7555 words

Authors Note: This essay originally appeared on Substack and was written with the expectation that the reader understands the contours of Australian politics, something that is unlikely to be the case for non-Australian audiences. As such, some clarifying footnotes have been provided to assist. Simple Google searches will assist to clarify any other elements. Whilst polemical in tone, international readers of TOO may find some familiar themes and arguments, especially in the aftermath of the reelection of Donald Trump and the ever-present debate on the relationship between the cause for White survival and the necessary political path forward.

Subscribe to Inky Australian

————————————————————————————————————————

Part 1: An American Colony

Introduction

A quarter of the way into the twenty-first century, things are looking bleak for the Australian people. Where is Australia headed is the question on everyone’s lips, though it only seems to be headed in one direction — downhill. The demographic numbers are slowly but surely ticking against us as the flood of foreign migration and Asianisation proceeds unabated, as does the general immiseration of the Australian worker — his or her inability to find for themselves an affordable house, a loving family, a decent wage, or a community to thrive in. Where these problems were once confined to ethnic neighbourhoods in the inner city or among the most destitute members of our society, we now see the fires appearing everywhere. A country that was once considered the White Workingman’s Paradise is looking anything but.

Still, there are those of us who remain optimistic that salvation can be found under these daunting circumstances. Whilst there is every chance that we will have lost our very existence by the close of the 21st century, in the year 2026, Australians still retain a demographic majority and hope is not lost. But when it comes to discussions on Australia’s future, it feels to the Nationalist as if we go around in circles. Each new year, we tread the same ground and we look on as the same bad ideas run wild on social media and then leak into the public discourse. Each year, new faces appear on the scene, always ignorant of history and those who came before them, and always unwilling to listen to the counsel of those with decades of experience. Large protest movements spring up out of nowhere and then just as quickly fizzle out and become riven with divisions when no-one can even agree on a political program, let alone who or what exactly they are protesting against. The slumbering giant that is the Counter-Jihad movement threatens to re-awaken, and if it does, we expect there are many who will once again fall into the trap. Across social media, Conservatives, Patriots, Populists, Anti-Vaxxers, Far-Rightists and Hitler cultists alike pilfer the label of Nationalist for their own ends and general confusion abounds.

Nationalists have long since come to terms with the nature of reactionary politics and the need to break from conservatism, however for almost seven decades now, well-meaning but politically illiterate Australians have ridden the coattails of liberal and conservative politicians, trying in vain to get these Pied Pipers to care about the future of the Australian people. For almost the same amount of decades, the loudest and most obnoxious voices have announced that salvation can only come from cult-like worship of the ghost of Adolf Hitler; an effort that now combines Third Reich aesthetics with John Howard’s views on foreign policy.[1] By the Nationalist count, we have just notched up the fifth attempt at a local Hitlerist party[2] (only this time with injections of Charles Manson and satanism, plus the swastika and roman saluting made illegal) and we have altogether lost count of how many times since the days of Eric Butler and his League of Rights the far-right have attempted their infiltration of conservatism.

Australian Nationalists have consciously kept their distance from these forces in order to retain authentic radicalism and not pollute their message. When dealing with CUNTs (Conservatives Using Nationalist Terminology), protection is always required, followed by a fact-sheet informing others of the STIs which may be caught from dalliances with conservative politics. For this we have been labelled “bad actors” and spat on for something they call “punching right.” But who are the real bad actors here? It’s not the Nationalists who are always caught playing footsie under the table with the Liberal Party. It’s not the Nationalists who keep letting the Zionist element into their organisation.

It’s time for another much-needed dose of radicalism. If we, the indigenous White men, women and children of the continent Terra Australis desire to have a future here, something radical is desperately required, something even revolutionary. There is no path to reform the existing system and the various tactics of Infiltration and Electoralism are proven political failures. We need a deep cleanse of political accretions, casting aside all the old touchstones and the fatuous clichés that patriotically-minded Australians have been raised to follow — even the ones that some Nationalists have come to rely on. The Australian people no longer have the time to spend pretending that our nation can be saved by kick-boxing or roman saluting, by diligently waving around the Australian flag in the street, or by tailoring our message to suit conservative donors and establishment interests.

In many ways, we are already too late for a strict party-political struggle and have to adjust our strategy and goals accordingly. But Nationalists always have the ideological advantage over their competitors: nationalism as political force is progressive, not conservative or reactionary. A Nationalist has a mind to the past, but he does not live in it. His main focus is forward and he recognises the reality of his circumstances and what needs to be done, not even to attain salvation for Australians, but to have a fighting chance at survival in the twenty-first century. That is what this essay seeks to describe.

Much of what is written below will not be new to those who have grounding in Nationalist theory and have made attempts to connect with the historical literature; literature not just of the local Nationalist variety, but also of revolutionary thinkers from around the world who succeeded in changing the fate of their respective nations against all odds, whether that be Mao or Mussolini, Castro or Khomeini. Illiteracy is the order of the day, and from this springs so many of the failures of contemporary politics. If all you’ve ever read about nationalism is some posts on X; if you think Australian nationalism means being a racist conservative, or opposing vaccine mandates or raising your right arm in a 45-degree salute, then read on, you may learn a thing or two.

The Empire and the White Australia Policy

“White Australia must not be regarded as a mere political shibboleth. It was Australia’s Magna Carta.” – Jack Lang, I Remember (1956)

When Jack Lang spoke of White Australia, he knew exactly what it entailed. Nobody had to tell him what political currents it grew out of, or that defending White Australia meant taking on powerful vested interests using a program of radical action intertwined with the plight of the working man. Lang called it our Magna Carta and Alfred Deakin called it our Monroe Doctrine; either way it was central to Australia’s foundation, an article of national faith respected by almost all. Fast forward to the present day, memory of the White Australia Policy has passed into history and the youngest person alive today who was politically of age during the final years when it was in operation is now in his or her eighties. The call of White Australia lives on in the Nationalist who speaks the language of Lang, but there have always been others who take a liking to the phrase. In days of old, groups such as the League of Rights[3] and the Immigration Control Association declared allegiance to White Australia, but lacked an ideological formulation or a political program that could satisfactorily uphold this principle in the post-war era. Newer groups have continued in this fashion in an even more superficial way.

To say that ‘White Australia’ has become mere shibboleth amongst the modern-day conservative and far-right charlatans who cloak themselves with the Nationalist label would be an accurate assessment. The phrase is much beloved, but shorn of all political depth, it has come to function to them as nothing more than a way to signal to friends online that you are member of the same ‘club’ (or better yet, use it as the name of your would-be political party!). No political discussion is complete without inserting a reference to it, and things always come around to the same hackneyed commentary: What do we want? White Australia of course! Send them back! Multiculturalism has failed! Re-migration! Australia for the White Man! If only the policy could be magicked back into existence, then all our problems would be instantly solved they say.

Dig any deeper into these discussions and one is confronted with a lack of any kind of ideological grounding or any comprehensive theory of Australian history. What ‘White Australia’ actually requires is lost on them. The purported nationalism they ascribe to disappears almost instantly in a sea of liberal or conservative beliefs that they have assimilated over the years and have never felt the need to critically examine. Foundational principles such as Nativism — the ethnogenesis of the Australian people as a fusion of European stock — are ignored in favour of assertions of Nordicism or Britishness. Laborism is absent and there is not a single social policy in sight other than vague grievances about left-wing politics and derogatory screeds against women. Radicalism disappears for the sake of pursuing electoralism and compliance with the strictures of the State. It’s worse still when the call for White Australia becomes strange bedfellows with foreign chants like “Heil Hitler” or “Blood and Honour”. Then they tell us they don’t require ideology and that all they need to find their way around politics is — god forbid — “common sense”. Ideology is key to the matter, as Nationalists have always known:

“Ideology” showed that the first White Australia Policy, which was part and parcel of the great Nationalist movement (1880–1910), was a creature of the trade unions, the cultural-Nationalist intellectuals (around the “Bulletin”, for example) of the activist psychology. It was successful because it overcame the hesitation of the Anglicised middle classes and intimidated the colonial administrators. “Ideology” showed that similar circumstances today demanded a similar solution: a party of ordinary Australians led by a conscious active militant Nationalist vanguard has become necessary.
– Dr. Jim Saleam, What Is To Be Done? Tasks for Australian Nationalists in the Coming Struggle (2005)[4]

Most of these characters know almost nothing of the history of the policy; they’ve never bothered to open a reputable book on the subject and seem ignorant of even the most basic facts. In recent years, some more erudite individuals have taken to consulting a work by author Peter Cochrane called Best We Forget: The War for White Australia (2018) and presently advance the line that the ANZACs[5] fought for White Australia when they were gunning down Germans in France. Cochrane’s pearl-clutching book details how the Imperial establishment abused the cry of White Australia in 1914 in order to push the country into another fratricidal war for the Empire. We fear that the far-right are again learning the wrong lessons via this book, namely the confused notion that Australia and Empire were synonymous. Another classic example is a video of Sir Robert Menzies[6] that floats around dissident spaces. The footage is from a 1955 radio interview, and Menzies, when asked about White Australia, pontificates about the benefits of the policy. Ergo — to the illiterate viewer — Menzies and the Liberal National Party supported the White Australia Policy! To Nationalists, this video can only make us think of a farmer talking lovingly about the cow he is about to send off to the slaughterhouse.

It’s time to lay out some hard truths. White Australia, as it was formulated in the minds of those who truly fought for it and believed in it, never really came into existence. What ended up being called the ‘White Australia Policy’ in political discourse was in reality a series of quasi-racial legislative concessions painfully extracted from the British Empire; concessions that, if the Foreign Office had not chosen to back down ever so slightly to appease the insistent colonials, would never have gained Royal Assent in the first place, for they served only to poison the position of Britain within its non-White dominions and caused naught but friction toward newfound ally Japan. Whatever private sympathies the British had for White Australia, His Majesty’s government could not officially sanction exclusion by colour or race, and all British subjects had to be accepted as equals. An empire is always a multi-racial affair; it cannot afford to be racially exclusive — that defeats the purpose of an empire.

We ask you also to bear in mind the traditions of the Empire, which make no distinction in favour of or against race or colour, and to exclude by reason of their colour, or by reason of their race, all her Majesty’s Indian subjects and even all Asiatics, would be an act so offensive to those people that it would be most painful, I am quite certain, to Her Majesty to have to sanction it.
— Joseph Chamberlain, the Secretary of State to the Colonies, in a speech to the Australian representatives at the 1897 Imperial Conference.

Mindful of Australia’s isolated geographic position, what the radical proponents of White Australia wanted was a clear and unambiguous racialist position enshrined within the Constitution of Australia and expanded upon within subordinate legislation: Australia as a land for the White race, for those men and women of European stock. What prevailed instead was an immigration system that only achieved racial exclusion by means of deceit. A wink-and-a-nod method whereby the laws never actually said what the majority of the voting public wanted them to say (or thought they said) and used the cover of ‘European Languages’ to get the job done. Racial classifications were used behind the scenes, contained within the confidential instructions sent to those administering the system, but never included in the legislation itself. It was, after all, only ever a White Australia *Policy*, never a White Australia Act.

To understand how this occurred, one must acknowledge that by the time of Federation, Australian politics had produced two distinct conceptualisations of White Australia. These can be categorised as a ‘Hard’ version of White Australia and a ‘Soft’ version. These two versions grew parallel with the two patriotisms — British-Australia patriotism (conservatism) and Australia-First patriotism (nationalism) — that also jostled for hegemony in the new nation. Despite outward similarities and some mixing in the middle, contained within the two were important granular distinctions both in formulation and in political expression, differences which were on display during the political debate around the passage of the Immigration Restriction Act (1901).

As foreign as it may seem to us now, racialism was a factor in thinking across the political spectrum in nineteenth-century Australia. Even the Communists back then had racial ideals. Nationalists say that the Empire loyalists appropriated the cry of White Australia from the radicals due to its popular, election-winning appeal. Marxists, still infuriated that the Australian worker once had a racial and social consciousness untouched by Marx’s doctrine, present the usual line that the capitalist classes tricked the workers into racial loyalty during the 1850s agitations against Chinese migration in order to defeat class solidarity. Nonetheless by 1901 there was a near universal consensus that implementing a White Australia — far from being motivated by pure ‘race hate’ as is the lie promulgated today — was an act of self-preservation that would benefit the Australian worker and the new nation by eliminating the use of cheap, almost slave-like coloured labour and would simultaneously create a cohesive, peaceful and democratic state free from the strains of interracial mixing and conflict all so evident at the time in the Americas (and now all so evident in modern Australia).

But for all that was unanimous, what was implemented after Federation wasn’t White Australia as envisioned by the radical-nationalists and the labour movement. It was the less potent, ‘Soft’ version diluted of radicalism that prevailed, typified by the liberal, middle-class sympathies of Alfred Deakin and the governing Protectionist Party that championed the legislation. The key distinctions are that it was a White Australia that was deferential to the requirements of the Empire, was more loose with application of the racial principle, prioritised British race patriotism over a more generic sense of ‘Whiteness’ when it came to Australia’s racial homogeneity, and was generally less vulgar in tone when compared to the rhetoric of The Bulletin and the radical press. That it was this ‘Soft’ White Australia which ultimately won out in the democratic process can be see in all the necessary deceptions and inconsistencies that came to define the White Australia Policy from 1901 onward, all of which ultimately sowed the seeds of its destruction.

The focal point of this deception was of course the solution arrived at with the ‘Dictation Test’, taking inspiration from a similar test used in the Colony of Natal to regulate the entrance of migrants not based on race, but on education level. As per the Immigration Restriction Act (1901), a prospective migrant selected to perform the test was required to write down a text dictated to them by an officer of the Act, spoken in a European language of the officers choosing (the word ‘European’ was struck from the Act in 1905 by the governing Free Trade Party due to ongoing diplomatic protests by the Japanese). The unspoken instruction being, if the would-be migrant failed the racial expectation of a budding Australian, the text was dictated in a language that the officer knew would result in failure of the test. In practice, the dictation test was rarely required. In the era before cheap international travel and mass refugee flows, the message of ‘White Australia’ being broadcast to the world was enough to deter most would-be non-White migrants. The Australian government did little to disabuse people of the dishonest nature of this mechanism when the test also became used to exclude people for short-term political purposes — the failed attempt to deport polyglot communist Egon Kisch by means of the test in 1935 being the most well-known example.

As the raucous Hansard debate of the time shows, much angst was generated because there was no mention of racial exclusion in the Immigration Restriction Act. It was racialism by means of subterfuge. Labor, in an act unrecognisable to the modern Labor Party, threatened to block the legislation entirely for this omission, moving an amendment to introduce a racial element, until Deakin and the Protectionists swayed them with the argument that the Motherland decreed it was the Natal Test or nothing at all. Soon thereafter, Britain signed into existence the Anglo-Japanese Alliance in 1902, a treaty intended to contain the expanding Russian Empire (and one might add, to thumb their nose at the anti-Semitic Tsar). Thus Australia’s racial sovereignty was thwarted so that Britain could ally with an Asian people over a fellow European nation — one that local Nationalists felt an affinity towards in a shared antagonism towards Japan, and one that the Australian people as a whole had no quarrel with.

Cartoon from The Bulletin (September 28, 1901) mocking the deception of the Act: AUSTRALIA’S LIE FOR BRITAIN’S SAKE: “TISN’T THE COLOR I OBJECT TO: THAT’S NUTHIN’ — IT’S THE SPELLIN’.”

When it came to citizenship, no law in Australia ever promulgated the formula ‘Australian = White’; in fact, Australia had no citizenship law of its own or even a concept of an Australian Citizen until 1949. Before that point, we were all ‘British Subjects’, or if not, ‘Aliens’. Of all the legislation introduced under the White Australia Policy, only the Naturalisation Act (1903) contained any specific exclusionary mechanism based on racial heritage. It prohibited the naturalisation of “…aboriginal natives of Asia, Africa or the Islands of the Pacific, excepting New Zealand”[7], but the loophole afforded by being a British Subject (which contained no such racial or ancestral restrictions) was always available. Seventeen years later the superseding Nationality Act (1920) removed even this sole mention of race, and withholding of naturalisation for non-European aliens continued only on the basis of discretionary powers. For non-Europeans already domiciled in the country, other than in the special case of the deportation of Pacific Islanders working in the Queensland sugar industry (where targeted legislation was used and again contained plenty of exemptions), no systematic attempt was made to repatriate those who had settled prior to Federation or who were already British Subjects.[8]

As a whole, the ‘White Australia Policy’ was beset with ambiguities, exemptions, administrative discretion, and confusing provisions that were amended many times over in order to satisfy domestic and external pressures. Disputes over application of the Act — such as in the High Court case Potter v. Minahan (1908) — often came down to the level of deciding whether or not the dictation test had been applied properly. This arrangement, a publicly announced policy of White Australia combined with a convoluted legislative framework that said nothing of the sort, naturally led to administrative confusion and laid the groundwork for all the problems the government later encountered in the infamous O’Keefe v. Calwell[9] case and others like it. The Labor Party did its best to scrutinise the practical implementation of the policy, receiving regular dispatches from port workers and customs officials who took in on themselves to militantly guard the borders of White Australia, but without solid legislative backing, this remained a demanding task.

As noted by Tavan: “…the IRA [Immigration Restriction Act] did not explicitly exclude people on racial grounds; exclusion was to be enforced through the broad discretionary powers of Australian officials, subject to judicial review in contested cases. Such a system was flawed from the outset. There was a fundamental lack of clarity about many of the policies key provisions, especially the dictation test, and officials tended to place radically different interpretations on them — a problem compounded by inexperience and ineptitude.”[10] For example, until the definitions of the act were cleaned up in 1924, the occasional prohibited migrant was being acquitted in a court of law because the dictation test had been administered to them by an external interpreter, not a departmental officer authorised to do so. Indeed some of the stated impetus for the 1958 reforms was how badly the Act was drafted and how complicated the whole process of immigration restriction had become.

Artist Peter Drew’s subversive ‘Aussie’ posters. The photos are taken from their respective Certificates of Exemption to the Dictation Test, a document which allowed non-Europeans domiciled in Australia prior to 1901 to re-enter Australia if they travelled overseas.

Weak and convoluted as it was from the start, this legislative framework lasted barely 50 years, dismantled by salami-slice and thin-edge-of-the-wedge tactics. The first major changes came in 1950 after the Liberal Party won the 1949 federal election, having attacked Arthur Calwell’s hard-line stance on the O’Keefe case in order to score some political points. Dealt a life-threatening blow with reforms in 1956, the dictation test was then removed in 1958 from the new Migration Act, and the White Australia Policy ceased to be in 1966 when the Holt government began to permanently accept small amounts of skilled non-European migrants as a matter of policy. All this occurred during the long post-war reign of the Liberal-National Coalition, who insidiously assured the country that nothing was fundamentally being altered and that White Australia (or in their own words, “the predominantly European character of the Australian population”) was here to stay in a more muted form. Whitlam[11] later cleared out a few remaining legal cobwebs and the Liberals were more than happy to let him loudly claim the title of ‘Vanquisher of the White Australia Policy’ for himself, lest this title be claimed by its true owner — Pig Iron Bob.[12]

That’s the ‘how’ of the matter; the ‘why’ is a longer story. The end result of World War Two and the lessons the victorious powers imposed on the world you will surely be aware of, and go and read the history of Boasian Anthropology and the Zionist background to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) or the UNESCO Statement on Race (1951)[13] to bring yourself fully up to speed. But the most important point is that once the United States government — as the political hegemon and the de-facto ruler of Australia — had officially taken on the cause of racial integration after the landmark Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the White Australia Policy was not long for this world. Hurt feelings of Asians and their diplomatic protests could be dealt with, as they were since before the IRA even received royal assent. Ideological and institutional pressure from the United States of America and the leverage it already had over our nation, its ability to set the tone of our political debate, was another matter entirely.

For all that the British Empire officially opposed racialism, the concessions agreed upon in the IRA ensured that there was never cause for cutting ties. As such, so long as the Empire was powerful, and so long as Australia could rely on the economic and foreign policy shelter of Britain, the White Australia Policy could operate without having to make financial sacrifices or difficult foreign policy decisions. With the might of the British Navy behind it, diplomatic protests from Japan mattered little when it came to Australia enforcing its immigration laws. How White Australia would have proceeded had true independence and a decisive break with the Empire been carried out can only be speculated on, though it undoubtedly would have been a more toilsome endeavour. All we can say is that post-1945, Australia never gained its independence, and merely swapped out control by one empire for another. But this was a new empire, one that we had no sentimental or familial relationship with as we did with Britain.

Despite being a fellow common law-based English-speaking country, for the United States of America, Australia was not an imperial colony deserving of special treatment. We were, as General MacArthur told Prime Minister John Curtin, nothing more than a base from which to attack America’s enemies in the Pacific (not much has changed since then). Australia’s reasoned defences of its immigration policy on the international stage fell on deaf ears and the once accepted dictum that ‘racial unity was essential to national unity’ found little purchase. The United States was not interested in sticking out its neck for White Australia and the country had more than enough of its own racial problems to attend to. In 1957, when the guns of the National Guard and the U.S. Army’s 101st Airborne Division were pointed at White citizens who opposed the racial integration of their local school in the town of Little Rock, Arkansas, the message was loud and clear which side of the racial debate the U.S. government was coming down on. Then the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 — the new constitution of America — and the Hart-Celler Act in 1965 set things in stone, and Australia risked being the international pariah alongside South Africa. Note how in each case of major racial reform in the U.S. (the Brown Decision in 1954, Little Rock in 1957 and the Civil Rights Act in 1964) the Australian government followed closely behind with its own reforms.

Other political realities got in the way as well. No conservative politician in Australia wanted to be the bad sport who failed to wear the proper uniform in America’s anti-Communist crusade. You couldn’t fight Communism and be a member of the free and democratic world with racially exclusionary policies on your books. In summation, the U.S.’s embrace of the anti-racist principle was the necessary condition for the abandonment of the White Australia Policy. Looking at it all with hindsight, it is surprising that the White Australia Policy lasted as long as it officially did with such convoluted legislative grounding and under such extreme international pressures. It is a testament only to how deeply held a belief White Australia was to the ordinary voter and hence the requirement to dismantle it via stealth. And so, within the span of thirty years, White Australia went from being politically unimpeachable to being politically illegitimate and statements that once could be found uttered by the Prime Minister or Opposition Leader on a campaign trail will — if uttered publicly today — net you an ASIO[14] case file giving you an ignominious label: Enemy of Australia.

 White Australia Policy 2.0

Having established the history, we return to the present. Any attempted return to White Australia that doesn’t understand why the policy collapsed, or indeed fails to see how the politics of the day ensured that White Australia was never truly implemented in the first place, is doomed from the start. It is not enough to say you want a White Australia — that’s the easy part (aside from an Australian Security Intelligence Organization [ASIO] agent watching your every move aside). All genuine political movements with the goal of White Australia at their core must first lay the ideological groundwork to ensure that the project can actually get off the ground. The ideology of the enemy can only be countered and vanquished with an ideology of your own. Make it clear to your audience and the wider Australian public — in a strict policy sense — who exactly the fight is against. Let us not, as Marx said, repeat history as farce. Instead of wasting everyone’s time playing the ‘Who is White’ game and giving us fantasy breakdowns on which class of visa holder gets deported first, show us instead how your economic and social policies and especially how your foreign policy stances will create conditions whereby the next time an attempt is made, it will not be dead on arrival or lead us right back to where we started.

The prime example of this kind of folly is advocating for a White Australia whilst simultaneously telling us the United States of America is our dear ally and that Australia should remain solidly under Imperial control and within the American sphere of influence: fight China, support Ukraine, and stay silent whilst Israel bombs Gaza back to the stone age. This particular folly is most evident within the National Socialist Network and among those self-professed Nationalists who came to the label via Donald Trump and the Zionist stew that is the MAGA cult. For a long time it was possible to construct a convincing narrative that the United States was on the side of the White race. The Cold War obscured the true motivations of empire: Did not the USA fight against the Brown and Asian communist hordes? Did they not counter the ‘third-worldism’ of the Soviets? But then the Cold War ended and in the new unipolar world, with no great power to challenge their dominance, the United States could finally show its true face.

Let’s be blunt: The United States of America is the enemy of the European peoples. No state in the world has had a more poisonous influence on the White race and no other country is less willing to listen to your appeals for a White Australia. As the geo-political conflicts with Russia and China intensify, the current administration might be trying to bring White Americans — the hostages of the empire — back in from the cold, and in the process deliver some ‘meta-political victories’ to the local and international far-right (reactionaries have already begun celebrating the US State Department taking up the phrase ‘Remigration’ and the Department of Homeland Security posting about mass deportations on X). But you can be guaranteed this is only because they again need Whites as cannon fodder or as industrial manpower in some upcoming war and will just as quickly default to the anti-White position when they are no longer of use. Look at the big picture and ignore all the pretensions of the ‘end of woke’ and whatever the latest lies coming out of Trump’s mouth are (whatever happened to the ‘Big Beautiful Wall,’ Mr. Trump?): By their fruits ye shall know them.

All Western countries that embrace Americanism end up embracing diversity and multiracialism. Once you accept Dollar Hegemony, welcome US army bases on your soil, and sign their generous free-trade agreements, you open the doors to a flood of cultural and racial poison: multinational corporations, anti-racism NGOs, pornography, human rights creeds, drug culture, ESG guidelines, ghetto-rap music, Black Lives Matter protests, hate speech laws, LBGTQ rights. It’s not a coincidence, it’s a necessary part of becoming a servant of the American world order. Of course Curtin couldn’t have known this when he began the ‘Turn to America’ (although Roosevelt’s insistence on Black GI’s being stationed in Australia during the Pacific Campaign over the protests of the War Cabinet showed from the start how much America cared for our White Australia Policy), nor was it his intent for us to become a vassal state of the US, but it was true for Australia in 1942, as it is true for more recent acquisitions in Eastern Europe such as Poland. And when NATO has finished throwing every last Ukrainian man into the meat-grinder against Russia (and when Zelensky and his Israeli cronies have finished looting Ukraine), the USA will turn economic management of the country over to Larry Fink’s BlackRock and will resolve the resultant demographic crisis by re-populating it with African migrants. Leave the relationship with the American Empire intact and we are back right where things left off in 1890 with the British Empire. Only this time, the Empire in question will not be willing to compromise in the slightest.

The American colony — US Military Facilities in Australia, courtesy of the Australian Anti-bases Campaign Coalition

Once the White Australia Policy was gone, wherever the non-White refugees came from, the primary cause for their departure was always America and its Zionist and/or Anti-Communist foreign policy. The first of them came in 1976 — the original ‘Boat People’ — as consequence of the failed military adventure in Vietnam. After the fall of Saigon, the Fraser Government[15] welcomed an estimated 100,000 Indochinese refugees over the next decade; an inaugural mass arrival of non-Whites seeking the security of a new country after Australian soldiers had rained destruction on their own.[16] The Lebanese Civil War between 1975 and 1990 — a conflict at all times stoked by Israel and America, and originating from the mass expulsions of Palestinians northwards — produced the first large contingent of Muslim refugees on our shores. Just as the European Refugee Crisis of 2015 was created wholesale by Israel and the Zionist policy to destroy Libya and Syria, Australia’s own decade-and-a-half long refugee crisis from 2001 onward was the direct result of the Zionist wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. To those of you who bleat on about Remigration and post anti-Islam jeremiads, the only way you’re ever going to get a remigration of these people is via a Middle East expunged of Zionist-American destabilisation, followed up by building friendly relations with Arab governments so that we can negotiate the return of their citizens to a safe home.

Speaking of remigration, any policy of repatriation and an end to the system of mass immigration that has fed Australia for the last half-century is futile when coupled with belief in the free market. As an ideological concoction, it’s a complete non-starter. Back to our history: White Australia was the objective of the working man and the labour movement. The first attempts to import non-Whites to the colonies came in the 1830s from wealthy pastoralists who petitioned the colonial authorities for Indian agricultural laborers. In the run up to Federation, White Australia’s greatest local foes were found in the ranks of the Free Traders and the sugar-cane capitalists — that class who saw only pound notes and was perfectly content with flooding the country with Coolies so as to save on his labour costs. Nationalists back then knew that open borders and the free market were one and the same thing. This state of affairs remains to this day.

You can’t have immigration restriction and you certainly can’t have mass deportations whilst also maintaining a perpetual growth economy in a country with declining industrial production and without a strong birthrate. Since the Second World War, our country has been built around extraordinarily high levels of immigration. So much so that any serious attempt at radical immigration reform carried out in modern-day, Neo-liberal Australia will necessarily crash the economy. The Ponzi scheme has gone on for so long now that there is not much left to our economic activity, bar the GDP growth borne from migration. That alone is why no matter how much conservatives or rearguard populist parties smooth-talk to you about cuts, once they get in power, all mentions of immigration crackdowns are forgotten, for no system party wants to be held responsible for an economic collapse under their watch.

Witness the economic tribulations (and also the benefits accrued to the working class) that occurred when the immigration tap was ever so briefly shut between 2020 and 2022 during the COVID lock-downs. Nationalists confront this challenge knowing that a replacement of our current economic system is required — one that is comfortable with stability or even economic shrinkage — and that at every step along the way, the rentier class will stop at nothing to prevent the loss of its streams of capital. One way or another, there will have to be some economic strife, and billionaires and multinational corporations will be drawing the short straw. If your primary concern is the impact on your bank account or on your property portfolio, depart from our ranks, for you were never Nationalist material in the first place.

Should one speak simply of an economic system that upholds a right to private property — with certain important limitations, then Nationalists have no objection to the label ‘capitalism.’ But the question of capitalism is more thorny than this. Nationalists say that capitalism is something that preys on legitimate economic activity, perverts what is otherwise a healthy instinct for trade and production. In the Capitalist world, the abstract pursuit of profit takes precedence over the satisfaction of wants and the social good of the nation. As an ideology of Mammonism, it permits no limitations on the free movement of goods and services. Borders, tariffs and even cultural and linguistic differences are all barriers to efficiency that must eventually be struck down in the interest of profit and the homogenising goal of the market. Driven at its heart by the unnatural power of usury (compound interest) — an exponential force that no nation can naturally keep up with —  capitalism requires a constant flow of labour, a constant flow of new consumers, just to function. Open borders and mass immigration is the manifestation of all of this. To state it concisely: if you want White Australia or immigration control, capitalism will have to go.

And finally, to be for White Australia is not to be ‘racist.’ Let us clarify. Nationalism is racialist: We acknowledge the scientific reality of the racial stratum of humanity. Whilst “we are all human”, we are not all exactly the same. Tens of thousands of years of evolutionary pressures produced a diversity of types and forms. This varied the bone structure, the melanin content and produced subtle distinctions in brain functioning as the species Homo Sapiens spread in waves and separated across the globe. Thus general categorisation of humanity into races is made possible by the grouping of these ancestral genetic populations. Once this has all been taken into account, value judgements such as ‘inferior’ or ‘superior’ are an irrelevant political consideration for the Nationalist, whatever our personal or aesthetic preferences may be; there is only differentiation.

Visions of race-grandeur become dangerous only when they imply the extermination or subjugation of other races: our Ideal of White Australia implies no such murderous doctrine. We can be “expanding and swift henceforth,” not at the expense of other peoples; but by our own virtue, and under our own Australian initiative and dynamic; and in our own land. — P.R. Stephensen, The Foundations of Culture in Australia (1936)

Nationalists say that race is a bedrock of national identity, and that all races have the right to maintain themselves and develop according to their own interests. Conflicts of interest will inevitably occur, but none of this is cause for the stirring up of needless hatreds between the races and all are deserving of some basic respect. Good fences create good neighbours, and peaceful and consensual separation is something that all who value their heritage can agree on, regardless of their specific origin. That is what we — and all Australian Nationalists before us — stand for when we say ‘White Australia.’ Not violence and certainly not supremacy over others, nor the pointless slinging of insults. There is nothing more poisonous to the principle of White Australia than internet edgelords and James Mason adherents scrambling over each other to be as ghoulish as possible towards the ‘brown people’ so as to not lose face in some group chat. If what you are after is imperial subjugation of the non-White world, look to liberalism not nationalism, for it was out of the former that the impulse to colonise and ‘civilise’ actually emerged.

In summary, to be for White Australia in the year 2026, one must necessarily be anti-Washington, and strenuously so, with a mind to forging new international alliances. One must necessarily be anti-capitalist and put the case to the Australian people that, in the era of AI and automation, immigration as a means of economic development is as outdated a model as an economy reliant on slavery. Australia must be independent and accept no nation or authority above ourselves (a republic that is, but that’s another story altogether) and all our decisions must be made in the interests of the Australian people alone. White Australia must centre on the plight of the working man and reject the toxic rhetoric of racial supremacism. Ideas can be taken from anywhere, but nationalism must draw on the native strands of identity, from symbols and leaders that grew on this soil, not from abroad. Any political grouping that claims to stand for White Australia (or merely immigration restriction) that falls short on any of these counts is destined for failure and should be instantly discarded.

---

[1]     Prime Minister of Australia from 1996-2007, leader of the Liberal Party; known for his neo-conservative, pro-Israel and pro-Iraq War stances.

[2]     NB: we at Inky Australian prefer the term ‘Hitlerist’ over the term ‘Neo-nazi’ to describe groups such as the National Socialist Network. The ‘neo’ gives them far too much political cachet; the group bears almost no resemblance to the historical Nazi party.

[3]     A longtime conservative-patriotic grouping in Australia, broadly the Australian equivalent of the John Birch Society.

[4]     Archived version availale at: https://webarchive.nla.gov.au/awa/20091119232247/http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/37832/20091119-0000/home.alphalink.com.au/_radnat/whatistbd.html

[5]     Australian and New Zealand Army Corps, the combined army corps of troops from the First Australian Imperial Force and 1st New Zealand Expeditionary Force.

[6]     Prime Minister of Australia from 1939-1941 and 1949-1966, leader of the Liberal Party; a towering figure in Australian politics who oversaw the post-war years.

[7]     The exemption for the New Zealand Maori being necessary for they were also British subjects.

[8] The confusion continued in other pieces of legislation, such as the racial disqualifications within the Invalid and Old Age Pensions Act (1912) and the Maternity Allowance Act (1912). Under the former, old-age pensions could not be received by quote “Asiatics (except those born in Australia)”. It can be said that the exemptions, in particular for old age pensions, were reasonable compromises that demonstrated human decency and were not a threat to the country. But when taken together with all the other loopholes, they create a lack of consistency with the racial principle.

[9] Indonesian woman Annie O’Keefe, evacuated to Australia in 1942, was given temporary refugee sanctuary and thereafter married an Australian man. Issued a deportation order in 1949, the High Court overturned the decision based on a complex legal argument relating to her status (or lack thereof) as a prohibited immigrant under the Act.

[10] Tavan, G (2005) The long, slow death of White Australia, Scribe Publications, pp.23-24.

[11]   Prime Minister Gough Whitlam (1972–1975)

[12]   A nickname given to Sir Robert Menzies in the aftermath of an industrial dispute.

[13]   The UNESCO Statement on Race was authored primarily by a group of Jewish intellectuals and anthropologists, and the origins of the UDHR are traced back to Zionist legal scholar Hersch Lauterpacht and the Jewish lobbying for the Minorities Treaty at Versailles.

[14]   Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the domestic intelligence and national security organisation, equivalent to the FBI.

[15]   Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser (1975-1983), leader of the Liberal Party.

[16]   At the time, the local Jewish community was there prodding the government, successfully convincing the Liberals to take them in not as a humanitarian component within the existing migration system but as a new category, a ‘refugee’ intake separate to any and all immigration criteria or quotas.

At the time of this writing, the Trump Administration appears to have walked back from threatened military strikes on Iran. Despite a significant amount of pressure from the pro-Israel set of American foreign policy, especially the neocons who love war, cooler heads seem to have prevailed – for now. Whereas I have very little confidence that the current administration can withstand the pressure to “do something” at the behest of Tel Aviv, I think it is important for Americans to understand “who” the United States would be attacking if we moved forward with such a war. Iran is unlike anything we have ever faced.

For most Americans, Iran is an enemy country that came to prominence during the 1970s due to the capture of the American Embassy in 1979, and a subsequent hostage situation that lasted four hundred-forty-four days. Whereas the hostage crisis seemingly ended the day of Ronald Reagan’s inauguration, the US and Iran would have a complicated relationship throughout the 1980s. The beginning of American-Iranian relations was completely reformed during this critical period in the history of both countries.

Saddam Hussein launched one of the bloodiest wars in world history when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 with tacit approval from the United States and a pan-Arabic alliance. That war lasted eight years and eventually led to the first Persian Gulf War. Meanwhile, religious and ethnic sectarian violence in Lebanon led to a Lebanese Civil War in 1975, but it reached new heights after Israel invaded Lebanon in 1982. That which would emerge is best described as a bar brawl. The fight would involve Iranian-backed Ismaili Shi’ites (Amal and later Hezbollah), the Arab-backed Sunni Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), the Israeli/Western-backed Lebanese Front, and the Soviet-backed Lebanese Communist Party and Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA). The US would tragically join a peace mission that resulted in the death of 241 service members (mostly Marines) by a suicide bomber. Iran was blamed, but every single piece of evidence suggests Israel was responsible for the bombing (a subject for a future article).  Meanwhile, the US and Iran covertly cooperated on strategic matters related to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, Indian-Soviet cooperation in the Gulf of Oman, and most famously, a weapons smuggling program that involved the anti-communist Nicaraguan Contras. This muddle of confusion in the shadows of the final decade of the Cold War often clouds American judgment. It is time for some clarity.

Iran is more than just an Islamic nation state that hates the West. It is more than an historically Persian imperial territory. Iran has a very complex relationship with the region.

Iran’s Persian identity contributes to its self-preservation and security perspective. Persia is a geographic territory that has withstood multiple attempts by foreign conquerors since it was established in the middle of the 6th Century BC. The Alexandrian Greeks briefly held Persia, but the land has never been conquered.

No one has ever conquered Iran. Even at its zenith, Rome failed. The Mongols failed. The Turks failed. The Russians and the British briefly succeeded in the 1940s but still failed to hold the newly named “Iran” – the origins of the name having derived from the word “Aryan” or more accurately, “Land of the Aryans.” That last point is not lost on the modern Jewish state of Israel.

Coupled with this Persian identity is that of a Shi’ite Islamic identity. The history of the Shi’a is far too broad a topic to send in a single article, but it is important to understand their origins if you want to understand Iran. The Shi’atu Ali (Followers of Ali), or Shi’a, are followers of Ali ibn Abi Talib, a cousin and son-in-law of the prophet Mohammed. By most accounts, Ali was the hand-picked successor of Mohammed.

After Mohammed’s death, the significantly weaker Ali was pushed aside by less devout, but more power-hungry competitors as leaders of the infant faith. Ali’s willingness to step aside in order to keep the peace and allow the faith to grow was viewed as magnanimous by future scholars on either side of the theological spectrum. At the time, however, it caused deep divisions within Islam. One group of Mohammed’s fundamentalists, Kharijites, would reject every single sect of Islam as apostates over that which they considered ungodly compromises. Considering Ali a traitor to the mandate that Mohammed gave Ali to lead, and after some unsuccessful rebellions, the Kharijites assassinated Ali before fleeing to that which would eventually become the Syrian-Iraq border. The group would name itself the “[true] Islamic State (or country)” as early as the late 7th Century. This is the same group we would eventually call ISIS almost 1500 years later.

Meanwhile, the post-Ali Muslim world fell back into immediate division with those who backed Ali’s sons versus Syrian-centered power. The culmination of subsequent events led to a rather valiant yet ill-fated charge by Ali’s son, Hussein, at the Battle of Karbala (Iraq) in which approximately 70 Shi’ites faced off against estimates up to 30,000 members of a new global caliphate of followers, the Sunnah (Sunnis). The early Syrian-led Sunnis were so brutal to the Shi’ites that they would incorporate anti-Ali phrases into morning prayers. This led to an Islamic diaspora of Shi’ites that found refuge in the formidable and religiously tolerant Persia.

As Shi’ism matured as a faith, so did its self-identification as an unjustly persecuted minority within Islam. The Shiites believed they were justified by the words of Mohammed himself to follow the path laid before them. As such, the rest of Islam – the Sunnah – was largely regarded as misguided oppressors. This persecuted theological identity would dovetail with that of Persia’s own security conscience and embattled persona. It would become the perfect blend of both a genetic and theologically besieged ethnicity. At the core of Iran’s understanding of itself is that of a world in which everyone is seeking to destroy them – whether for physical gain (e.g., oil rights, territory, etc.) or enemies of Allah’s uncompromising devotees.

The totality of this blended ethno-religious persecution complex led to a structural design that has guided Persian and later Iranian leadership for centuries. Iran is purposely designed to never fail. Despite reports of a despotic regime, there is no such thing as a hierarchical leadership structure that ends with either a Shah or a Grand Ayatollah. Centralized leadership, be it religious or secular, is hyper-dependent on a unique system of interwoven local religious, financial, and insular tribal connections. Iran’s leadership infrastructure is more like a beehive than a pyramid.  Whereas the country is led by a Supreme Council of Islamic leaders – for Americans, think of a religious version of the Supreme Court as the top of power – and it has a very functional parliament, the real power is disaggregated.

Iran’s localities enjoy an intersecting web of clerical leadership, Bonyads (financial “charities” that act as religiously guided businesses), and Basij (a religiously inspired quasi-militia/national guard). If you break one group down, you have to fight thousands of small units disconnected from a centralized leadership, but capable of running their own affairs. In effect, imagine a swarm of bees coming at an invader from every angle to protect the hive, but no single unit dependent on the other. Even if you destroy the central “hive,” an invader would have to deal with the fact that “the bees” have multiple hives – potentially thousands of religiously inspired independent militant units who have the full support of the locality, to include both faith and finances. Kill the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and you have to prepare for a thousand Khameneis.

Like a trap intentionally designed to suck a predator into a compromised position, the Marines may take Tehran, and yet never penetrate the suburbs that surround it before they are systematically destroyed. Unlike Iraq, the populace is generally united in its shared ethno-religious identity. Unlike Afghanistan, there is no segmentation of twelve different linguistic tribes with their own needs. Unlike Vietnam, the geography is not conducive for sustained supply chain support. Unlike NSDAP Germany, the Iranians would not be weakened by some kind of global alliance and two front war. In other words, the American have never met an enemy like Iran.

Of course, none of this is reported on Fox News or CNN. The focus there is on the supposed organic protests and the capital of Tehran’s response. Watching the 2026 Tehran protestors is much like watching the 2020 George Floyd riots in Minneapolis or Portland. It would be easy to assume that the riots of 2020 were an indication that the United States wanted Trump deposed. Obviously, that was not the case. The real divide was between radical leftwing rioters – likely led by an internal color revolution – and your average American citizen who simply wants the country he once enjoyed in the 1980s or 90s. The difference between downtown Seattle and the suburbs of Salt Lake City, Knoxville, or Cincinnati may have been lost on outsider observers, but ordinary Americans know the difference. The same can be said for Iran. The protests of radicals in Tehran are not the generally shared views of the rest of Iran. The rest of “God & Country” Iran have ideals formed by the theological and ethnic constructs I described earlier. The world may see protests against a repressive theocracy. Your average Iranian sees protests led by external forces who seek to attack protectors of their very existence. They have never lost to such forces, even when the odds were against them.

In November 2004, I had the privilege of leading a small team in a wargame as the “leader of Iran,” against approximately 300 of the US Departments of Defense (DOD) and State’s (DOS) best thinkers on regional security. Our little eight person team defeated the United States so badly that by the end of the scenario, the US balkanized along politically sectarian lines, gas prices were nearly $20 a gallon, the US dollar was no longer the reserve currency, the US was demilitarized, and all of the American territories were taken to satisfy global war debt, as well as Hawaii and Alaska. What did I do to make this happen? My team sat back and waited for the Americans to take the bait and invade me. American strategic leadership does not understand the Iranian mindset or its unique construct. Israel does, but it does not care what happens to the United States. When the Americans lose in another regime-change war, like a parasite that killed its first host, it will just attach itself to a new host.

John W. Waterhouse, Echo and Narcissus, oil on canvas (1903)

This brief essay, structured in three short sections, aims to show how mythical figures from the Roman poet Ovid’s Metamorphoses can help us better grasp our distorted political self-perception. There is no scholarly consensus on a definition of the ancient Greek term μῦθος (“mythos”). Scholars approach the origin and meaning of diverse myths often from divergent angles. Most, however, agree that “the myth stands free from time. … Myth makes history possible, but history does not reach it.”  [i] By contrast, modern political myths carry a far clearer meaning—though politicians of communist or liberal persuasion avoid this term when spouting their own mythical narratives. One could critically point to the liberal and communist myths of “economic progress,” the myth of “human equality,” or the myth of the “multiracial society … or the “myth of the end of history.” So far, the word and the idea of “myth” has had far greater traction among nationalist politicians and scholars. One could cite here the Italian Fascist leader Benito Mussolini who declared in a speech in 1922: “We have created our myth. Myth is a faith, a passion. It is not necessary that it be a reality. … Our myth is the Nation, our myth is the greatness of the nation.”

Ancient Greek myths, however, served a timeless and ahistorical purpose and could be told and retold at any time and in any place. Some scholars view Greek myths merely as storytelling that explains the origins of the cosmos and recounts the adventures of gods, heroes, and demons. Others, by contrast, regard Greek myths as little more than quasi-allegorical literary devices—comparable to sagas, proverbs, legends, or riddles. Myth, in their view, is just a “verbal gesture,” the manifestation of the inevitable: something fateful that cannot be rationally explained—but neither avoided.[ii] We are what we read—and what we hear…

What we can say with certainty, however, is that Greco-Roman myths—or, for that matter, all ancient European myths, sagas, fables, or fairy tales regardless of their surreal content—had a strong didactic purpose. They were intended to offer moral guidance to the community while issuing stern warnings: do not transgress communal norms; do not try to compete with gods; do not pretend to be something you’re not. Almost all ancient Greek myths caution against hubris, a concept we might today popularly rename into wishful thinking or a morbid desire to become one’s own superior Double.

Judging ancient European myths through the lens of the linear conception of historical time, shaped by the Semitic legacy of Judeo-Christianity, inevitably leads to a false understanding of myths. In simpler terms, applying the Christian and its latter-days Communist concept of time as a one-way lane heading toward earthly or heavenly paradise or the “end of history” is the wrong way to grasp ancient Greek myths. Understanding myths requires first and foremost the skill to step out of historical time altogether. Or to put it simply: myths tell us how to explain the world, whereas modern political myths exhort us to change the world—often with catastrophic results.

One might shrug off ancient Greek myths today as outdated products of a storyteller’s imagination, or as the sign of his intoxicated mind. Fair enough. Yet why do we continue, even more than two thousand years later, to identify with Homer’s mythical heroes from his epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey? Why do we love to read J.R.R. Tolkien’s works, or enjoy watching techno-scientific pseudo-myths embodied in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s movies? A century ago, scenes from the movie Terminator would have appeared as an amusing fantasy tale; today, those scenes seem all too real, likely to terminate our lives in a nuclear conflagration. One could also consider the mythical scenes in the horror novels of H.P. Lovecraft, whose prose tells us far more about our demonic self than we are willing to admit.

As a framework for my essay, I am drawing on—and at times paraphrasing—the novelists, poets, and philosophers whose works are well immersed in the spirit of Greek myths and who can be classified as “pagan-traditionalist-postmodern or archeo-futurist” authors. I’ve limited myself to mythical figures from Ovid’s Metamorphoses only, because they graphically illustrate our often-weird urge to shapeshift ourselves into our fantasy Double. [iii] When these mythical analogies of ours—together with the grotesque wannabe doubles of our leftist or liberal politicians or communist world-improvers—are projected into modern times, the political future of Whites looks quite grim.

The Myth of Free Will

Free will—or “free choice,” an expression popularized by a fanatic thinker of North African descent, later known as St. Augustine — has consistently inspired false hopes among Christians. Hopefully, and eventually, future behavioral geneticists and racial scholars will have the final say on the philosophical drivel of free will. Why are we never at ease with our hereditary or God-given, home-bound boundaries, always searching instead to become—or to surpass—our neighboring higher Other?

Greek gods punished severely those who tried to impersonate them, as we see in the immortal Titan Prometheus, the cousin of Zeus. For his transgression—stealing fire and giving life to mankind—Zeus chained him to a rock for all eternity. The tragic fate of the immortal rebel Prometheus, along with many other strong-willed mythical figures, poses a haunting dilemma for all of us who pride ourselves on having free will. Under adverse historical circumstances, free will can fail a White man spectacularly, or get him branded a war criminal by hostile posterity. Thousands of well-meaning, strong-willed Western politicians, after savoring the bliss of success for a fleeting moment, have sunk into the memory hole of vilification.

Worse yet, free will must sound like a cruel joke to a high-IQ student or a decent, well-mannered aspiring politician if he is plagued by physical or verbal deformities—or tortured by hereditary dread of exposing himself on the world stage. A high-IQ craftsman—the mythical Daedalus—and his wax-winged son Icarus, or the chariot-driving demigod Phaethon, kept pushing their free will to the utmost limits of the universe—only to trigger the wrath of supreme god Zeus and disintegrate into thin air. Likewise, a contemporary Western politician, who is smart, well-educated, strong-willed, with high-IQ, inevitably confronts “Invidia” already discussed on TOO as —raw jealousy—from his closest friends. The duplicity of his supposedly friendly political or academic milieu is best captured by the modern pagan, death-affirming philosopher Emil Cioran: “If we could see ourselves as others see us, we would vanish on the spot.”[iv]

The Myth of the Echo-Chamber

Hence a reason for our politicians—in order to secure the steady flow of their paychecks—to play the game of self-deception, or to don the grotesque mask of their faked Double. Indeed, the US Congress or the EU Parliament resembles a vast echo chamber, where narcissistic politicians regurgitate empty words straight out of the former communist Soviet textbook. The mythical nymph Echo springs to mind here as the perfect template of modern liberal Newspeak. Her misfortune was engineered by the jealous goddess Hera, Zeus’s wife, who could not tolerate the big-mouthed nymph’s covering up Zeus’s sexual escapades. Hera punished Echo by stripping away her power of speech, condemning her to repeat only the last few syllables to be echoed around. Things grew even uglier when the now half-mute Echo fell madly in love with the self-obsessed hunter Narcissus, who deemed himself way too handsome to accept the passes of the horny, lovesick nymph Echo. Total communication breakdown ensued.  The parallel is glaring with today’s main stream media verbal echoes such as “hate speech,” “antisemitism,” “racism”, “white supremacism”—parroted by Western lawfare inquisitors.

Cases of contemporary free-speech suppression can be traced to multiple ancient Greek myths, and they apply with striking precision to the study of our modern surveillance society. Ovid describes the mythical tyrant from Balkan Thrace, King Tereus who was married to the Athenian princess Procne, yet lusting all the time after her sister Philomela. He raped Philomela in secret, then cut out her tongue so she could never reveal the crime to her family and the city of Athens. The bloody tale of Tereus, one of Ovid’s most horrific crime scenes in his epics Metamorphoses, best applies to the verbiage of our ruling class which hides behind the guise of “protecting free speech”. What comes to mind is the case of the wealthy pervert Jeffrey Epstein, along with countless other double-faced modern politicians, who know deadly well how to reduce their victims to speechless, frightened and mute species.

The Myth of White Self-Delusion

Over the past fifteen hundred years, Whites have shown a classic split personality: fierce, pagan-Hellenic-inspired will to power bordering on arrogance on one hand, and on the other, the grovelling Christian-inspired drive to “take the knee” in front of racial outsiders. One encounters these arrogant characters in Ovid’s description of the mythical queen Niobe, who bragged in front of the goddess Leto about her multiple progeny, as well as the satyr Marsyas, who thought he could outplay the god Apollo with his flute. The gods punished severely their arrogance.

The myth of modern White guilt stems from the Christian dogma of self-denial, which has inflicted for centuries huge damage on Whites’ self-perception. It is far too convenient to criticize or ridicule Jewish myths of world creation and their secular avatars in World War II victimhood status. But why ridicule Bible-inspired Jewish victimhood while at the same time embracing the myth of the immaculate conception of the Jewish virgin Mary or the serial shapeshifting adventures of the metamorphic conman St. Paul—still regarded by many White Christians as the bulwark of the Western civilization? The foremost expert on Homeric gods and myths, still quoted as the standard reference in studies of myths, Walter F. Otto, wrote long ago: “The Christian world has developed an extraordinary mastery in this practice of self-abasement.”[v]

The craving to overreach oneself or to metamorphose into a cherished Double or surreal supermen is a major trait of most White nationalists. Many wallow in deliberate self-delusions, eternal false hopes, and a pathetic drive to become imaginary heroes in an abstract White homeland. They could learn a lot from Ovid’s epics and countless other writers who portray delusional individuals.

White activists and many fine White scholars are well aware of the coming doomsday scenario caused by racial replacement. But who can guarantee that in the much-craved White homeland perpetual harmony will ensue? The track record of European history is one of bloody wars. The savagery of the recent war between two closely kindred European peoples—Serbs and Croats—dwarfs tales of African cannibals or the cruelty of the Greek tyrant Phalaris, who locked his dissidents in a brazen bull and roasted them alive. The ongoing savage war between two similar European peoples—Ukrainians and Russians—does not bode well for sustaining the myth of a White homeland. The answer to the future lies in the stars…

---

Notes and further reading:

[i] Robert de Herte, « Les mythes européens », Eléments, (fall 1984); p. 2.

[ii] André  Jolles, « Mythen »,  Einfache Formen, (1930 Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1969), pp. 91-125.

[iii] Ovid,  The Metamorphoses,  Translated by Henry T. Riley ( London: George Bell & Sons, York St., Covent Garden, and New York, 1893).

[iv] Emil Cioran, The Trouble with Being Born, Transl.by Richard Howard (New York, Arcade Publishing) p.44.

[v]  Walter F. Otto, Der Geist de Antike und die christliche  Welt (Bonn: Verlag F. Cohen), p. 69.