The year of the fire horse is set to lead the way into the second quarter of the 21^st century. If the current geopolitical buildup does not represent an ominous window of chaos then nothing does, as Trump threatens to go scorched earth on the permafrost of Greenland among other places. One can’t go shopping at the Mercator projection every day in this new age of defense-based irredentism, but time is running out for Trump as the midterms approach to curtail his power. With a host of potential conflicts set to erupt, you could be forgiven for thinking the other three horses of the apocalypse aren’t far behind.

Following the piracy of the Caribbean and Maduro’s eviction from the presidential suite, former hotelier Trump has turned to naval-gazing off the coast of Greenland to scout America’s next national security acquisition. It’s all part of the Monroe Doctrine, a somewhat legitimizing appellation cited by Trump and hardly challenged by the Washington consensus. Closer examination reveals that it is actually a clear misappropriation of the founding father’s legacy.

The whole point of President Monroe’s insistence that Europeans not interfere in the Americas and vice versa was to function as a balance of powers mechanism. It did not mean free rein within one’s own domain, indeed Monroe was a strategic isolationist who argued that intervention was only justified where U.S. assets and interests were directly threatened. The Europeans had nothing to do with Venezuela, and so far the country’s only crimes seem to be leaving the IMF plantation and selling their oil to the Chinese.

Monroe was a rather honorable man and veteran of the Revolutionary War. As a politician, he supported expansionism, albeit through diplomacy. Before becoming president, he had been involved in the peaceful acquisitions of Louisiana and Florida, though it helped that Napoleon wanted to sell and both territories naturally bordered the United States.

These days, the only wall Trump is building is the BRICS alliance of countries that was born precisely out of a need for solidarity in the face of Western hegemony. Last week Putin and Brazilian president Lula discussed the crisis in Venezuela at some length, though it’s difficult to imagine what consolations Putin could extend. After all, it was the Russians at the Alaska Summit who proposed the spheres of influence concept to the Trump administration. Trump has evidently warmed to the idea, without fully taking the hint on Ukraine. If the administration was to actually adhere to the Monroe Doctrine, it would mean leaving Ukraine, ignoring Iran, defunding Israel, abandoning Taiwan and withdrawing troops from Germany.

Suffice it to say, the American empire is a sprawling entity whose tendrils spread wherever there are resources and willing regional supplicants. As Putin once surmised, “America does not need allies, it needs vassals.” America’s dogma of national security always absorbs more territory and people but never relinquishes anything, not even Guantanamo Bay after all these years or the “floating island of garbage” Puerto Rico.  To hear such national security alarmism over a few enemy submarines must be sickening for the Russians, who have a much better case for the defense-by-annexation argument. The most common way Russia has been invaded throughout the ages – be it by the Mongols, the Turks, or the Germans – has been through Ukraine.

The other country typically downwind from Trump’s verbal spraying, China, felt obliged this week to officially deny having any designs on Greenland. China has already had its moments of rapid territorial expansion in the last century: East Turkestan in 1949 and Tibet in 1951. Combined with the earlier conquests of Tibetan Amdo and Kham and the total land area is roughly equal to two Greenlands. Incidentally, the flag of Greenland could be viewed by superstitious Chinese as an homage to Chairman Mao, whose moniker Red Sun was so ascribed because everything revolved around him in Communist China. Thanks to Mao, the sun rises at 10:20 am for some Uyghurs in the West of the country, almost as if they were in the Arctic Circle in winter. It wasn’t enough that their land was dehumanizingly renamed Xinjiang (New Frontier) – they also have to set their watches to the time of the control freaks in Beijing.

All the territories ever ruled by China

President-for-life Xi Jinping hosted Canada’s managing director Mark Carney this past week, renegotiating trade in the shadow of Trump’s cowboy diplomacy. Money talks and bullshit walks – agricultural goods to China and visa-free travel in exchange for impressive Chinese EVs that will flood the American continent. There won’t be much that Trump can do about it. China builds – America bombs, as the Sinophiles often say, sometimes adding that China buys oil whereas America steals it. It’s difficult to argue against this aphorism, indeed America is no longer what it used to be and is compensating for living above its means, being prodigal abroad but burdened domestically by a growing alien underclass as well as a ruling class that isn’t exactly Founding Fathers material.

The elites in Davos this week were treated to a confused screed of hyperbole and contradiction from Trump, who is living proof that God didn’t invent war to teach Americans geography, as someone once quipped. Trump’s speech writer may be America First, but for the boss to mention out of control spending at a time when offering up to a million dollars to every Greenlander was comical, let alone recently advocating for a $1.5 trillion dollar military budget. The rhetoric against his northern neighbors has only slightly cooled, alas it is all part of his well-worked good cop bad cop routine, hoping to gain enough leverage to at least end up with two subordinate lapdog regimes, as it were, on either side of the Labrador Sea.

The Europeans meanwhile, enthralled as always, continue to be led by a gynocentric coven of careerists who suffer from main character syndrome: Ursula von der Leyen, Kaja Kallas, Giorgia Meloni and Mette Frederiksen. If in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king, then among this crowd even the Austrian painter would rule. Trump represents such a figure of dominance and fortitude who runs rings around his European counterparts. Sometimes they even humiliate themselves, as with Keir Starmer and his rent-boy scandal, or Emmanuel Macron, who continues to threaten war on Putin but can’t defend against wife Brigitte’s backhand. At Davos, the Bonapartist looked more like Napoleon Dynamite than a statesman, sporting cartoonish aviator sunglasses. Chronic sloucher and Greenland Field Marshall, Friedrich Merz, left with his tail between his legs as soon as Trump threatened sanctions for sending troops to Greenland. Amid reckless militarization, disastrous energy policies and ballooning welfare state costs, Merz recently told the German people (the most industrious in Europe) that they ought to commit to “greater economic output… through more work.”

One of the stranger additions to the European theatre of late is Canadian parliamentarian Chrystia Freeland, who abandoned her constituency to go and serve as economic advisor to Zelensky, pro bono, we are told. Freeland’s grandfather was a prominent Nazi collaborator, so the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree in this case. She’ll now have to keep a lookout for falling hazelnuts, which, for those who don’t speak Russian, is a reference to the Oreshnik.

One of the few silver linings on the European horizon is the Neue Rechte movement led by identitarian figure Martin Sellner. His imprudent younger years have given way to strategic activism both online and in the city squares of Austria and Germany. Sellner is the architect of the very successful #Remigration campaign, which is now gaining traction in the Anglosphere. The slogan may be new, but the concept is centuries old and goes back, funnily enough, to American president James Monroe. This not so well-known doctrine of Monroe arguably makes him the patron saint of such efforts to repatriate non-Whites to their homelands. Monroe was so enthused in promoting the return of freed Blacks to Africa that Liberia’s capital city bears his name. Monrovia was founded in 1822 but only managed to get paved roads in the 2010s and is now focused on installing running water for the entire city. Perhaps America’s ongoing problem with the Somalis, amplified very strongly by Trump, could be a pretext for something similar, and maybe even a Denaturalization Act.

Upon reflection of Trump’s first year back in office, as chaotic as it was, it’s somewhat difficult to ascertain what his motivations and priorities are at this stage of his life. They say Jews never retire and that appears to be a habit that has rubbed off on him. Like his sons, Trump is a vainglorious headhunter, only he can now mount that Nobel Prize medal on his wall, even if second-hand. One also can’t exclude the possibility of a psychosexual motive, just as Henry Kissinger once proclaimed.

The neocon clique that Trump seems to gravitate toward evidently knows how to better manipulate him and convert the America First ideal into the Global Leadership agenda. Trump has shredded enough international law in the last year to supply his next ticker-tape military parade, while some claim that he has morphed into his former nemesis, John McCain. Trump appears to have been desensitized to death and extrajudicial killings, which started with the Iranian general but is now aimed at civilians in fishing vessels. Trump has the blood of around 100 security personnel on his hands – liquidated in the kidnapping of Maduro, including 32 Cuban officers who came back in boxes barely larger than cigar cases, leading to speculation of what horrific new American weapon was unleashed for the first time.

In addition to the narcissism and psychopathy known to be self-selecting traits among politicians and elite businessmen, there is something more going on that explains Trump’s ruthless aggression, deal-making and occasional subterfuge. Rather than drawing spurious associations to such conservative prudes as James Monroe, we need to go back to the era of ancient European rulers, of which Trump is a throwback. The Old Norse King Frode comes to mind – a semi-mythical figure whose questionable methods were in the service of greater goods. One saga holds that upon conquering a Slavonic nation he asked for all thieves and murderers to step forward so that they may be appointed to exalted positions, only to promptly hang them in the gallows. It’s unreasonable to think that high-trust European societies could have evolved without breaking a few eggs. Europe is now in the return orbit of its civilizational trajectory and, frankly speaking, its cultural satellite across the Atlantic may be its last hope.

Go to Part 1
Go to Part 2

6801 words

Defeat of the West

“A conqueror is always a lover of peace: he would prefer to take over our country unopposed.” – Carl von Clausewitz, On War

We are left with only the terrible truth: the White race has been conquered by organised Jewry. Jews alone have agency in America and its dominions. They alone have the means to ensure that most European nations — with perhaps the sole exception of those within the Russian sphere of influence — act not according to the interests of the White majority, but have taken the interests of Jewry as their fundamental purpose (a concession is given to the interests of non-Whites, but of course this is only so long as they do not step on any Jewish toes). Through possession of the tripartite power of Finance, Media and Academia, which eventually enabled command of the United States government and its domestic and foreign policy agenda, a Jewish elite achieved predominance in the twentieth century — the Jewish Century as Yuri Slezkine would call it — and all our institutions were thereafter hijacked to make sure that this elite minority is safe and protected. All of our society was given an ideological lobotomy and then retrained in order to combat racism and anti-Semitism; all our politics was formulated to prevent the next Holocaust.

Over the course of the last century, Jewish concepts and ideas rapidly permeated our culture and became our concepts and ideas. They redefined our moral systems — turning White solidarity into a sign of psychopathology — and through a process of mass media exposure, behaviours once considered foreign and un-Christian became a matter of course in everyday life. We lost all touch with our roots, our folk songs, our own past, and had our minds filled with the products of America. Ordinary Australians have few reference points beyond what is taught to them by Judeo-centric histories that rage against the alleged evils committed by our ancestors and by European civilisation as a whole. Compare what the average secondary-school educated Australian learnt of the world in 1900 — a rich civilisational history that encompassed the poetry, philosophy and literature of Classical Antiquity and 2000 years of European Christendom — with the smattering of ideas he or she picks up in 2026: Holocaust, Racism, Stolen Generations, Slavery, Pogroms, Hitler, ‘White man bad’ ad nauseam. No wonder so many who are maddened by this society turn to Hitlerism as the ‘cure’. They know of nothing else in history.

We live in the intellectual and cultural confines set by the conqueror. Nobody in Australia can tell you how many Australians died during World War Two, but every Australian knows of the Six Million. They can tell us about the latest Netflix TV show or Stanley Lieber’s ‘Marvel Cinematic Universe’ but not about the Enlightenment or the scientific achievements of Europe. Australian history is even more neglected, other than that which serves to benefit the narratives of the conqueror; knowing what occurred at Lambing Flat is pointless in their system other than to castigate Australia for ‘racism.’ In all, our society was fed a steady diet of self-hatred and inculcated with a guilt complex that has turned so many of our peers into enemy assets. What freedom we once had to pursue nationhood for the benefit of our children has been lost in a hidden conflict waged within our lands. In order to understand how total is the defeat of the Australian people and the broader judaization of the White race, one must understand that it is the victory of Jewry.

Jewry have always been flexible strategists in this generational conflict between Jew and Gentile. Once full equality had been achieved and all the old legal disabilities had been naively cast aside, they finally had the upper hand, and all manner of nations and ideologies stood at their disposal.  What followed from the first emancipation degrees of the late eighteenth century until the year 1939, was a period of grand experimentation, an era of political trial and error learning so to speak. They set out to find what worked and what didn’t; what systems put up the most resistance to Jewish predominance and which nations proved most pliable to Semitic guile. For a while Marxian Communism seemed to have the right stuff, and for other factions, the Anglo nations, with their all-encompassing finance-capitalism, became the safest bet. Then a war emerged, induced by a country which presented the most acute threat to their power since the Inquisition, and world Jewry pulled out all the stops.

Capitalists teamed up with Communists in an alliance that to this day still befuddles those whose minds sit lost within the false Left-Right binary. World communism, on the verge of extinction as the German artillery guns pounded less than 20 miles from Moscow, received a lifeline from Capitalism courtesy of Messrs. Roosevelt and Morgenthau — a one-way lend lease deal of guns and funds to the tune of millions of US dollars. The USSR was saved, and once the dust had settled, the British Empire was no more, thrown away by Churchill and his Jewish benefactors in order to prevent Hitler from achieving continental dominance, and the country left hopelessly in debt to the Americans. And when Stalin turned on the Jews culminating in the Doctor’s Plot, he finally realised that Israel was more important to them than international revolution, and it was clear that the USSR had to be discarded too. That left only the United States — the ‘Goldene Medina’ — and Australia was right there in its pocket.

President Donald Trump with his most valued political donors, Las Vegas tycoons the Adelsons.

Jewry and the Judeo-Liberal consensus are in charge in America, having captured the institutions of decision making by displacing the WASPs and then crushing all other forms of ethnic power. This takeover advanced on every front, from within the halls of Harvard and the Treasury Department, to the seedy lairs of organised crime. All politics since World War Two is downstream of that fact and the impacts on Australia were immediate. When analysing the radical social and political changes of the post-war era, all Australian scholars speak of a “shift”, an emergent cosmopolitan class in our politics and at our universities that took shape by the 1960s. That is, a class which eschewed all national and racial feeling and trained the next generation of anti-White establishment in their ‘tolerant’ ways.

The use of euphemism is required, but what Australia experienced was the ideological end-product of the mass influx of Jews into American and British (and later also Australian) institutions from the 1880s onward, all of whom — no matter their profession or discipline — began a program of deconstruction of the existing Christian and national-racial sympathies. Jewish academics, having studied the Western psyche for many generations, understood that framing an attack on our society using the language of egalitarianism and moral universalism was like catnip to Europeans. Adrift in a new world, and awash with the conquerors’ ideological products from Hollywood, Wall Street and elsewhere, Australians could do little to prevent the cascade of ideas flowing down into the country from Jewish sources — Freudianism, the New Left, the Chicago School of Economics, Second Wave Feminism, Neo-conservatism, Critical Theory; Popper, Rand, Hirschfeld, Boas, Von Mises, Derrida and so many more.

[T]he key for a group intending to turn Europeans against themselves is to trigger their strong tendency towards altruistic punishment by convincing them of the evil of their own people. Because Europeans are individualists at heart, they readily rise up in moral anger at their own people once they are seen as free riders and therefore morally blameworthy — a manifestation of their much stronger tendency toward altruistic punishment deriving from their evolutionary past as hunter gatherers…

The best strategy for a collectivist group like the Jews for destroying Europeans therefore is to convince the Europeans of their own moral bankruptcy.[1]

What we are dealing with here is not really a ‘lobby’, nor is it truly accurate to use the euphemism ‘Zionist’. If it were merely a lobby group, it would be as inconsequential as the lobbying of the Muslim community. If it was the expressions of Jewish nationalism, it would have the same power in Australia as Hindu nationalism — a quirk of multiculturalism, not a central policy plank of both major parties. The anti-Zionist Jew, as minuscule as their groupings are, is as much our opponent as the Zionist Jew is; the distinction is an almost meaningless one when considering White Australia. Both work in concert with one another for the security of the Jewish people against the interests of the Australian majority. Both ultimately support the existence of some kind of a Jewish-dominated State (with a few differences in rhetorical flourish) and then close ranks against anti-Semitism: One faction when they find it within the Right, and the other when they find it within the Left, especially within pro-Palestine groupings. Quite simply, the ‘lobby’ and the ‘Zionist’ draw power because they are representatives of the conquering elite in America, nothing more.

The elected leaders of our race, when not complete ignoramuses, know this well and indeed the system empowers the worst and most corrupt individuals among us, picks them out as collaborators so to speak. Most of these leaders just accept this state of affairs and see no need to challenge it, so ideologically accustomed are they to servitude and acting as the compradors of the empire (in these ranks we would place current Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese). Many are married directly into the conqueror’s ranks (UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer for one) and are related through their extended family via the marriages of their daughters or sons, or have been in and around the Jewish community since childhood (e.g., President Donald Trump). Bribery and financial benefits, the countless trillions of dollars pumped into the political system by Jewish billionaires in order to mould the discourse, provide good reason to stay in line. Others — like President Richard Nixon — are too scared to speak out (for proof, refer to the Nixon Tapes), and some are even blackmailed, as the Jeffrey Epstein saga is revealing to us. Philo-Semitism is the path to advance into the elite and if any ever step out of line, the repercussions are immediate: All who fall afoul of Jewry must walk the road to Canossa.

Jews are sacrosanct in the West. After October 7 and after and Bondi attack on December 14, surely everyone can see it now, even if only in a vague sense. All those mass stabbings/shootings or terror attacks directed against Whites are forgotten by the State within a week; conversely, we will surely be hearing about the Bondi attack and its legal-political ramifications for the next decade, for no amount of ‘Hate Speech’ laws or crackdowns on political communication and expression ever seem to be enough to satisfy them. The response to the slaughter in Gaza and the almost religious devotion of our political leaders to Israel in the face of genocidal atrocity has opened the eyes of many, but it is visible in the smallest acts: the latest, writer Randel Abdel-Fattah was cancelled by the Adelaide Festival for the crime of being Palestinian. A Sudanese gang member can stab a young Australian in a frenzy of hate, screaming out “die white boy” as he lacerates him with a knife, and no authority will ever call this act racist and will surely let the offender out on bail in no time. Meanwhile if anyone so much as throws a water balloon at a synagogue or farts aggressively in the direction of a kippah-wearing man, you can bet the whole country will be made aware of this outrage against a sacred people. This state of affairs cries out to the Nationalist for justice.

To regain any form of independence and to survive as a people, we must find the path to liberation, a way to re-enter history. As members of a conquered race, liberation requires us to take on an unambiguous position against the conquerors; if you fail to recognise the enemy, you only end up joining their ranks. How would the Reconquista have fared if the Spanish failed to identify the Moors and the Umayyad Caliphate as their opponents? Would Indian Nationalists have succeeded if they refused to articulate an anti-British position? Oppose absolutely the conqueror and its ruling establishment: that is the motto. Call out the agents of the State and the US government and expose the Zionist spies that always try to enter our ranks. Never accept funding from Jewish sources and boycott all their political projects and foreign policy adventures. Spurn all the Zionist lackeys and the traitor class within our own race who choose to benefit (financially or otherwise) from the conquerors’ system. Reach out to others who share the same oppressor and create a united front against a common enemy — the conqueror fears that Ishmael and Edom will stop fighting each other and finally realise who the real opponent is. As painful as it may be to admit, we are a defeated people. It’s time we acted like it.

But let us quickly make an assumption: you, dear reader, winced a little upon reading those last few paragraphs? If so, your reaction is understandable. Even non-Western leaders have a hard time coming to grips with this state of affairs; they are flummoxed by how America is run and how it almost always behaves in a way totally counter to the interests of the overwhelming majority of America’s White citizens. They can’t bring themselves to the belief that Jewry are in charge — the implications of that are so far reaching and so devastating to so many political worldviews. We understand that saying these words out loud ignites all the Pavlovian conditioning we have been trained with and bring us within proximity to the crude messaging of the local Hitlerists whom Nationalists want nothing to do with. But look past the gas-lighting attempts and push aside those sophists telling us that nobody is really in charge, that it is a ‘wicked problem’, and that our demographic disaster is the result of systems too complex to be undone or even understood. Ignore that voice in your head screaming out “It’s not just da Jooz” (Whoever said it was? The White race has produced plenty of traitors and Zionist assets) and look only to the hard facts.

Despite how foreign it feels to us in the 21st century, the counter-semitic position was the natural, logical position of our ancestors and the historical norm of our civilisation. The Jewish Question was a central question of European political life that all our leaders and thinkers encountered for centuries before the Austrian Corporal entered onto the stage of world history. Know that the Magna Carta (the original one, not White Australia), the foundational document of common law civil liberties, contained within it anti-Jewish clauses. The Third Reich does not have exclusive rights to anti-Semitism, despite what contemporary rhetoric would have you believe, and White Australia predated their racial theories by half a century. Having seen the errors of past decisions, we chose to take the counter-semitic position because the circumstances of our nation demand it, not because we seek to emulate a long expired German political movement.

The Problem of Australianity

“Investigation may be likened to the long months of pregnancy, and solving a problem to the day of birth. To investigate a problem is, indeed, to solve it.” — Mao Zedong

Once this has all been established, Australians are uniquely confronted with a problem. To give it a name, it is the Indigeneity of Jewry in Australia. On this continent, Jews are — and no-one can deny this in the slightest — Australians just the same as us. They are not only rightful Australian citizens, but members of the founding stock of this land, without whom there may not even be an Australia in the sense we see it today. There is no point in Australian history where Jewry did not contribute to the creation of our country: they have voted in all our elections and were elected as representatives in colonial legislatures as early as the year 1849, a full decade before Baron Rothschild become the first Jew to take up a seat in the British House of Commons. They have represented us in federal parliament since Federation; they have served as mayors of our cities, our military generals in war, as our first Australian-born Governor General. The Anglophiles at the British Australian Community would be better off speaking about our ‘Anglo-Celtic-Hebrew inheritance’.

Let’s briefly summarise this inheritance. We all know that there were Jewish convicts on the First Fleet and Jews aplenty (Fagins and fences) on all subsequent convict ships until transportation ceased. Soon they came as wealthy free settlers initiating vital trade networks across the colonies. They set up banks and drapery stores, built import businesses, and started the auctioneering houses that supplied a growing economy. In 1834, Jews encouraged the passage of the ‘Forbes Act’ that declared English usury law did not apply in the colony of New South Wales, arguing it would be an impediment to colonial development. It was Jewish capital that spurred the founding of two separate colonies on the continent: the Swan River Colony (later to be called West Australia) and the South Australian free settler colony. The central roles played by Solomon Levey in the former and the Montefiore family in the latter are well attested.

Portrait of Jacob Barrow Montefiore (1801-1895), a founding father of South Australia. Born in Barbados into a family of wealthy sugar plantation owners, his family’s relationship with the slave trade is yet to be investigated.

Jewish convict brothers Judah and Joseph Solomon in Van Diemen’s Land were financial sponsors of the Port Phillip Association and received generous portions of the first (illegal) land divisions that began the original settlement on the banks of the Yarra.[2] A decade and a half later, it was the Rothschild banking interests who oversaw the flow of gold that transformed this small settlement of Melbourne into a gem of the British Empire. It was loans from the Jewish finance power at the heart of the British Establishment that built our railroads, our mines, our factories, and when the economy boomed and collapsed during the 1890s on the back of a real-estate bubble, the greatest swindler of all was named Benjamin Fink. When the Boers threatened the flow of gold from the Transvaal into the Hebrew’s coffers, Australia sent its men side by side with the British to correct Oom Paul’s impudence[3] — there is a compelling case to be made that by Federation year, Jewry was calling many of the shots in Britain. No matter where in our history books you look, they can be found.

Now all European nations at some point in their history made use of Jewish moneylenders and financiers — Australia is not unique in this regard. The difference is that the Old European developed without them and can draw from a well of national identity long before these Semitic peoples were dumped on the continent by the Roman Empire and spread across its face. Excluded by virtue of their faith, they were cut off from residing in the halls of power and scuttled around the antechambers, whispering in the ears of Barons and Princes who were sympathetic to their cause or just short on funds and willing to make a Faustian bargain. Over 1000 years of social, cultural and economic conflict made it clear to both sides that Judaism and European Christendom were diametrically opposed entities. Jewry were guests in these nations, displaced foreign interlopers who could be removed by will of the sovereign and whose bloodlines could always be traced to foreign shores. Australians do not have this historical luxury.

If Australia is to confront the Jewish Question, we must admit that we have no means to fight with if we come armed only with our ‘Australianity’, for they possess this weapon in the same fashion we do. The first Jew came to Australia at the same time and in the same manner as the first White man, on the crowded convict ships from London. Their descendants were born here and they grew up speaking with the same Australian tongue. During the colonial period, they concurrently acquired all the same political rights and civil liberties we possess, for no law ever distinguished between native-born White man and Jew, and our post-enlightenment country, late on the stage of world history, has never known any religious test for office, nor any establishment of religion.[4] We racially otherised the external threats — the ‘Kanaka’ and the ‘Chinaman’ — and the Jew was on our team, accepted as citizen without debate. Our forebears understood this all, which is why when the time came in the late nineteenth century to racially classify the Jews in Australia, they were quietly allotted into the ‘White’ category and nobody — not even the Jewish community themselves — raised any objections. Like two evenly matched swordsmen, our possession of Australian-ness is negated if we deny this to Jewry, for what basis is there to deny them this claim that would not also backfire on us?

As Australia rolled into Federation and the twebtieth century, the question “Are Jews members of White Australia?” was answered — if it was ever asked at all — in the affirmative. Isolated flare-ups, in particular on the character of Russian Jewry as migrants and around the events of the Bolshevik Revolution raised some early dissent, but Australians remained tolerant in their racial categories. Only in the lead-up to the Second World War did this categorisation come under scrutiny and Australians were confronted with questions they had never needed to confront before. No-one in Australia (including local Anglo-Jewry, who feared these caricatures of the Jewish stereotype could undermine their accepted status) was keen to take in radicalised ghetto dwellers from Eastern Europe, but the government struggled to exclude a people whom the White Australia Policy ostensibly classified as ‘White.’ Were they a race? Just a religion? If they are a race apart, how did this apply to the Anglo-Jews who were already agreed to be completely assimilated Whites? It was ultimately this confusion on the identity of Jewry — a debate which continued post-war, that created a discursive rupture in the whole notion of White Australia and made it all the more possible for the government to throw the policy in the bin.

As the storm of conflict in Europe grew, it was apparent to local Nationalists that the interests of Jewry and the wider Australian nation were well and truly diverging. In response, they began to programmatically confront the Jewish Question and how this related to White Australia. For the Australia First Movement (AFM), the Kimberly Scheme — the proposed establishment of a Jewish ghetto-state in north-western Australia — was an affront to our sovereignty and the country had no legitimate interest involving itself in the dispute with Germany. Local Jewry and their friends in the political establishment of course thought otherwise and the nation was, to quote Stephensen, “…flooded with Prosemitic propaganda.”

Nevertheless, P.R. Stephensen and the AFM were cautious in their position towards the anti-Semitic parties of Europe. Though there were undoubtedly things to be admired in the German and Italian systems, theirs was not a style of politics that transposed itself neatly onto Australia, and the designation of the Japanese — the loudest foreign opponents of White Australia — as “Honorary Aryans” did not elicit much local sympathy. War in Europe did however present an opportunity to the AFM and so when the fighting broke out, they took the precarious stance of neutrality towards Germany and neither provoking nor appeasing Japan, a stance for which they paid dearly. Access to the German archives has ultimately proved that the Third Reich did not care for the project of White Australia, considering our small nation to be (somewhat understandably from the German perspective) an Anglo-Saxon geopolitical irrelevancy in ranks with the British, and advocated a kind of proto-multiculturalism, telling Australians of German blood to resist assimilation, though this was unknown to Nationalists at the time.[5] What was known to the Nationalist was that Hitler’s threat to uproot Jewry from Europe should another world war emerge was an implied threat to Australia, for our nation was (and indeed became) a natural destination for those expelled elements.

Percy Reginald Stephensen in 1934

Responding to all this, P.R. Stephensen encapsulated a nationalist position in A Reasoned Case Against Semitism, first published in the Australian Quarterly in March of 1940, clearly outlining their racial separateness and without any resort to the partition of ‘Good’ (White, non-Zionist, non-Communist, assimilated) Jews and ‘Bad’ (non-White, Zionist, Communist, pluralist) Jews that had largely defined earlier patriotic and Nationalist rhetoric. As Stephensen noted, the Jewish side of the deal in the quid-pro-quo of Jewish emancipation — the expectation that in exchange for full civil equality, the Jewish community would politically ‘disappear’ — was no longer being upheld by Australian Jewry, especially now that they were agitating so strongly on behalf of their European counterparts:

Jews cannot “have it both ways.” They cannot expect to be listened-to with respect when they preach to Gentiles the Universal Oneness of Mankind, while at the same time they, as Jews, remain a Race Apart. … [W]e are faced with a defiance, by Jews, of the fundamental biological principle of Fused-European Homogeneity which it is the basic aim of Australian national policy to establish and maintain. They claim the right, not only to settle here, but to maintain themselves, in perpetuity, as a self-segregated minority, of different and distinct racial stock from the rest of the Australian community.

This conflict between the desires of a homogeneous White Australia and Jewish insistence on toleration of their exclusivity was of course resolved in the interests of our post-war conquerors: the dissolution of the nation with a policy that now goes by the name multiculturalism.

To conclude, Nationalists in the year 2026 must pick up from where Stephensen left off in 1940. In mind of our conquered position, an Australian Nationalist response in the twenty-first century must be an explicit redefinition of Australian nationhood. Stephensen, always far ahead of the curve, articulated it (using what are now antiquated words) thusly: “For Aryanism; against Semitism”, further noting that it was “…an attempt to make even more precise the principle of racial homogeneity implied in the “White Australia” doctrine.” For many decades, Nationalists shied away from Stephensen’s words; the baggage of the concentration camps that our opponents would inevitably foist upon us was too much to deal with. With the benefit of hindsight and a much-improved knowledge of how the twentieth century played out, we can now only concur with Stephensen’s remedy. When we stand as Nationalists, we have to stand for more than Australian-ness, more than just White Australia, but a recasting of Australian nationhood that asserts its independence from the conqueror, just as much as our predecessors stood for the creation of a new nation-state to the exclusion of the Asiatic races and asserted our independence from Britain.

The Task Ahead

“The opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.” — Sun Tzu

Australian nationalism, when it first emerged during Australia’s cultural springtime of the late nineteenth century, dared to dream of a radical break with the ‘Old Ways’ of Europe and Empire. It had a vision of a new nation, the ideological vocabulary to articulate it, and a radical impulse to put these ideas into practice. We live — or lived — in a world created by their successes, until the forces arrayed against Australia undid them all. If the Australian people are to survive on this continent, we must reclaim this radical impulse. Just as those Nationalists once set out to break with the ways of the old continent, in the twenty-first century we must break from Pax Americana, from our conquerors, and with all that has come since 1942. This requires of us to envision a new iteration of Australia. A new chapter in the history of the European peoples on this continent: one that draws from core mythic qualities, casts aside that which can no longer work for us, and builds upon what is still to come.

And what exactly will this new Australia look like? Nationalists say that is for us to figure out. This is a conversation that all who dream of liberation are obliged to have given the current state of affairs, so let’s start to move beyond ‘Australia’ as we currently understand it. At this very moment, the State and the conquerors are mapping out an entirely different Australia as well, only one in which the Australian people are no longer required — that is, an Asian Future. We must return the favour. Imagining a Nationalist victory throws everything into question, just as much as a victory for our enemies will. Should we succeed, it will undoubtedly be a completely different country. A majority White nation without American control; a state absent the corrosive forces of Capitalism; a country minus the all-conquering authority of Jewry — making this an utterly foreign land to the one that all living Australians are familiar with.

It probably won’t be called the Commonwealth of Australia. Maybe there will be a new name that better suits us and signifies the radical break with the past. Maybe the borders will look different, the results of some unknowable conflict or compromise. Maybe we will have new symbols, new anthems, new dates of remembrance that take pride of place alongside our ancestral ones. To take but one example, what does our national flag currently represent? In the top left corner, the flag of a foreign nation, of an Empire that no longer exists and which was the prime cause of our lack of independence. To the right a celestial arrangement in the shape of a religious symbol that few among us still hold dear, if it ever truly was in this secular, multi-denominational country. What is more important: clinging desperately to the national anthem and the blue ensign, or keeping the racial character of our nation? As long as we keep to the essential ideological components, there is nothing that can’t be re-imagined.

Australia in the  twenty-first century is a different world to that which confronted the first nationalist movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. Back then the European peoples weren’t yet conquered (though the signs were already showing) and the opponents of nationalism were ideologically wayward members of our own race, or in the case of the Japanese, could still be counted on to act honourably. The link with Britain was undoubtedly strong, but it cannot be equated with the sheer one-sided dominance of America and the conquerors on our nation. Nor is it comparable to the circumstances present when nationalism re-emerged after the public burial of the White Australia Policy. In the 1970s, economic Asianisation was only beginning, Hawke and the Labor Party had yet to fling the doors open to international finance, and the post-war consensus which regulated the economy and guaranteed the working class a decent life was still intact. It was an uphill battle to convince people that Australia’s racial composition was under threat — a majority non-White country was still an outlandish proposition. Technology has moved quickly as well. Nationalists back then didn’t have to deal with the internet, the tech oligarchs Ellison, Musk and Zuckerberg, nor the Five-Eyes spying apparatus. The world of AI and surveillance companies like Palantir was the stuff of nightmares, not a lived reality.

Taken together, this necessitates new political strategies, new ways of approaching the situation. The nationalist fight today is not one where our message struggles to be relevant to the Australian people, but where we struggle to organise and get the message out. The State recognises the appeal of nationalism and is becoming ever more repressive in its approach to dissent. Crucial as well for us to understand is that our conquerors are not honourable and they operate with impunity. Those who pay attention to the behaviour of organised Jewry know they will use every craft available to achieve their ends — just look at what has occurred in Palestine. Don’t for a second believe that the empire is not perfectly capable of inflicting on us the same death and suffering they inflict on Palestinian children. Worst of all is when they tell us — with an earnest face — that they are doing European civilisation a favour: the multiracial chaos is being inflicted on our societies for the sake of Healing the World (Tikkun Olam), that they are the Light unto the Nations bringing tolerance and moral guidance to the gentiles.

But things are not going swimmingly for the conquerors anymore; their agency is under threat, as their increasingly frenzied actions since October 7 indicate. The long-expected crisis of legitimacy that we have held out for, that moment which calls forth a Nationalist movement, is fast approaching. As has become clear over the last few years, the American Empire is in permanent decline, and it no longer even pretends to uphold international law, presently settling old scores in its own hemisphere with a brazen abduction of the Venezuelan president and having bombed seven separate countries in 2025 alone, largely to no real effect. We have already seen one unsuccessful (from the Zionist perspective) war with Iran, and more wars in the Middle East will likely follow as the Zionist entity loses protection and the empire overextends itself.

In Europe, NATO threatens to go the way of SEATO, and in the Asia-Pacific, the new world power is China which has resisted all their attempts at financial colonisation. De-dollarisation is gaining speed as the rest of the world realises that an economy sustained only by usurious speculation and mountains of debt, should not have the power of world financial hegemony that they concocted for themselves at Bretton Woods.[6] As all the international edifices of Pax Judaica come tumbling down, this time it looks as if there is no other world power for Jewry to flee to, which means they will defend their position even more ruthlessly; one can only pray that the Samson Option will never be activated.

Politically strong, but also numerically weak, the conquerors power at the heart of the Empire is reliant on an unstable ‘Coalition of the Aggrieved’ to maintain control, and rifts in this coalition are emerging everywhere (the Nationalist can of course assist by furthering these rifts.) In America, Jewish privilege is so obvious and so omnipresent in everyone’s lives that the Jewish Question is undeniable: Epstein, Zelensky and Gaza; Paul Singer, Ronald Lauder and Larry Fink; Trump, Adelson and Iran; Hollywood and AIPAC. These frustrations — shared by all non-Jews in America — have no legal outlet so it’s all heading for a showdown and everyone knows that the American Empire will not go down quietly like the Soviet Union did.

This showdown, this confrontation, this contraction, this reaction, this collapse, whatever it may be, will not occur in Australia, though undoubtedly there will be forceful efforts to pull us in. It is difficult to predict how exactly this will play out in Australia, though one thing is certain: we’re too intertwined with the Empire for us to be able to simply wait things out. When Jews feel threatened, neutrality is out of the question: you’re either with them, or against them. But just like last time, when the Western world was thrown into chaos and the Jewish people were at the centre of it all, the end of Pax Americana — and therefore the decline of its ability to project its power in Australia — is an opportunity offered to Australian Nationalists. That is, if we are ready and prepared to take it.

The Zio-Populist Right taking a new shape? Pauline Hanson speaks to the crowd at Bondi after her pilgrimage to Trump at Mar-A-Lago

At this moment in history, before the situation in America properly deteriorates, and before the crisis hits Australian politics, our time is better spent in educating people and building defensive infrastructure. The moment is not ripe for launching any fruitless head-on assaults on the regime, and even if it were, nationalist consciousness is not at all in a healthy state. Our ranks are thin and the impostors currently using the label ‘Nationalist’ are an abysmally poor showing. On display is everything from creepy Tradcaths who scamper around the Liberal party, politically incoherent vaccine-sceptics, and unstable thugs who think they can punch their way out of every tough situation. We’ve got to get the basics right before we can even think about the herculean task ahead of us. Unfortunately, so much Nationalist knowledge has failed to transfer across the generations.

Looking to the next quarter century, nationalism needs a new generation of leaders composed of stable, educated individuals who are conversant with history and who know exactly what it means to stand for Australia. Such leaders must be fanatically ideological Nationalists untouched by associations with soon-to-be criminalised ‘hate groups’, a vanguard capable of holding the line against all false ideas and who have the ability to reach out to the ordinary Australian. They must develop resources to defend our people and have networks in place for when the opportunity arises. Take advantage of the failures of multiculturalism and liberalism — and the social alienation they both cause — to create real-life communities that can act as the counter-society, the seedbeds of the resistance. There are many problems to be worked through, and no single individual has all the answers; it has to be a collaborative effort. If that all that sounds good and proper to you, the established Nationalist party offers an ideal mechanism for this, so sign up if you itch to engage in direct party politics, but think outside the box too.

A multiplicity of Nationalist regiments is a valuable asset in the struggle to disrupt the existing system: Build a thinktank; create a nationalist law firm or publishing outfit; set up a pro-White charity or an independent crowd-funding platform; start an honest business; run a private school; be an investigative journalist — the ideas are endless.

What good does yet another social media ‘influencer’ bring? Enough with the political hobbyists who see in Nationalist politics nothing more than a niche from which they can grab some attention on social media or make a quick buck. Nationalists can only scorn the collaborationist British Australian Community, but at least their plan isn’t running off into the bush to establish a commune.

Create art or make music; compose poetry or write an essay that builds knowledge; reclaim Australian culture from the anti-Australians. Do quite literally anything other than just practising your kick-boxing skills or wasting your time being a secret racist on Telegram, Discord or X with all the rest of the bots and shills.

Australian Nationalists — the vanguard of the national future — sit and wait until the rest of you catch up. What our conquerors fear the most are Australians who stand unyielding in the face of opposition; when enough people stand up to an oppressor, they have a chance at survival. Only once Australians have taken the Nationalist message to heart, and only once the political discussion around Australia’s future has been utterly and totally purged of the false ways of Conservatism and Hitlerism, can we move forward. Maybe that day never comes. Maybe we spread the message and wait in vain for backup that has long since expired. In which case, the next opportunity will come and go, maybe some new force takes the reigns in Australia, and eventually the White race dies out in the Antipodes. To pinch some famous last words, Such is Life, but at least Nationalists can say we were there ready to fight.

Fin

---

Selected sources and suggested readings:

• Bird, D (2012), Nazi Dreamtime — Australian Enthusiasts for Hitler’s Germany, Australian Scholarly Publishing Pty. Ltd., Australia.
• Levi, J & Bergman, G (2002), Australian Genesis — Jewish Convicts and Settlers 1788-1860, 2^nd Ed., Melbourne University Press, Australia
• Lopez, M (2000), The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics, Melbourne University Press, Australia.
• McQueen, H (2004), A New Brittania, 4^th Ed., University of Queensland Press, Australia.
• Munro, C (1984), Wild Man of Letters — The Story of P. R. Stephensen, Griffin Press Ltd., Australia.
• Norris, R (1975), The Emergent Commonwealth — Australian Federation: Expectations and Fulfilment 1889-1910, Melbourne University Press, Australia.
• Palfreeman, A.C (1967) The Administration of the White Australia Policy, Melbourne University Press, Australia.
• Price, C (1974), The Great White Walls are Built — Restrictive immigration to North America and Australasia 1836-1888, Australian National University Press, Australia.
• Rutland, S (1997) Edge of the Diaspora — Two Centuries of Jewish Settlement in Australia, 2^nd Ed., Brandl & Schlesinger, Australia
• Stephensen, P.R (1936) The Foundations of Culture in Australia, 2^nd Ed., Allen & Unwin, Australia
• Tavan, G (2005), The Long Slow Death of White Australia, Scribe, Australia.
• Willard, M (1967) The History of the White Australia Policy until 1920, 2^nd Ed., Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.,U.K.
• Windschuttle, K (2004), The White Australia Policy, Macleay Press, Australia.

Notes

[1] MacDonald, K (2002), The Culture of Critique: An Evolutionary Analysis of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, 2nd Ed.,1st Books Library, pp.xxviii-xxviv

[2]     Note that only the states which had origins as penal colonies (NSW, Tasmania and Queensland) lacked Jewish financial involvement in their foundation.

[3] The war effort organised by the very same Mr. Chamberlain who so strenuously opposed White Australia.

[4] The Oath of Abjuration for office holders, a sticking point for Jewish emancipation in Britain which required one to swear an oath as a Christian, technically applied in the colonies, but was not enforced and by 1858 both Victoria and NSW had introduced their own oaths that lacked a religious element.

[5] See Saleam, J The Nazis and ‘White Australia’ (PDF file available on request) and Turner-Graham, E (2021) «Never forget that you are a German»: Die Bruecke, «Deutschtum» and National Socialism in Interwar Australia, Peter Lang AG, Frankfurt am Main.

[6] In this case, Henry Morgenthau Jr, Harry Dexter White and Edward M. Bernstein

 

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). 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.

Go to Part 2.

---

[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.