oppose the Voice and all future such legislative acts on the grounds of its attempt to deconstruct our national identity (an effort which emerged in consultation with members of the Liberal Party), not on the absurd claims of a Communist plot.

Both the Aboriginal and the European is threatened with eradication from this continent; we are both being forced to submit to mass immigration and diversity. If there is an issue that both races can agree on, it’s this. Neither side benefits when Australia slaves under US occupation or is offered up wholesale to international finance or to Asian buyers. But despite all the above synergies, Aborigines have found themselves — we would say through no real fault of their own — in an unnatural alliance with the State and the cosmopolitans who support this dual eradication, most of whom also insist the Aboriginal cause be aligned with Zionism and draw spurious parallels between the Holocaust and the treatment of the Aborigines. They label the acts of the colonial authorities a genocide but squeal in protest when the same label is applied to the plight of the White race or to on-goings in Palestine.

From this camp we are treated to countless conspiracy theories and revisionist histories that claim past Australian governments sought to deliberately breed the Aboriginal out of existence and maliciously ‘stole’ children from loving and capable parents. But then this alliance quashes all attempts at defining a blood quantum to Aboriginal identity and raises no objection when the assimilation and ‘breeding out’ process occurs in real time and we end up with self-identified Aboriginal leaders with features almost indistinguishable from a European. No Nationalist approves when a Whitefella covetous of Aboriginal privileges and tax-payer funds decides to call himself ‘Uncle’ and is anointed Elder of the tribe.

The Aboriginal-Zionist alliance on display; co-chairs of the Referendum Council Mark Leibler (left) and Pat Anderson (right).

It goes without saying that an Aboriginal-Nationalist alliance currently exists in the realm of extreme improbability. Neither side talks to the other and all memory of Stephensen’s far-sighted attempt to bridge the gap has been obliterated from public consciousness. Nothing of what the Australia First Movement attempted squares with the propaganda preached about nationalism, and as a result, this remains hidden in the history books. But even if none will listen, Nationalists still should choose to reach out. Absent institutional power, we are nothing without a moral stance;d a morally consistent position is everything in attracting the right people to our side. Abrogating a stance on the Aboriginal Question has only seen them close ranks with our enemies who now use Aboriginal grievances as a vector of attack against the Australian people. For it to have any weight, the principle of racial sovereignty must be be upheld for all peoples, not merely our own, and nothing is to be gained from us shying away from this.

The Jewish Question

“We have been so thoroughly submerged in Judaism, that all of modern society would have to be put in question if we wanted to forcefully emerge again.” — Wilhelm Marr, The Victory of Jewry over Germandom (1879)

Readers of prior essays will note that we at Inky Australian expend much effort exposing and opposing the Zionist presence close to the Nationalist space; so much so that it is almost a central ‘theme’ of these pieces. Critics will ask, why spend so much time focusing on this specific issue when discussing the British Question? Surely there are more pressing concerns for the Nationalist project than keeping tabs on the Zionist element in dissident-right politics and paying close attention when leaders of the National Socialist Network reveal themselves to be mentored by Zionists or issue choked farewells to Jewish intelligence assets thought to have been killed in action in Ukraine. There is a necessary reason for this: the Jewish Question is inseparable from the question of Australia’s future.

But why is this? It is generally accepted by the CUNTs and other nationalists-in-name-only that the local Jewish community has, since the 1930s at least,[3] existed as staunch opponents of immigration restriction (German migration after 1945 excepted) or any notion of a return to White Australia. Over the twentieth century, Jewish intellectuals have engaged in a ‘Culture of Critique’, advancing political movements or ideas that alter Western society in a manner that neutralises or eradicates anti-Semitism and enhances the prospects of Jewish group continuity. Rational observation of the behaviour of organised Jewry shows that they gravitate toward strategies that subvert or breakup the homogeneous national entity in countries they reside in, thus tipping the demographics so that a racial-nationalist political party can no longer prevail. From their experiences of history, they feel far more secure disappearing into the cacophony of racial/religious diversity in a pluralistic society, as opposed to being clearly identifiable outsiders that could be mobilised against within a homogeneous nation.

In Australia, this strategizing takes the form of key public support for multiculturalist policy, constant legal persecution of Nationalist-minded individuals, and an active role in the destruction of the White majority in a demographic sense (all this whilst also stemming Jewish assimilation and supporting violent racial supremacy in Israel). The actions of Walter Lippmann and the Australian Jewish Welfare and Relief Society in the construction of multiculturalism and the first dedicated refugee policies should be familiar to all readers. Vast political donations, ‘Rambam Fellowships’ and powerful lobbyists ensure Jewish nationalism and not Australian nationalism is the standard for both major parties, supporting Zionism to the extent that it harms Australia’s international interests, and Jewish philanthropists bankroll our anti-White cultural institutions. It was a coterie of Jewish academics and lawyers who first launched the genocide charge against our history and spearheaded much of the Aboriginal rights movement since the 1960s, including the Mabo Decision. Our local media outlets have a strong Jewish presence. All our state and federal ‘race hate’ laws bare the imprint of the Jewish community, as does the destruction of the old obscenity laws. Wealthy Jews jump-started the modern property development industry that feeds so much of our replacement, turning our economy into a scheme for building ever more apartment blocks and shopping malls for use by Asians.

We at Inky Australian put forward the view that the conclusion the Australian far-right and others derive from all these facts is an incorrect one. They see Jewry as merely a pernicious appendage on the power structure; it is a ‘lobby group’ or a kind of side-quest that has to be dealt with at some point in the political struggle, but not to distract from the main battle against ‘the Left’ or the traitorous elite political class and the need to recruit from the ranks of the conservative right. We contend that this positioning is a false consciousness preventing us from recognising and responding to the true power dynamics operating in Australia and in European civilisation.

Australian Nationalists have to accept a depressing reality. If we are to have any chance of success in reclaiming our nation, we must diagnose the problem correctly. The truth is that the White man — not just in Australia, but in just about every Americanised nation derived from those of European stock — is no longer in control of his own country, nor of his own destiny: The White man is a conquered man. He has no power of his own, no method of self-determination, and is a member of a subordinated group. He has agency in his homeland only insofar as it is working for the interests of someone or something other than his own race. If he ever stands up and boldly declares he is acting in the interests of the Australian people alone (defined explicitly in the racial sense) and seeks to mount a resistance, an instant disqualification is declared and a great force descends down from the State and its auxiliaries, striking him back into subjugation. No matter if he is a millionaire or a pauper, said man becomes a racist, a conspiracy theorist, a Nazi, a criminal, a terrorist … or worse, and he thereafter deserves no place of authority or respect in society.

All nations of the world have been in this prostrate position at some point — being conquered and defeated is a staple of history. Name one ethnic group and you can always name another ethnic group that at some stage held the former under its sway. Demographic superiority has never mattered, only possession of a force that the conquered nation does not have. No Nationalist denies that the White man is guilty of inflicting this state of affairs on other races: the British in India, the Spanish and the Portuguese in the New World to name a few. But just the same the White man has also been subjugated. Sometimes this was inflicted by men from a different ‘tribe’, or sometimes from a foreign race. For hundreds of years the conquered Iberians of Moorish Spain could act only in a manner that was in the interests of the ruling Muslim authorities. The Greeks and southern Slavs laboured under generations of Ottoman rule before breaking free.

And who has done the conquering this time? Who has agency in Australia, the UK, and most importantly the USA when the White man does not? For many years, this question was a tricky one as this was a nebulous power that, seemingly by design of those involved, defied easy explanation and hid behind the scenes. What better way to keep us under control than when we can’t even describe who or what controls us. We asked ourselves all manner of questions in order to understand what had gone wrong in our countries: How exactly is it that Whites of Europe and the English-speaking diaspora seem to have no ability to consistently protect their borders and how are they in the process of becoming minorities in their homelands? Why does the public vote into power a conservative or populist party that sweet-talks to them about immigration crackdowns and then once in office, they instead they do nothing, or worse, give us the highest rates of migration the country has ever seen? Why do outrages against our people go largely unpunished or get covered up (Rotherham and the like)? Why do our thought leaders and elected representatives hate their own race and heritage so deeply? Why are we treated as terrorists for saying that Europeans have a right to their own ethnic homeland absent from any and all violent or hateful motivations? The culprits varied according to the political bias of the theorist or even to their own personal grievances.

A common theme was ‘the Left’ and their so-called ‘Long March through the Institutions’, with perhaps the sinister hand of Communism or Fabianism lurking behind it all. Sometimes we blamed ourselves and our White Guilt: “Europe is committing suicide” as Douglas Murray put it in The Strange Death of Europe (2017). In this scenario, there was  an internal biological failure that resulted in a peculiar Western individualism and a propensity to lay intense moral condemnation on the acts of ourselves and our ancestors. Christianity with its message of universal brotherhood was also at fault, and in response the more colourful personalities returned to paganism or advocated a racially pure form of Christian belief (Christian Identity). Others pointed the finger at our low birthrates or the feminist movement, blaming our open borders and bleeding-heart empathy for refugees on the voting patterns of the fairer sex. Following the collapse of the USSR we had a new villain in the form of ‘Globalism’ and an international class that held no allegiance to any nation.

One by one these theories fell by the wayside. If the Left is in control, how can they get ‘cancelled’ and struck down by the State when they stand shoulder to shoulder with Palestinians? Many of the Left’s ideas did of course break through — Free Love, Gay Rights, Women’s Lib — but only because these ideas were shared by the powerful. All ideas they didn’t share — nationalisation, the death of capitalism and an end to imperialist wars — lay forgotten in the nineteenth century. It was no ‘march’ through the institutions, it was a ‘shepherding’ through.  If Communism and its anti-racist stance is to blame, why are the former communist lands racially homogeneous utopias compared to their erstwhile capitalist neighbours? Why is former East Germany — the heartland of modern German nationalism — spared from the worst excesses of migrant flows, whilst capitalist West Germany exhibits cities such as Frankfurt or Cologne with narry a native German in sight.

If Christian belief has caused our downfall, how did our race maintain its vigour when Christianity reigned supreme and how did it only go wrong when Christian faith was on the way out. Can it be instead that all Christian doctrines have been maliciously re-written during the twentieth century (Nostra Aetate, the Scofield Bible, Christian Zionism, Televangelism) in order to neuter Christianity? Women — almost always averse to social ostracism — follow the incentive structures society gives them; blaming them for our demographic situation is putting the cart before the horse. Nor is a low birth rate in itself the death of a race. All it means is a smaller population — hardly a terrible thing in an age of overpopulation and environmental degradation — until whatever the conditions generating the low birth rate are amended a generation or two later. The Chinese have almost the lowest birthrate in the world and they are doing just fine. As for White Guilt, name us a single nation or civilisation in history that voluntarily eradicated itself from existence out of its own moral imperative, and not by the sword or the gun of an oppressor. Blaming White replacement on European individualist tendencies is akin to pinning the blame for a person being morbidly overweight solely on their genetic susceptibility to obesity when in actuality they are trapped in a prison being force-fed junk food.

And Globalists? Assuming you use the word in the proper sense and not in the Steve Bannon or Alex Jones-eqsue conspiratorial way, the globalists are well and truly on the way out, while White replacement continues full steam ahead. Globalism, which prioritises economic co-operation and international integration as the solution to all conflict and holds the use of military power in contempt, has altogether collapsed since Russia pierced the bubble of globalist naivete with the invasion of Ukraine. The world has returned to hard power politics similar to that which guided the Cold War conflict; throwing around military might to maintain control is again the order of the day. The one-time leader of Globalism — the United States — is busy launching trade wars (and actual wars), pulling back on economic cooperation, and trashing all ‘globalist’ international institutions, in particular those that attempted to hold Israel accountable for its actions in Gaza. True believers of Globalism in the EU and at the UN have been left clinging desperately to an idea that none of the great powers hold any real faith in. Our problems began before the globalist era arrived and they continue now that it has departed, and there’s a reason why they let you use Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum as punching bags, lest you start punching the real power-brokers.

Steve Bannon hanging out with a true ‘Globalist’ (and his close political ally)

Other explanations cut closer to the truth: The spectre of High Finance and its vice-like grip over the political realm. The ability of money to control the acts of men; to buy their influence and command the attention of others; to push up that which Capital supports and then drown out that which it doesn’t. High finance has benefited handsomely from mass immigration and its role is crucial in understanding how we lost our sovereignty. Earlier generations of Nationalists were raised on Frank Anstey’s The Money Power (1921), a work still relevant to this day for its indictment of the financial oligarchy. Our generation lives in the total financialization of politics. Private Equity and asset management firms reign supreme and corporate interests have an all-powerful influence over political decision making — and by extension over our immigration policy. In turn, elected politicians have lost much of their authority and are impotent if they chose a policy path obstructed by Wall Street or other stock exchange.

But even this explanation is not enough; it does not accurately describe who holds and controls capital (the original version of Anstey’s book was somewhat forthright about this) or what the motivations are, nor indeed what the source of the capitalistic spirit ultimately is — the work of Werner Sombart provides one intriguing theory. The ‘Money Power’ as such has been around for generations in one form or another — the church, the royal family, the industrial barons — yet only our generation is faced with racial annihilation. No, something else has occurred to us in the 20th century. Nationalists are not simple historical materialists and they understand there are deeper currents at play in society. This conquering power goes beyond mere money and financial prowess. It can impersonate any number of political characteristics and crosses from one ideology to the next with ease; one day it can be a communist and the very next day a capitalist. Try as you might, it simply can’t be pinned down with political labels or clever euphemisms. Only one political theory accurately describes the undoing of the White race and can predict the trajectory of the American empire.

When a people are conquered, this is something they can sense on a deep psychological level. It is the source of the nihilism of our youth; that feeling they all have that no matter who or what they vote for, or how hard they protest on the street, none of their problems will ever be resolved and they have no control over their future. Psychology offers clues when it intersects with culture in the form of the taboo and the strength of a taboo tells us everything we need to know about where power resides. For many centuries, when power (or at least the perception of it) resided in the hands of the Church and the God-anointed, our taboos reflected this. They forbade that which caused offence to their power and that which called the very nature of its authority into question — Blasphemy, Obscenity, Atheism. These taboos have all disappeared. You can be a blasphemous obscene atheist to your hearts content and no Western government will ever lay a finger on you. And our strongest taboos now? We all know them; we are taught them from childhood and they are re-enforced in our every waking moment by those in power: racism, anti-Semitism, Holocaust Denial.

Let’s come back to political theory again. He who is sovereign decides on the exception — a timeless statement on politics and the nature of power. We do indeed have a sovereign in our states and there is only ever one exception to be found: All nationalism is forbidden, except for Zionism. All peoples and religions must adhere to tolerance, except the one that preaches exclusion and chosen-ness. All border walls must come down, except the one in the West Bank. Freedom of Speech and political freedom for all, except for those who espouse anti-Semitism. It is wrong to make sweeping judgements or generalisations against a people, except when it is directed against Whites. Intermarriage and the blending of stocks is good, except when it occurs within the Kehilla. Genital mutilation is a rank violation of a newborn’s bodily autonomy, except when carried out by a Mohel. International sanctions and boycotts are legitimate, expect when directed at Israel. All ethnic cleansing is wrong, except when carried out by the IDF. All history can be investigated and revised, except for Auschwitz. The exceptions go on and on…

[1]     A man whose political movement was destroyed by ‘German’ lawyers at the NAACP.

[2]     A bunk theory promulgated by Stephensen which argued that Australia was the ancestral origin of the ‘Aryan’ race.

[3] Prior to the Second World War, the White Australia Policy and the identification of Jews as White was on the whole embraced by the local Jewish community as a method of preventing anti-semitism, showing that even racial nationalism can inform a Jewish group evolutionary strategy.