The minute you stand up and say ‘What that group is doing is wrong,’ a great deal of criticism is thrown at you. It’s very hard, especially for young people, to stand up against that. When you’ve reached a certain age, you’ve got a thick […]
Australian NationalismCanadian Nationalist Paul Fromm discusses his recent Twitter banning along with all the -low-down on the freedom movement’s struggle against Justin Trudeau’s woke-washing of Canada.
VideoNick Griffin and Dr Jim Saleam discuss the death of the West in a wide-ranging discussion from the Irish anti-immigration protests and the great replacement, to how the war in Ukraine may spell the end of the Western global hegemony, and whether AI will actually […]
VideoThe minute you stand up and say ‘What that group is doing is wrong,’ a great deal of criticism is thrown at you. It’s very hard, especially for young people, to stand up against that. When you’ve reached a certain age, you’ve got a thick […]
Australian NationalismThe minute you stand up and say ‘What that group is doing is wrong,’ a great deal of criticism is thrown at you. It’s very hard, especially for young people, to stand up against that. When you’ve reached a certain age, you’ve got a thick enough skin and you’ve been attacked and demonised so many times, you say, ‘I don’t care anymore, I will simply tell the truth and I don’t care if it annoys people or not.’ The truth is there and people deserve a chance to listen to it.
Nick Griffin
The media are trying to alienate us Nazis from the general public.
Jim Roberts (NSN), Telegram
Boomers tell me all the time to “be careful, all it takes is one lunatic to do something stupid and you will be locked up forever.”
Thomas Sewell, NSN leader
Browsing the National Socialist Network’s web of Telegram channels begs equanimity. You’ll not be enlightened by their politics because they have none; at least none that is theirs: it’s all someone else’s. Indeed, perusing their propaganda enlightens you more about them. It’s littered with memes and semi-literate editorials from the Iron March School of “It’s The Jews, Stupid.”
The foremost refrain is themselves—how they are the courageous, strong “Nazi” warriors struggling against ‘the system’—the corrupt “Jew” out to destroy the White race—and stressing solidarity in the ‘resistance.’ The agitprop is augmented by the news of the day—trans perversion, immigration, non-White crime, anti-White bias and social injustices—along with offerings from ‘identities’ affiliated with their group.
Attention is paid to monitoring how the government frames them, and the political actors they fixate on. Their shares on that subject are the most interesting, however, they still amount to self-absorption. Moreover, their fixation on “Jew media bias” fails to register how they go out of their way to not just court the profiling, but transactionally adopt the image. Oh, and they unironically call themselves “Nazis” or perhaps they’re just aping George Lincoln Rockwell (again). Regardless.
All of this reminds the disciple of the gravity of their mission. Idealising the physical, they reject thinkers as weak and a burden on their heroic and masculine vision of a brave new social order. Except, their vision is a self-parody. It is one-dimensional chauvinism in the custom of so much that came before. Members receive their leader’s philosophical shares with obligatory panegyrics as if the Fuhrer himself were speaking. The phatic functions of their content are quasi-religious. Stripped of bravado, the cumulative semiotics is deistic. The overall coding is millenarian: The addressee of their messages is brought down, driven to anger, but evangelically uplifted with the promise of the Nazis’ divine intervention.
In this ASIO-monitored academy for indoctrinating disenfranchised young White lads, sophistication warrants suspicion. These are not political protagonists but a subculture unified over mainstays of meat-and-potato White Nationalism (Only Leftist commentators like Jeff Sparrow have a vested interest in allowing them the dignity of designating them as serious fascists). It’s an adamantine formula—not axiomatically—but because it ropes in the less acculturated traveller. Recruits become a caricature, not an individual. Don’t think, just do. The fraternity is ritualistic. Bear in mind, successive generations keep falling for it, but where failure is a foregone conclusion, someone always benefits from dispatching recruits on an abject mission. Thus, the cycle of this cultish pathology repeats without a single deontological action.
And so, with the luminaries of the NSN, we encounter the well-worn rhetoric about the overrepresentation of Jews in the propagation of anti-White social engineering (if not the American government, corporations, and NGOs). Indeed, there are lots. Jewish gold has glinted under an aeon of treacherous moons and this revelation excites many. Jews boast of being chief among the abolitionists of European Civilization as advocates of racial replacement. Whenever a theory is proposed convicting the White race of existential abomination, inevitably they are Jewish.
It’s far from the entire picture, but a wider thesis too vast to be resolved simplistically other than by those who gain an advantage from limiting the enquiries of its adherents. This essay is not concerned with expatiating on that theme suffice to say that the trajectory of Christendom and liberalism resulted in a dialectic that equally accounts for the post-modern crash of Western society.
The more you pay for a fake artwork the less you are likely to doubt its authenticity.
The Penguin
The NSN’s myriad of Telegram channels indoctrinates the susceptible young inductee into the Hitler cult by regurgitating myths celebrating the magnificence of the Third Reich. It places him on the highest altar of White salvation. Only educated Nationalists recognise the tiresome fiction that conflates White identity entirely with Adolf Hitler.
Alternatively, the conscript learns that Bolshevism and communism were the revolutionary progeny of Jews and that Adolf Hitler’s struggle against the Jews and Communism earns him messianic reverence among the ‘awakened’ White folk of today. Except, it’s incorrect: Hitler never advocated for pan-universal Whiteness any more than the Soviet Union was a haven for plotting Jews. Communism was the Frankenstein creation that destroyed Jewry in Soviet Russia. This is a chapter of history not many learn.
As virulently an ‘anti-Semite’ as Adolf Hitler, when Iosif Vissarionovich Djugashvili eliminated the “cosmopolitans”, he did do so cunningly while appearing to embrace them. The terror surged throughout the communist nirvana. Being “Jewish” incited suspicion. After all, a Jew might be loyal to the counter-revolutionary ideal of “Jewish nationalism” ahead of the state. Stalin executed well over a million and approved the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in which important Jews were duped or coerced into betraying other Jews (including JAC chiefs) regardless of guilt or innocence (always the latter).
Being a devout ‘Soviet’ didn’t save you either. The JAC leadership was liquidated after serving its purpose while the JAC had been dissolved in 1948. Stalin wasn’t exterminating British or American “spies” he was eradicating Jews from Soviet life. He died after concocting one of the most notable purges of Jews in living memory.
Stalin prevented Trotsky from filling the politburo exclusively with Jews. His pogrom against the detested Jewry culminated in the ‘Doctor’s Plot’ trials and continued until the day he died. Despite communist rhetoric about crushing the very idea of nationhood in favour of a worker’s state, Stalin’s—and for that matter, all—permutations of communism were fundamentally nationalistic in practice. The NSN might just as well call themselves communists if their one goal is to combat Jewry. And their emphasis on “the virtues of labour” and how it brings about superior physicality fits nicely with the communist myth. “Intellectualism” in the USSR was exclusively at the service of the party.
Inconvenient lessons about the history they’ve selected to exemplify their pneuma are either unexplored or ignored. For instance, National Socialist theorist Alfred Rosenberg discredited the idea that National Socialism is universally adaptable when he counselled other countries to adopt measures “compatible with the national character and traditions of such a country,” basically telling them to buzz off.
He refuted that National Socialism could translate to the people of any nation but Germany. Rosenberg insisted that to attempt to copy Germany would be “futile” and “improper” and hammered the point, adding, “National Socialism is wholly and entirely German.”
As for the dream that if Hitler were resurrected, he would levitate above the NSN and bless them for their fealty to his legacy—that’s highly unlikely. The Fuhrer’s attitude to Australia was concerned exclusively with the fate of the approximately 60,000 Germans facing the indignity of “being under the control of a yellow race,” as Japan advanced southward toward us. Ideas were tabled, like those in the Kloss Report, circulated among relevant ministries during 1943-44, which recommended resettling the German population in a “depopulated” Tasmania. He meant the depopulation of Australians.
Worth heeding also is a report by Sydney’s German Consul Dr Rudolf Asmis drafted in 1935 but quoted only later in the Kloss Report in 1942 titled Australian Aboriginal Policy, in which he sneered, “If ever the day comes when Australia has to open its doors to mass immigration of the yellow peoples, whether by peaceful negotiation, or as a consequence of a military attack, then this will be the retribution for the unscrupulous extermination of the population of a continent, undertaken intentionally or tolerated, by the English, and the Australians, since they began their occupation.”
That sentiment sounds familiar although we tend to attribute it elsewhere.
Furthermore, a quote in the admittedly apocryphal Testament. While it’s widely believed to be either a forgery or simply doctored, it’s also said to accurately represent Hitler’s attitude to us: “The descendants of the convicts in Australia should inspire in us nothing but a feeling of supreme indifference.”
With friends like that who needs enemies? After all, Hitler slaughtered Slavs much to the disgust of his generals on the scandalous pretext of them being “subhuman.” These are fellow Whites. This is not a creed any proud Australian Nationalist would worship.
Given how we Australian Nationalists and those Nazi admirers are at such variances it is offensive and infuriating to learn the latter have appropriated the title “Nationalist.”
They do so, in part, because they are provocateurs. We don’t mean political agitators but sectaries stirring the social pot—not as bona fide revolutionaries—but to increase their public profile. If victory were achieved from surprising quarters, they’d not be pleased. What motivates them is being celebrated as champions of an epic campaign. They covet martyrdom and glory, in a fight where, despite the warning of all the foul fate befalling them, none is on offer. If they don’t win the hypothetical victory, it’s not worth celebrating.
A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. One could argue this caveat applies to them. Yet, the White Nationalist struggle has changed strategies only to end up back where it started. It has taken the mainstream road of appealing to respectability, but any ground gained was quickly lost. Nothing they propose, do or brainstorm is or will be original. They are treading over the same old ground while scoffing at any admonitions offered by those whom they deem to be has-beens and failures. By doing so, they are being guided by the “invisible hand” that seeks to divide them into a parallel stream against us.
Our enemies have had too long to develop strategies for thwarting dissidence, and if only the NSN’s cadre understood they are unwitting pawns in that tried and tested strategy the shock of irony would be overwhelming.
But that concussion would not be deeply felt because they are too insulated in their cult for reality to stun them. Their “leader” has an answer for any misfortune or defeat, and it entails proclaiming the former as success and the latter as a victory. But we live in a world where delusion and denial are the norms.
Consequently, the NSN’s dirty tricks department attempts to insinuate their group into organisations such as The Australian Natives Association with aggressive self-serving interpretations of the original Australian Nationalist movement, in which they wield their conclusions to try and invalidate nativism to assimilate it into NSN leader Thomas Sewell’s fantasy of his procrustean rule.
They cite quotations and accounts of historical Australian figures that one of them has dug up like Charlie waving his gold ticket to the chocolate factory—insisting their findings amount to incontrovertible proof that those revered men of the Australia First Movement were in actuality loyal to their conception of National Socialism.
This is their strategy for justifying an intrusion into groups that have—and want—no part of their toxicity. It is how they spuriously lay claim to our heritage and appropriate it as if to say: since your ‘Nationalist’ heroes were National Socialists then, ipso facto, we are the real nationalists. According to them, nearly 50 years of activism with its attendant studies, interviews with those men, and exhaustive research are false. All of the theorizing by better minds than theirs is flawed because of their precocious ego combined with unearthing a particular page from a history book. Maybe they just read a quote shared on social media.
Bear in mind, Sewell and his NSN are the first to cry foul when they’re called out or analysed, but they go about haunting other groups—embedding themselves on their social media assets and disrupting their business whenever the opportunity offers itself.
*
We must disabuse the initiate of the notion that Australian Nationalist heroes were ‘National Socialists’ in the vogue of pre-WWII Germany. Those we honour may have flirted with their impressions of what the NSDAP represented. So had those who intersect with Australian Nationalists but weren’t themselves such a species.
Eric Campbell, the reactionary leader of the New Guard, sought a ‘racial fascism.’ In the end, he established working ties with the “kosher fascists” of Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists. Upon his return from touring Europe, he introduced a loosely ‘fascist’ uniform to the rank and file and adopted the ‘Roman’ salute. Yet, this didn’t sit well with his followers and before long he was banished to obscurity.
Archconservative Robert Menzies paid lip service to revitalised Germany but characterized Hitler as a “dreamer” and couldn’t decide whether he was a “real German patriot” or a “mad swashbuckler.” Although, he predicted the German leader would become “one of the great men of the century,” he changed his tune after Chamberlain declared war. Nonetheless, he was branded a Nazi sympathiser.
While they are not revered by the Australian Nationalist movement newcomers are in the habit of assuming them so.
Campbell and his New Guard stood against NSW Labor Premier Jack Lang who we do regard so. Lang planned to default on the interest payments to Britain for war loans believing the money was better spent rescuing our people from the ravages of the Great Depression. NSW came within a weasel’s whisker of civil war, with the New Guard preparing to charge into battle against Lang’s “socialists” in the name of the Crown. Menzies, for his part, was also askance. He said, “Australians would be better off starving than abandoning cherished principles.”
Both sided with the Imperial Crown against a nationalist government over a debt that—like other Commonwealth countries—should’ve been waived given we were fighting England’s war, not ours. That Campbell and Menzies held so firmly to the side of the Crown over Australians immediately disqualified them from being Nationalists.
Others, like Alexander Rudd Mills, were involved with the Australia First Movement. Mills was a queer fish, so to speak.; a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal. He showed little interest in Australia and while he is associated with National Socialism, he wasn’t especially anti-Semitic. His bag was Odinism and, while he often wrote for The Publicist, he exemplified the quirky traveller that gravitated to its owner and editor, W.J. Miles and Percy Stephensen. Everyone recognises his sort and if you engage in Nationalist politics, you will meet them. They may even serve the organisation. But their presence, even contribution, don’t, by default, make them a Nationalist.
To properly understand our most celebrated—Percy Stephensen—one must think analytically as we have with Mills. Germany’s National Socialism was unfolding before him and, being a revolutionary, at first it appeared to echo the ambitions held by those who, like him, were working to define the movement. It is the difference between standing directly in front of an object and appraising it from a distance. In those passages they’ve found, they must appreciate ‘Inky’ hadn’t the benefit of hindsight, to identify the areas of incompatibility, until much later.
Overtures in The Publicist were more about thumbing their nose at Imperial Britain than supporting the Third Reich. Percy placed his Australianness ahead of any unlikely conversion to how they interpret National Socialism. Those who invoke Stephensen as evidence of Australian ‘Nazism’ equating to Nationalism fail to research further, or else they will find Stephensen made his position clear:
“The tradition of the A.I.F. will almost certainly, I believe, defend us against the extremes of fascism should the nasty little plotters ever screw up their courage to the point of putting matters to the test. The Heil Hitler buncombe which goes with fascism will be treated in Australia with the contempt such preposterous saluting and goose-stepping deserves. The only danger is that the nation might slip into loss of individual liberty by slow degrees, or be flummoxed into it at some false crisis (such as when Premier Lang had to close the bank). It is the duty of those who can think nationally to define now clearly what is meant by Australian liberty and democracy and Australian tradition, to keep watch upon the sneaking little Fascists and bureaucrats, and keep the nation warned against them, and against all who would fetter or restrict ideas, or the flow of ideas, in the Commonwealth.”
P.R. Stephensen
In terms of numbers, those with their names on a list, and who support a cause practically, morally and financially, Australian nationalists by far surpass neo-Nazis. But it doesn’t make us “big.”
Compared to other organisations of ‘grown-ups’ banished to the system’s fringes we are outnumbered and it’s sad because our policies which separate us from, say, One Nation—are the key to a homogenous Australian nation of one people, with a set of collective values, who cooperate for a national ambition, while sharing a firm sense of our identity as Australians. But it’s defining that “identity” that sends so many into paroxysms of doubt and confusion. You can’t have two-bob each way; either you’re with the people, or you support capital. Your choice determines your identity, as evidenced by the bifurcated character of our representative parties that could only reflect authentic social reality by risking true democracy.
Australian Nationalism is neither left nor right, and only those uninformed of what delineates the “right,” classify us as “far-right.” We’re not. Our third position is unique and hails from the Australian Laborist tradition that spawned the White Australia Policy and envisaged Australia as a European society unencumbered by the class prejudice that mired Europe and divided its nations and peoples for so long. However, having sprung “fully formed,” culturally from European Civilization, the new project of Australianness was native to the soil.
On the other hand, those whom today we’d call “conservative,” are located centre-right. Their ideological forebears were “tory” and occupied the right-sided extremity of a scale with no precedent for their position. Their British counterparts were more liberal. They expressed zero interest in Australia outside of its resources and how it might enrich them. They viewed the “people” only in terms of how they could be exploited for their profit-generating labour. Our finest plantation region was a tropical feature of North Queensland with its sugar and tobacco trade. The owners held White workers were unsuited to the conditions. They figured the black man would make a far better worker. By hiring “blackbirders” they set about kidnapping the ‘kanakas’—Islanders from the neighbouring South Pacific—onto ships and forcing them to toil here. That company is still with us, CSR.
Plantation owners also touted bringing in massive Indian labour, which would’ve amounted to a significant Indian population settling the top end but never succeeded—until now.
The Nationalists of the Labor Movement ended indentured labour, a testament to the fact that (outside of the heathen Chinaman), what motivated the WAP was not “hate”. They could no more bear to witness the black man’s appalling conditions than they would tolerate themselves. Although they were mindful too that the practice undermined the project of collective bargaining. Here, the “racists” of the NSN reveal their ignorance.
Perhaps the Australian Nationalist ethos is best summed up in the foreword for the third title in the John Curtin series Curtin’s Call—White Australia and European Civilization. In this collection of writings by Australia’s greatest Prime Minister, the authors state that the unashamed nationalist was, “…committed to Australia’s Immigration Restriction Act, known unofficially as the White Australia Policy. But he firmly believed in peaceful co-existence between the different races of the world. He regarded these two principles as fundamental to developing a peaceful world.”
We resent Thomas Sewell believing that year after year he can pluck away at our fibres. He is not a credible character to us; we know him too well. We have encountered his sort before. He makes us suspicious and leads us to wonder—given his success at creating a vehicle so useful to counter-terrorism—whether his ‘project’ is being manipulated against us. We can confidently name one individual in his orbit that we’re convinced is rotten—Stefanos Eracleous, or “Medi.”
Medi is short for the handle he used over the years in his aping of Australian nationalism, Australian Meditations. Only now he’s added a “51” to connote the number of Moslems killed by rogue gunman Brenton Tarrant in Christchurch. Those numerals behave as a symbol bound to attract the wrong sort of attention but that appears to be the point. Australian Nationalism doesn’t support the actions of Brenton Tarrant. For one thing— and playing the devil’s advocate—he chose the wrong targets. If he had to martyr himself there were so many more useful ways to go about it. But then ‘Medi’ is a provocateur, like the group that he buzzes around.
Long ago he pilfered the Eureka flag, which traces directly back to the prototype-nationalist Eureka Students League in 1974-76 and was thereafter taken up by National Resistance, then finding its home with National Action. The crossover from NA to the Australia First Party means that its partisan use as a symbol of rebellion against the globalist occupation of our country spiritually remains (outside the militant unions) the property of Australian Nationalists. Given so, Medi is guilty of flagrant defilement in our eyes, using it as he does to augment a delinquent gang.
But outside random encounters, he never approached the established Australian Nationalist community except to load up on our literature. Like all millennials (and now Generation Z) he went out on his own. However, he kept the flag. Styling himself as a nativist, Medi concurrently carried on as a patriot of his native Cyprus, donning his national costume and participating in events with his community. No Nationalist splits his loyalties like that, it stands to reason. Either he’s an Australian Nationalist or he’s a patriotic Greek Cypriot. You can, of course, hold dual sympathies but Medi collects specious allegiances like a boy scout gathering badges.
Medi conducts himself like his mentor, the fink Neil Erikson. Most tellingly, Stefanos became Erikson’s protégé. Eracleous has twice been convicted for misusing a carriage service to harass someone. This carries a potential seven-year sentence although that is the maximum. We wouldn’t have expected him to go to jail the first time, but to be convicted once again and walk? That raises flags.
That’s just how Erikson’s finking became apparent: he kept getting away with it against all odds. There is no doubt about Erikson’s informer status. But he ran out of luck when they handed him a short prison stint after faking his imprisonment and placing him in a “remand” cell beside Tom Sewell. That doesn’t happen unless he was being used to mine information from the ‘mate’ he burned numerously before, but whom he and Blair Cottrell forgave, demonstrating their gullibility.
Eracleous was given a second chance, which is always unlikely on the battlefield of far-right activism, but especially when you’ve breached the law so overtly.
Just like Erikson, Eracleous pesters Nationalists with his drip feed of disparate Nativist memorabilia, snippets of history, and memes appealing to the dinky-di spirit. Yet, it’s all random; he has no curriculum. At the same time, he’ll excrete on his Telegram channel all manner of material on behalf of the NSN, which is not just incongruous but is an outright provocation.
The NSN’s understanding of National Socialism, as it’s changed via the telephone game of revivalism, is as limited as their grasp of nationalist precepts. Instead of comparing ideologies, they contrast the advocates in a medieval contest. Their process of selection is biased. What do we mean?
Let’s say John X publishes an erudite and informed essay that discounts theories that they might swallow as inalienable truths. Despite John X’s experience, and his unarguable intellect, they don’t like John X because he’s older and critical of their activities. His message, thus, is invalidated while John X is shut down through a combination of generational conflict and their sensitivity to their intellectual vulnerability. The group cannot understand what John X is saying. Instead, they turn to Joel Z who is inexperienced with a pedestrian mind but whose rhetoric gratifies their limited terms of reference. In spite of this selective choice of messengers, Joel Z remains mistaken while fact, truth and reality are all unmoved. Nevertheless, the ‘group’ chooses Joel Z because he’s a contemporary of theirs. John X trips their sense of inadequacy so they combat that imbalance by elevating their peer, Joel Z, to the role of wise counsel. This is a trajectory that the “movement” (sic) has been on since 2015, which accounts, at least in part, for its disarray. The group is an echo chamber where ignorance is in constant circulation.
Therefore, we have not been drawn into a competition for ideas, per se, since the others don’t have any—theirs are all borrowed—it’s a rivalry of egos and personalities in a generational battle. This accounts for the digital age and all the unfortunate behaviours it fosters. Generations prior, the disrespectful character displayed by the crop of young influencers admired by what they’re calling the “dissident right” were unheard of. Their attitude is counter-intuitive.
Generational competition is a fact of life, and the young want what the old have. But in dissident politics, it makes no sense. Moreover, they are not political actors but rebellious youth inhabiting a subculture clad in the rhetoric of a cause. The incongruity of their position is evident with them, on one hand identifying notionally with “traditional” concepts, but on the other, repudiating the caretakers of those traditions.
Having stated we are not National Socialists (them), and they are not Nationalists (us), we must qualify our commentary on the basis that the former isn’t confined to its ideological barracks but inhabits a milieu that spills out into the broad church of the “dissident right.”
This term which has cropped up encapsulates the very essence of what we’re talking about and is elusive in its innocuousness. By appearance, it is a useful term to describe incongruent elements that agree only on certain positions but are otherwise alien to each other—being understood to be essentially unified. It is a species of language in which the “right” is united by suggestion. But the right is the reactionary end of the spectrum meaning that all who identify with it are in danger of being manipulated into the “traditionalist” camp. And the term ‘traditionalist’ has so much that needs unpacking to reveal its true connotations, but stripped bare, ultimately connotes “conservatism.”. Whereas the actual National Socialism of the NSDAP—which itself evolved, is not ‘of the right’—the style emulated by the NSN is very much so, despite any mystical allusions otherwise. Allowing this, more easily explains why they occupy space with those that, strictly speaking, are anathema to them.
Another explanation is that the newcomers to this overwhelming firmament cannot differentiate up from down. They’re unsure of themselves and reluctant to speak, partly out of fear of ostracization, but mainly because they lack understanding and therefore confidence in expressing their beliefs.
A neophyte posts something like, “I pretty much knew nothing about this subject so it’s a lot to take in.” At least they’re honest. They are constrained by perceptions of what opinions they are supposed to hold and beholden to inverse political correctness for the far-right.
A weak position exposes a newbie to a host of ideologies being less than skilfully expressed by young adherents. If they aren’t sure what they think they’ll entertain conflicting messages. Their “space” becomes a frat house in which disparate groups cross-fertilise fostering ‘right-wing miscegenation’ where the offspring is an ideological mulatto.
We wrote about how the NSN would degenerate into street theatre a while back, as their raison d’être dictates. To them, the ultimate reward is a confrontation with anti-fascists and airtime on the evening news. They will declare any chaotic junket as a “victory” because they’re insensible to the ulterior effect of their hijinks. To them, this is “doing” as opposed to being paralysed with “ideas.” Since they’re only after publicity, it’s all a victory, given their parameters of political understanding are so limited. Exposure amounts to growth, and ASIO would agree.
Let’s consider for a moment: Do you cease an activity just because ASIO will involve itself? No, but you don’t make it easy for them to trip you up. To date, the NSN has marketed itself as the quintessential up-and-coming extremist group to shadow. There is no more guaranteed way to do that than go “Nazi.” As we tirelessly argue, Australian Nationalism doesn’t need this Hollywood show, since we had the White Australia Policy. Our very existence as a people and nation was founded on Whiteness.
By saying that NSN is a honeytrap, we don’t mean they work for the state but rather that counter-terrorism and ASIO make splendid use of them. They are a tailor-made ‘right-wing extremist menace.’ We don’t believe Tom Sewell is a “fed” in the sense of him being their agent—just that he’s a gift to them. Putting aside his foolishness, naivete and arrogance, he is trapped in a role that demands he constantly services that part of the state tasked with the manufacture and distribution of folk devils and moral panics.
The laxness of their security, the high value they represent to cranks and misfits, along with their conforming to every imaginable cliché makes them a honeypot trap. The group dynamic ensures it since they’re dutybound
The NSN doesn’t do activism it has antics. . . During March, the NSN crashed a women’s event where they hijacked the limelight and the camera turned on them. They offered up stiff-arm salutes and paraded around like peacocks in their black uniform of adolescent shorts and bucket hats. What had tongues wagging was how the Victoria Police appeared to provide an escort service for them in and away from the protest site. Meanwhile, a gnashing rabble of pro-transgender fanatics reared behind a police barricade shouting and chanting their choruses of woke indoctrination.
The presence of the neo-Nazis would be exploited to further political agendas on both the left and right. Conflating the presence of invited speaker Moira Deeming, a Victorian Liberal MP and the trans-critical attendees with the ‘Nazis,’ at the Let Women Speak (LWS) event that hosted pro-woman activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (Posie Parker) at Parliament House steps served both sides. The trans lobby was keen to smear Keen-Minshull as a “fascist” while the Victorian Liberal Party was itching to ditch Deeming over her anti-trans views.
Given the ‘useful idiots’ invaded the pitch solely to glom off the issue to publicise their little group it’s little wonder that the cynical powers thought it a smashing idea to show them the “favouritism” of escorting them to the event so that they’d overshadow any meaningful conversation. And it worked—not for the NSN—but for the powers that be.
True to form, the NSN acted like the neo-Nazi caricatures they are: Sieg Heiling as they marched in formation in their ‘little boy’ uniforms.
Deeming was later expelled from the Victorian Liberals after the media and their leader John Pesutto all seized the opportunity to defame her as a ‘Nazi sympathiser.’ Because of the sensationalism generated, Keen-Minshull was attacked at the New Zealand leg of her tour by a vicious throng of violent pro-trans zealots. How was that achievement for the neo-Nazis? All they did was gift ‘the state’ and the trans lobby what they wanted. Yet, the NSN is spinning it as a victory since they believe that they “destroyed the Victorian Liberal Party” by “exposing them as pro-trans.” But all they did was drive out the one MP who voiced the issue in Parliament. The Liberals didn’t need abolishing as they’ve been a shambles since the days after Jeff Kennett’s reign as Premier ended. This will hardly nudge them back to the right or uncover their hypocrisy since politics is hypocrisy and the conservatives are so unpopular with the right expressly because they surrender political ground to the left in pursuit of populist appeal.
Then came their attempt to generate publicity off the back of the immigration avalanche that Labor is tipping on Australia, which will further send the Australian lifestyle into an irrecoverable downward spiral. Here is an issue that, like the draconian lockdown, demanded everyday Australians come out to protest; not a bratty pack of sexually frustrated anti-social deviants frolicking in shorts, shirts and bucket caps. You could almost smell their hormones. Once again, they took to the steps of Victoria Parliament House on May 13, but this time the state powers weren’t so generous. While outnumbered by ‘anti-fascists’ the NSN were corralled by police, pepper-sprayed, and thwarted from their main stunt which was to bench-lift a set of gym weights they’d brought along for a cringeworthy exhibition of their ‘strength.’
Before being moved on by police, the group occupied the parliament steps with a banner, which read, “STOP IMMIGRATION – LIVING SPACE FOR WHITES.”
Living space? Putting aside the embarrassing Hitlerian reference to lebensraum, ask why that sign is so bad. Because it reads like a plea for a concession; a signal of surrender. Additionally, the issue is scarcely addressed, and no effort went into the amateurish “rally” in terms of memorable slogans on placards or anything to signify they were genuine. The sign might as well have read, “JOIN THE NSN!” It failed to capitalise on practical reasons why immigration must be stopped, such as the cost-of-living pressures, housing, as well as the cultural and racial disenfranchisement of both Australians and Aborigines. There are innumerable possibilities for an anti-immigration rally, but then, they put brawn ahead of brains and it shows. Furthermore, at the sight of one of their younger members trying to bolt under pressure the ‘brawn’ boast is highly doubtful too. They lost.
This issue needs the support of mainstream Australians, which Australians Against Further Immigration—a one-issue party—achieved, if only on a minor scale. Yet, neo-Nazis? Living space? Again, they kicked an ‘own goal.’ But then who else would want to stand beside these jokers? They cannot get it through their thick skulls that Australians are not enamoured of ‘Nazis.’ Thereafter, they appear foolish: they want “men of action” not “ideas men,” and that’s the trouble. They have no men, they’ve got boys, and they have no ideas. But all in all, they have no idea. They are the vanity project of one man who has cultivated a silly beard in the style of Che Guevara; perhaps fancying himself as a U-boat captain. He appeals only to gauche young lads. Tom Sewell is a fantasist, not an ideologue. Nevertheless, what he lacks in magnetism, he tries to compensate for with mystique.
Sewell infamously claimed to have encountered Adolf Hitler after being electrocuted at work. The Fuhrer came to him like a vision of Mother Mary following the disorientating jolt. He didn’t visit his beloved Germany, or the descendants of anyone he’d recognise, but took time out from his busy schedule to contact an obscure New Zealander—whom he would’ve considered racially inferior—to bless him. Now, we doubt that even Sewell believes his own story, but that’s what he reckoned would sound good. It also supports our theory about the NSN appealing to ‘spirituality’ ahead of the practical matters facing Australians. Before that, he told The Penguin that his former Fuhrer—far-right social media personality Blair Cottrell—that Blair was “sent by God to save Australia.” He must’ve changed his mind.
Yet, if lacking charisma and faking an air of mystery aren’t bad enough, losing an informal debate with Rebel Media impresario and pro-Zionist Avi Yemini betrayed Sewell’s lack of erudition and revealed he’s not very quick off the draw.
The thing in Avi’s favour is that nobody likes him. That gives him a thick skin and accordingly an “edge,” since he’s hardened by abuse. When he attempted to talk to protesters, he was physically attacked. So, he then wandered over to the NSN to request an interview. Far be it for Sewell to reject an opportunity to get his face on camera. Also, Avi presented him with an opening to test his rhetorical anti-Semitic techniques; his trusty NS homilies. Sadly, they failed to hit their mark. When Sewell accused him of being an agent of the Jews, Yemini made a fair point by saying that he wasn’t popular with Jews either. This would be so.
Sticking to his theme of “the Jews” was Sewell’s undoing since all he had to rely on was learned from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Czarist forgery. He proposed no serious argument about the reality of high immigration, other than the point about multiculturalism being forced onto Australians. Although, while “Jews” are his one trick pony, he was on the firmer ground highlighting the taboo around questioning the veracity of the so-called Holocaust.
This abeyance marks the difference between David Duke and Tom Sewell: Duke researched the Jews exhaustively putting his bias to one side, but Sewell is content with repeating universal NS cliches. Given how nothing is black or white but a myriad of shades, he showed his Achilles heel’, no matter how he and his followers deny it. We’re by no means giving a pass to the Zionists, we’re just saying that Tom Sewell didn’t do himself justice on the subject. More to the point, Avi Yemini is a weird fish who isn’t what you assume. He’s less about all you imagine and more, like the others, about himself. He is a square peg in a round hole. Nevertheless, given that anti-Semitism is supposedly Sewell’s go-to topic, he failed to make an impression.
Similarly, Yemini was correct in comparing him to the protesters, since we argue as much ourselves. They are two sides of the same coin, which he may indeed have said too. This was due to him saying that even the left is anti-Zionist. Admitting that Yemini wiped the floor with him being objective. We had no horse in that race so we call it as we see it, right down to awarding Yemini marks for mocking their “gay” shorts, which Sewell tried turning against Avi by suggesting his observation was “homo-erotic.” Now, given the self-paradoxical machismo that characterizes the NSN, we fear that’s the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.
Avi’s “gotcha” question was about how the NSN has failed to grow since he covered the LWS rally. He said the same faces were present. The left made much of this too, although normally we wouldn’t since we know what it’s like—given Sewell’s aching desire to reign over a million young lads in black shorts and bucket caps—we recognise it’s another weak spot for him.
We pull back from any misinterpreted flattery of Yemini because the Rebel News video taken by Avi discloses the Victoria Police approaching him to disclose what could be construed as a working relationship. Still, his brushes with the law make that questionable. Now, it’s good that they’re chasing up those insane leftists that assaulted him, but such a cosy rapport wouldn’t be extended to us. Is it because he’s a Jew? Sewell would argue yes. Are the Victoria Police indifferent to both the leftist protesters and ‘the Nazis’? Undoubtedly. If nothing else it dispels the notion that VicPol works for anybody but the Vic Government. On that score, Sewell earns credit for being civil to Yemini whereas the leftists were aggressive and hypnotized, accusing him of “dividing the workers” and labelling him a “Nazi.” Those are fine symptoms of cognitive dissonance.
This is the great revelation of the footage, the outright nastiness of Antifa, of whom one tried lecturing Sri Lankan podcaster ‘The Real Rushkan’ both on his occupation as a wedding photographer and his beard. Imagine, on one hand claiming to represent “the workers” and on the other disparaging a man’s work; never mind that they are in no position to hand out tips on personal grooming. The NSN never got so personal. And one Antifa person waved a Palestinian flag, a direct slur on Avi, for there was no other reason to bring it—unless they strayed from the NSN’s camp.
The violence on the day was directed by ‘Antifa’ at Avi Yemini, a Jew, and the NSN, whom they pelted with missiles. None of this was acknowledged in the thrombosis of the leftist media’s coverage of the “Nazis” in Melbourne. Jeff Sparrow never mentioned it, Tom Tanuki wouldn’t dare. That’s the NSN’s win over the left right there and those on Avi’s channel recognised it. But because they have no “intellectuals” the NSN didn’t identify this moral victory or capitalise on it (not that they were ever likely to be able to). Then again, that presupposes they knew about the behaviour across the barricade. But they could’ve found that by chasing it up on Rebel Media.
Again, both groups were operating on a fantasy level, drunk on their historic ideological role models and expressing opinions dictated by their archetypes. This may be why Sewell gave the expected neo-Nazi response when asked about Ukraine and the Azov Battalion. Although Yemini butted in and never allowed him to give full answers, the gist of Sewell’s position is the support of Ukraine, but “no more brothers wars.” Sewell doesn’t grasp NATO’s provocations against Russia or how the ‘Nazi’ Ukrainian nationalists, who’re adrift from reality, sided with the US and its “Jew” puppet Zelensky just to get a shot at their historic enemy. As to “brother wars,” that’s very true, but bear in mind the culture war leading to the Great Replacement involves Whites against Whites.
Returning to his tete-a-tete with Yemini, we revisit the reason we have authored this piece. During their confab, Sewell referred to his group as “Nationalists.” Nationalists have for so long argued the distinction that we see this as a direct provocation in Sewell’s never-ending mission to steal our platform. He cannot succeed. The trouble is, the corruption of the term by the NSN and the anti-Islam kosher “patriots” before them puts in danger all the ideals and heritage encapsulated in the word. It bastardises it into a meaningless expression of jingoism.
Nationalism does not carry the baggage of either of the lunatic camps that were present in Melbourne on May 13. It is not hampered by atavism or delusionary fables. It is wholly Australian and embedded in our historical past. Its dedication was to more than simply race, but higher ideals. Its creed was not “hate” but pragmatism about the project of nationhood: and history, by betraying that project, has proved it right.
The key to understanding the discrepancies between Nationalism and what kids like those in NSN eagerly accept as National Socialism is not via the minutiae of the ideologies but through the people; which is exactly what Alfred Rosenberg said. And the Australian people will never buy into National Socialism.
More relevantly, why look to a foreign ‘God’ for White Salvation when Australia was founded on a policy of Whiteness that came from the very movement which Australian Nationalism carries on with? It is the loyal thing to do. You cannot disingenuously slap a Eureka stamp on a foreign ideology and claim it’s legitimate—that’s treason.
Given that, in the end, the only logical possibility is that Australians of all ages, and classes, are enlightened about who they are and what is becoming of them (and it’s difficult writing that sentence without feeling ridiculous), how are an egocentric young cabal of semi-literate bodybuilders parading around as “Nazis” likely to influence anybody? As ASIO sees it, their danger resides not in the ideas but in how their rhetoric might radicalise other ignorant youth. They are less worried about the perils faced by them lifting the veil of the ‘great Jewish conspiracy’ and more concerned with what a ‘martyr’ might do in the name of lifting it off.
It is mistaken to believe that most Australians are ignorant of Jewish shenanigans. A natural mistrust of Jews is part and parcel of being a non-Jew—or non-anything-else for that matter. America’s complicated ties with Israel through finance and evangelical Christianity created what we call the “Zionist” conspiracy. This is how, post-World War 2, we came to be overwhelmed by Jewish-instigated ‘systems.’ The League of Rights preoccupied itself with conservative ideals and Jewish conspiracy through a prism of religiosity.
The NSN (and others) continually focus on building “a movement,” failing to understand their crossed purposes. For example, Australian Nationalists do not want to be “out front” leading the Australian people—we want the Australian people out front of us. Thinking in terms of a ‘movement’ is a limited preoccupation that involves sectionalising. It is the creation of a parallel reality. ■
Canadian Nationalist Paul Fromm discusses his recent Twitter banning along with all the -low-down on the freedom movement’s struggle against Justin Trudeau’s woke-washing of Canada.
VideoCanadian Nationalist Paul Fromm discusses his recent Twitter banning along with all the -low-down on the freedom movement’s struggle against Justin Trudeau’s woke-washing of Canada.
Nick Griffin and Dr Jim Saleam discuss the death of the West in a wide-ranging discussion from the Irish anti-immigration protests and the great replacement, to how the war in Ukraine may spell the end of the Western global hegemony, and whether AI will actually […]
VideoNick Griffin and Dr Jim Saleam discuss the death of the West in a wide-ranging discussion from the Irish anti-immigration protests and the great replacement, to how the war in Ukraine may spell the end of the Western global hegemony, and whether AI will actually assist the mission of the elite to wipe us out.
Australians are labouring to comprehend the proposed Aboriginal Voice [to] Parliament. We are not being asked, but coerced, into voting “yes” to this nebulously defined “voice” based on the invocation of human rights about the plight of “indigenous people.” We are pressured to enable this […]
AboriginesAustralians are labouring to comprehend the proposed Aboriginal Voice [to] Parliament. We are not being asked, but coerced, into voting “yes” to this nebulously defined “voice” based on the invocation of human rights about the plight of “indigenous people.” We are pressured to enable this Voice that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese characterises as a “modest change”—in the name of “colonial oppression” and other demonic white vices. Many will succumb to the moral blackmail and vote yes “from the heart.” But we should use our heads because hearts are easily manipulated. Unless the contagion of hyper liberalism has melted our capacity for reason, we will vehemently vote NO. The Voice is a big bowl of wrong, and we’ll explain why. Hold onto your paternal britches, we’re about to disappear down a rabbit hole.
Nobody in the affirmative camp can articulate what it all means. Either that or if they did, their cover would be blown, as much of the detail is being kept quiet about. They misleadingly offer generalities and assurances about it being “the right thing” to do. But what would they do—or more to the point, what would we be doing—by voting yes to this proposal? Most importantly, why are we being asked to allow it? And how do we define “right” and “wrong” in this matter?
Bear in mind, “they”—those from the Referendum Working Group cobbling it together—can’t agree on what it will be. Many contradictory statements are being aired. Ultimately, though, the idea is to compose a satisfactory definition and worry about the detail after it’s passed.
Anthony Albanese revealed at a Canberra press conference on March 23, “The question Australians will be asked at this year’s referendum is very simple. It will read, ‘A proposed law: to alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this approved alteration?’”
He added, “That’s the question before the Australian people. Nothing more but nothing less.” This is the equivalent of somebody asking you, “Can you loan me fifty dollars?” When you enquire why, they respond, “Uh-uh, that wasn’t the question.”
Albanese continued to outline The Voice, explaining, “There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples; The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have the power to make laws concerning matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.”
Albanese flicking his lizard tongue briefed the gallery that, “The Voice will work alongside existing organisations and traditional structures, respecting their work. And, as has been made clear very many times, the Voice will not have veto power, and it will not deliver programs, or manage … funding.
“One person, one vote. People from all faiths, backgrounds and traditions. All of us will have an equal say. All of us can own an equal share of what I believe will be an inspiring and unifying Australian moment.”
Albanese shared only the “principle” of The Voice, that which would appear in the Constitution. The details and legislation would be nutted out for parliament to vote on later.
At its most benign, The Voice is touted as a means for Aboriginal and Islander people to advise the Australian government about policies and laws affecting their communities. To achieve this, they and their supporters maintain recognition of Aborigines in the constitution is vital. However, as critics argue, doing so is tantamount to preferential treatment.
And it must be asked, why do they need special consideration, indeed, why do they deserve it? Is this an admission of failure? Are their terms of surrender power-sharing? Must we vote yes because they were here first? We’re all here now; Australians are as indigenous as any full-blooded black fella. But more immigrants keep coming courtesy of the very government plugging The Voice. Contradictive policies are in motion.
The given reason Australia needs an Aboriginal voice [to] Parliament is: “For the recognition of … the unique place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in Australian history and contemporary Australian society.”
Yes, if nothing else, it’s unique.
We worship the Primitive, and Aboriginal exceptionalism is a powerful currency. Their culture is valid, ours is not. They are virtuous and through secularity, we’re spiritually bereft. We are alternately their oppressors but they demand we adopt them all the same. Throughout the past 230 years, we’ve done nothing but “genocide” them and steal their land. Their relationship with the “country” is deep and mystical while all we do is rape their hallowed spread.
Thus, we address the syrupy Uluru Statement from the Heart. Uluru is a sacred site for Aborigines “owned” by “traditional custodians” with peculiar animism that connects them to “country” in a way mere European descendants couldn’t begin to fathom. People who never discovered the wheel or anything beyond fire and crude tools teach us a lot.
The paradox of their inability to function at a comparative level as the most unsophisticated migrant can only be blamed on “whitey.” Even though the full-blooded Aborigine is, like the New Guinean highlanders—and the Amazon tribes frozen in time—an anthropological curiosity. We shall refrain from asking why quaint people merit such esteem, much less query the wisdom of inviting them to influence the affairs of a modern state. But the question rests while we remind the reader that everything about them is reinforced by a “narrative” we must accept unconditionally.
When facts don’t suit the narrative, they change them. If history refuses to bear out those “facts,” they revise that history with “scientific discoveries” that present their evolutionary shortcomings in a manner that contrariwise advances them. We find that, holistically, they shame us with their idyllic systems, harmonious culture and lifestyle. Take the Bruce Pascoe controversy. Pascoe, who claims ancestral links to no less than three Aboriginal tribes, is a 76-year-old Melbourne writer raised to prominence on the back of his book Dark Emu.
This 2014 non-fiction fable advanced the theory that colonial historiography of Aboriginal existence was tainted and that Aborigines had sophisticated agricultural practises, construction techniques, and other proof of advancement that repudiates the “hunter-gatherer” label. In effect, they were as good as us, only their methods were environmentally sound. Academia bought into this text, which is being taught in Australian schools. The ABC promoted him heavily, while Melbourne University made him a professor.
The trouble is, like Pascoe’s Aboriginal heritage, it is false. Aborigines have themselves questioned Pascoe’s claims of Aboriginality. Elsewhere, scholars criticized Pascoe’s dubious revisionism. But not many. See, Pascoe’s value resides in the advancement of the Aboriginal agenda. Not the Aboriginal people, but the patronising white liberal program for them. Consequently, a biased search engine like Google only links to content affirming Pascoe’s work. Later, we’ll learn why. But at least two Aboriginal groups declared him a fake Aborigine, while his declarations of Aboriginal ancestry on his maternal side were proven untrue. He even admitted the ‘error.’ None of this has tarnished him, however.
So, what was his story? Pascoe has long written from an Aboriginal perspective. In the 1980s, a review of one of his books, while praising the authorship, criticized his rendition for appropriating an Aboriginal viewpoint in its narration. Then, in his 40s, Pascoe miraculously unearthed his Aboriginal lineage, thus, validating his work. And despite the obviousness of his fraud, he is defended by left-wing pundits.
Analysis of Census data divulges that anywhere up to one-third of those claiming to descend from Aborigines are lying. Yet, that area of “identity” is a taboo as unchallengeable as transgender assertions about gender identification—As Andrew Bolt discovered in the landmark case Eatock vs Bolt. Bugger how it affects actual Aborigines, whom white liberals masquerading as Aborigines—the latter who complain are displacing them in the top jobs in Aboriginal land councils and organisations—squeeze their livelihood. Furthermore, they are contributing to actual Aboriginal genocide.
___
Returning to Uluru, where the international tourist attraction formerly known as Ayer’s Rock hunches, we meet another lie—that of the Rock’s sacredness. At least, it’s not sacred in that sense. The story of the Rock is secret: its ancestral mythology, not the physical rock. To emphasise the opposite is fallacious. It’s not a pernickety distinction, but a crucial delineation, or, put another way, imbuing the rock with the numinous of furtive tribal myth is a deception.
Shaky foundations crumble. Likewise, whatsoever is founded on a lie is untrue. And we won’t mince words here. But the Uluru Statement from the Heart—evincing the spirituality of Ayer’s Rock—is bolshy propaganda.
Central to this assemblage of emotive sentences is that Uluru is a pure invention like the Welcome to Country ceremony Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley cobbled together in 1976 to impress visiting Māori. Aborigines have no such words in their languages. Also, the Welcome to Country ceremony is now a source of income for Aborigines. That amounts to them being a tourist attraction. Nobody is highlighting the inherent condescension of institutionalising this made-up ritual.
Climbing Ayer’s Rock—or Uluru—was banned in October 2019. The board of the Uluru-Kata Tjuta National Park referred to the sanctity of the site, aggrieved at how they believed it was being disrespectfully treated by tourists. They shut down the climb. The problem is the Rock’s most senior custodian, the late Paddy Uluru, an Anangu man discredited the sacredness myth. It’s just a rock.
Tourists have climbed the rock for as long as they’ve travelled to the Northern Territory. But objections arose only in recent years. Records indicate that 35 people have died attempting the climb while many more have gotten stuck since 1946. Rescue attempts are costly and pose logistical difficulties. Was this the real reason?
Paddy Uluru died in 1979 but before that, he assured that the Rock held no cultural significance other than in story-time. Various interviews with him are recorded. One of those was published in The Alice Springs News. Paddy was quoted as saying, “If tourists are stupid enough to climb the Rock, go for it.” He added (and this is doubtless paraphrased): “The physical act of climbing is of no cultural interest.”
This is one case of weaponizing the mysteries of Aboriginal culture against Australia. When it comes to Aboriginal custom, we only have their word for it. And we’re accepting the say-so of people both bearing a grudge and recognising an opportunity. We cannot be sure these are true stories or agreed-upon fabrications. You may call us cynical. Tribal lore has been invoked elsewhere to restrict Australians from enjoying nature. Parks Victoria banned rock climbers from scaling a third of the Victorian Grampians in a decision supported by three “traditional owner” corporations with Title over the parkland. Those indifferent to the decision, who may not visit nature, or are swayed by anecdotes of “sacred rock art” being desecrated, might assume that it’s a good idea from the context of preserving the parkland. But that spurious reasoning obviates the serious implications—that this is the restriction of movement determined by race—all based on a debatable “lore.”
——
The Stolen Lands narrative heavily relies on the myth of “genocide.” Certainly, Aborigines died, but so did settlers. Contemporary history is not so keen to vitiate the potency of its “shaming” when it comes to the so-called “massacre” of Aborigines. It seldom countenances vigilante revanchism—retaliation against Aboriginal raiding parties that slaughtered settlers for their goods.
It presupposes that killing Aborigines was tolerable even though from the moment of Captain Phillip’s arrival the safeguarding of their persons was encoded in law and severely punished if broken. Furthermore, the narrative—crafted by partisan white historians—seeks to romanticise delinquency as Aboriginal resistance.
One of those debunking falsities about European Settler brutality is Keith Windschuttle. An Australian historian and editor of the conservative magazine Quadrant, Keith Windschuttle holds a list of scholarly accomplishments. Formerly of the political Left, in the 1970s he shifted Rightwards. This suggests he writes, not from a fixed position, but from discovery. If enlightenment underscores his political conversion, then truth-seeking facilitated that journey.
Windschuttle initiated “history wars” by holding contemporary historians to account for their ‘laziness,’ ‘arrogance,’ and proclivity to patronise. We direct the reader to his investigations from which he found the traditional academics skewing research. Among those was an inflation of the death toll of Aborigines during the confrontations with colonial settlers. This was particularly so with his examination of the ‘Black War’ against Tasmanian Aborigines. Similarly, he dared to point out that the weight of historical analysis by this “orthodox school” of historians recounting the Australian frontier attributed all of the hostility to the Europeans while intentionally casting the Aborigines in a passive-but-heroic light.
Windschuttle contends that attacks on English settlements, far from “guerrilla warfare” were iniquitous intrusion—home invasion—in pursuit of sugar, tobacco, tea and flour supplies. After all, to suggest otherwise is to contend that settlers killed Aborigines for sport, which is ludicrous, and unsupportable. His scrutiny of the “orthodox historians” unearthed a tendency for them to fabricate sources, manipulate facts, and draw from unreliable testimony. In regards to Tasmania, he adduces introduced disease accounted for the majority of Aboriginal deaths. Additionally, he challenges the myth of the noble savage, observing that Tasmanian Aborigines were dysfunctional primitives facing extinction due to cultural practices involving their women. It’s hard to consider the Aboriginal situation today and repudiate his fallacy.
And his studies dug up instructive anecdotes, such as an 1820 account by a British sailor who recorded the flight of Aboriginal women from their considerably “harsh” and “tyrannical” husbands, prostituting themselves to convicts, sailors, and sealers then following them around and, sadly, contracting venereal diseases as a consequence of this promiscuity. Those maladies aided the “genocide” but were misadventures. More ignominious, their husbands acted as pimps and traded their womenfolk.
Appraising the “truth” of massacres of Aboriginal peoples, historians maintain butchery was rampant and whatever figures conjured are “conservative” estimations. Investigations into this alleged dark cloud of our history are ongoing. But even here Windschuttle makes the most sense.
He has no dispute with the Myall Creek Massacre of June 1838, in which 28 Aborigines were slaughtered by 12 stockmen following the discovery of a murdered cow. The bloodshed occurred at the station owned by pastoralist Henry Dangar, in NSW. By December, seven men were hanged for the crime.
However, he draws the line at the so-called Hospital Creek massacre of 1859. The historian failed to uncover any record of the “400 indigenous Australians” supposedly slain there. A plaque commemorates the “slaughter” at the alleged site, yet Windschuttle found nothing in Trove, Parliamentary records contained no reference, and the only account appeared by circulation in a generic 1914 newspaper article citing as a source a “noted character” named “One-Eyed Pete” who claimed to have survived the onslaught. As Windschuttle reasons, if such a large-scale massacre occurred, somebody (aside from One-Eyed Pete) had to notice it. Disposing of 400 bodies would’ve required effort and the presence of attentive carrion circling overhead could hardly have gone unnoticed.
Hereafter, we are asked to simply accept based on probability, that many other massacres of hundreds of “men, women and children” happened. If, like Windschuttle, you question putative history, your obstinacy means your entire value system is questionable.
Accordingly, Windschuttle has copped criticism for his controversial findings and ‘interpretations.’ Among these were myths about Aboriginal land ownership: they had no concept of trespass and were therefore not bound within territorial borders; throwing Native Title into question. Also, anathema to Aboriginal culture was the reprehension of what we consider crimes, especially murder. Killing persons outside of their immediate clan was no big deal. That’s not to suggest they habitually engaged in reckless killing but when advantage presented itself, they were no more averse to committing such acts than the worst of the convicts, or the pastoralists.
At what point do we free ourselves enough to state that the Aboriginal way of life is over? Modernity declared it obsolete. The failure of their ‘noble savagery’ spelt their end; not the aggression of the ‘imperialists’ who were, ironically, the ones to import all the advances in ethical and moral thought.
While this is but a snippet of a substantiative subject, the insight buttresses our argument regarding The Voice—it is unashamed propaganda. We see it in history, hear it on the streets, and are bombarded with it by the news. ABC and SBS, publicly funded broadcasters, drive us to fatigue with the constant radiation of this narrative.
We cannot click on a government site without the repetitious pop-up of the ubiquitous “acknowledgement” notice. Suddenly, we have to hear about “traditional owners” of just about every laneway and underpass from here to the Nullarbor. And it’s time to call codswallop on the whole project.
For instance, Aboriginal art is a scam—a complete nobble. Take their “dot painting.” This is about as Aboriginal as Andy Warhol’s soup tins. Western Desert Art—or “dot painting”—was introduced to Aborigines by a white school teacher in the 1970s. He was called Geoffrey Bardon and he taught art. The dot painting was a testament to his excellence as a teacher. During his tenure in Alice Springs in 1971 he encouraged Kooris to express their stories in paint, guiding them in technique, and this lucrative grift was born. Even the Aboriginal flag—the symbol of black resistance in this country—was designed by a ‘gubbah.’
Finally, logic, not historicism, quashes the “oldest continuous culture” canard since they’re saying that it never evolved. That is epic spin: a magical flip of what could alternatively be called “the world’s most stagnant culture.” Then, of course, the word “culture” serves its purpose without illustrating what that culture is. Moreover, the 60,000-year clock—if that’s even true—stopped counting 230 years ago. If it hadn’t, and they still lived that beatific existence today, then “national workforce shortages,” “global supply interruptions,” and “rising fuel prices” wouldn’t affect their remote communities a fleck.
Culture is such an important measurement of civilisation—which is not a word we associate with Aborigines—so in the case of the black mob, either collectivist expertise turns a blind eye or is deadpan about the implications of being stuck still for 60 millennia. But a spear and a boomerang hardly rate above the achievements of those who forged bronze and iron, advancing technology. And you could never travel to the moon on a dingo’s leg bone. After “60,000 years” you’d imagine they’d have come up with something. But no, bugger all.
Without wringing our way through the entirety of Albanese’s transcript from March 23, the questions from the press gallery, and emotive posturing from board members, we’ll just say this is strictly about Black VS White.
Quoted on the ‘Ross River dialogue’ page of the Uluru Statement website, an Aboriginal fella insists, “We don’t want to be white people.”
The rhetoric of firebrand Aboriginal lobbyists decries, “Colonialism”; employs slogans like “White Australia has a Black History”; “You are on Stolen Land”; “200 Years of White Lies”; “Decolonise Australia”; and the litany of Aboriginal agitprop.
Reality is blurred in their mantras, talking points, and rehearsed rhetoric. It is a salvo of grievance mortars primed with impossible and illogical demands. We hear all of this coming out of America, and have, ever since the late 1960s when the socialist Black Power movement arose.
We’re assailed on Australia Day with the African-American-affected “Black Lives Matter” sloganeering, incorporating the Aboriginal lobby into that Marxist franchise. In 2020, BLM rallies were held across the country. Militant Aboriginal groups and their left-wing counterparts “identified with” George Floyd, the African American felon who overdosed on fentanyl while being restrained by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. As such, the incident, exploited for a radical political agenda in the US, was adopted by the Aboriginal grievance lobby that conflated deaths in custody with Floyd’s self-inflicted demise.
Their rhetoric stinks of the Marxist manipulation of speech. Meaningless designates such as the imported “First Nations” have become universal. Crucially, this movement complements the globalist “indigenous peoples” victimhood program that seeks to elevate those so-called indigenous peoples to a sainted position. The same is true in America, Canada, and the displacement of native Whites throughout Europe by weaponizing immigration from non-White countries; mainly the Subcontinent, Middle East and Africa. The agenda is singularly anti-European. Its justification is a payback for the bygone days of imperialism; withholding the argument that European Imperialism advanced Africa and the East.
They betray their malevolence by conflating ‘Australians’ with ‘imperialism’ and ‘colonisation.’ Australia was a project that sought to retain the best of European civilisation while disposing of class tyranny.
England in her glory days of Empire settled ‘the colony,’ but they’re making no demands for “reparations” from the English Government (reparations do and will constitute a major part of The Voice program). ‘Australians’ were prisoners of His Majesty and enjoyed fewer rights than the natives. Australia grew out of the states and territories peopled by the descendants of ex-convicts, settlers, and immigrants from Europe and America.
But their divisive bunkum conceals bigger incongruities in their logic and you only need to return to earlier in this article when Albanese stated, “…from all backgrounds, faiths and traditions.” This is a critical contradiction in the conception of The Voice.
Australia hasn’t been “White” for all too long. Yet, these lobbyists are silent about immigration. Moreover, when questioned, their representatives claim to “welcome” non-White immigrants. They have no problem with the Chinese, Indians, Africans, Arabs, etc. Yet, how can they condemn Australians as “colonisers” and consider those visa-entitled invaders spiritual allies? Their racial grievance is out of time and place; it is inconsistent and much of their activities are crafted and acted by white liberals. The architects of The Voice are careful to acknowledge ‘Multicultural Australia,’ as the third Australian era in their report.
Mind you, stuck out in remote communities, how could the true mob know what’s going on with immigration? They’re hoodwinked by the urban Aborigines and their Jewish campaigner friends who love opening borders in White countries.
All aside, by overlooking multi-racial Australia, the Aboriginal Lobby cannot perceive the indifference with which fortune-seeking migrant communities regard them—as the Australia that fostered that antagonism is gone and economic advantage attracts them. In short, why would those who aren’t sectional allies give a cuss? What’s in it for them? These communities are preoccupied with their own. Outright enmity exists between other “coloureds” (such as Islanders and Africans) and themselves. Even more feeble is their lack of comprehension regarding the reality of Australia—that we are a province of the American empire.
A disconnect splits the liberals championing ‘Aboriginal rights’ and those styling themselves as ‘Aboriginal warriors.’
Senator Lidia Thorpe has made herself widely known, and quite disliked. The former Melbourne-based Greens Senator broke away from her Party, The Greens, over disagreements with their stance on The Voice. Previously, she was forced to resign as Deputy Leader of the Greens when her former relationship with the President of the Rebels outlaw motorcycle club was exposed. At the time, she served on a committee investigating bikie gangs. But her differences over The Voice were too much and she crossed the floor.
Ms Thorpe is a “radical” as they come. For her, nothing short of a sovereign Aboriginal parliament will suffice. Thorpe believes before any Voice there must be a treaty. She advocates for Australians to “pay the rent,” or financial compensation for every Aborigine.
The mother of three hails from a family of Aboriginal agitators. Her mother, Marjorie Thorpe, co-commissioned The Stolen Generations inquiry. Her grandmother, Alma Thorpe, helped found the Victorian Aboriginal Health Service. Robbie Thorpe, her uncle, was a social justice warrior from way back. Meriki Onus co-founded the extremist Warriors of Aboriginal Resistance (WAR) collective behind the Australian Aboriginal Sovereignty movement.
Thorpe, 49, is not so open about her father, Roy Illingworth. Firstly, she refused to take his name. The father and daughter are estranged. Illingworth revealed all to conservative commentator Andrew Bolt in an interview with Sky News. He described his daughter as, “a very racist person.” By all accounts, the paternal side of her family threatens her image. Illingworth told Bolt, “She has got an English background, as well as Irish—the convict side of English. She’s never mentioned anything about her white father.”
Dispelling any kinship with the “struggles” of her people while growing up, he said, “She was spoilt. She never went without, she got everything she wanted, and she knows that too.” He added, “She’s even more privileged now with the position she’s in. Maybe the power’s gone to her head?”
Speculating on how the true Aborigines of his day might view his daughter, he admitted, “They wouldn’t be liking any of this either.”
Thorpe thrives on controversy and is rarely out of the news. Her outbursts are frequent but none so impressive as an encounter with a group of men outside a Melbourne nightclub in the small hours of a mid-April night. The incident was filmed and the news went viral. In the fallout, Thorpe would claim “harassment” while all the evidence exposes a “belligerent drunk.”
The Senator was celebrating Shelley Johnson’s 50th with her girlfriends, one of whom was NAIDOC chair, Stacie Piper. The birthday girl on that night is the brother of Brisbane Lions AFL hero Chris Johnson, who looks White, but is purportedly “indigenous.” For undisclosed reasons, the group wound up at a Melbourne strip club. The establishment’s late hours might’ve enticed them. It’s styled more as a venue where scantily-clad models serve drinks.
Regardless, staff were alerted to Thorpe’s behaviour after she singled out white male patrons, reportedly accosting and accusing them of “stealing my land.”
Financially sound, and privileged with a “voice” denied to most Australians, her feral antics are not only undignified but histrionic. Thorpe relies on public exhibition but with an A-lister’s petulance. She embodies the obnoxious “Urban Aborigine.” The fracas at Maxine’s Gentlemen’s Club epitomised her chauvinism.
In the video, Thorpe is dressed like criminal matriarch Roberta Williams. She reacts to being called a “racist dog.” Blacks and whites are witnessing her blow up. Thorpe squares up to the men, singling out the blacks by raving, “All I want to say to the black brothers there and anyone that we’re fighting. Any black man that stands with the f—— while little c— like that, ‘youse’ can all get F—d too!”
Later, the Senator would claim she was the victim of racist bullying, even though a member of her entourage admitted to the media that Thorpe was “out of control.”
Before that, she taunted her detractors by mocking them as having small penises; emphasising the “small” by making a circle with her fingers. Never mind the big vagina. One patron doesn’t hide his contempt, asking, “How does someone like you get into parliament?”
Thorpe is triggered, and goes ballistic, shouting, “We’ve been repressed all our f—— life in this country and you let this little dog speak!”
Thorpe resists her friends’ efforts to drag her into a waiting taxi and returns with her finger levelled menacingly—pointing the bone, as it were—while threatening, “You, you are marked!”
During the encounter, Thorpe vacillated back and forth from the taxi while her companions desperately tried coaxing her in. But Thorpe was driving the confrontation. CCTV footage contradicts her claims of provocation, clearly showing the men remaining calm while, in her final stage of ranting, she invasively films them with her phone. The majority ignores her.
Is the woman’s indignation pathological? Was she drunk? Management observed her conduct inside the club and when reporting on her later it was stated that she didn’t appear inebriated, although staff warned her to relax.
Bearing in mind her underworld contacts, is Thorpe partial to cocaine? That might explain a lot. A hankering for the devil’s dandruff may be responsible for her fractiousness as well as masking the effects of liquor. Yet, can it also account for her cognitive dissonance? Thorpe has failed to perceive the most uncomfortable truths about herself—that corrupted blood runs through veins.
Nothing has harmed the Aboriginal race more than miscegenation, which she is a product of. Whether Thorpe likes it or not, she is an exemplar of why pureblood Aborigines are in decline. Although she indisputably has Aboriginal blood, Thorpe typifies the evangelical fervour of the 1% Aborigine who goes native with a vengeance.
Despite being big political news, the Australian Broadcasting Network (ABC) was criticised for “censoring” the story. The ABC gave her meltdown limited coverage, reporting it only on their afternoon briefing, not digital platforms.
Thorpe was widely condemned for the fracas, with calls for her to be removed from parliament, and the General Manager of Maxine’s banning her for life. The Prime Minister weighed in, suggesting the rogue Senator should consider “her health.”
If Lidia Thorpe was a foreigner applying for a visa, you’d never let her in the country.
Whether or not a pro-Voice actor is moderate or not means nothing—in the end, they will negotiate with absolutists like Thorpe, whose recalcitrance will be viewed as dogged determination.
The Woke factors their crusade against “institutional racism” as pivotal to their agenda. Paradoxically, they theorise that to counteract institutional racism then racism must become institutionalised. Once it was called ‘affirmative action’ and, in the US, the civil service hired on a preferential basis. Colleges favoured minority applicants with scholarships and places—which is to say, blacks, browns and others, but not Whites. Nothing has changed.
Instructively, Whites constitute “the others,” but also increasingly Asians, who’re considered too successful. Ironically, Jews, who identify with the “others” also fall afoul of this practice, which they, more than any other race, helped create.
Far from ‘closing the gap,’ it’s widened. Now, all manner of neo-Marxist jargon is employed to ‘advance’ blacks and browns at the expense of Whites. The latest manifestation of this inculcated bias is that the discerning employer can now satisfy their diversity quotas without ever having to reject a white person’s application. LinkedIn’s new system allows the employer to filter out the loathed oppressor and link directly to people of colour and gender-correct appointees. If that’s not “institutionalised racism,” we don’t know what is.
Australia is not immune to Critical Race Theory. We inevitably adopt American fashions since we’re Imperial USA’s most dutiful lap dog. Our corporate plutocrats are in rigid lockstep with the policies workshopped at the World Economic Forum and then disseminated for Western satellites to emulate. Little wonder, either, since corporations are borderless: they have no homeland. Meanwhile, Public Service culture reflects government policy, which itself, is deferential to our masters in Washington, Davos, New York and, for that matter, Disneyland.
As such, working for the Australian Public Service is like endless diversity training. The corporate sector, government, big tech, and the whole shebang are giant activist organisations. But let’s return to the pretext for a moment—to ‘advance’ minorities.
Firstly, we don’t like the term ‘minority’ because it’s increasingly Whites falling into that category. But the model of advancement so far has involved lowering the bar. Society is in peril because standards are sacrificed at the altar of ‘inclusivity,’ which patronises coloured people by presupposing (often with good reason) they’re incapable of achieving White and Asian performance levels. Hard work and perfectionism are derided as “white supremacist” traits. But putting all that aside, just how racist toward Aborigines is our system?
For a start, there is no shortage of Aborigines in parliament with enough White blood to instinctively understand how the wheels are greased. At present, there are six (part) Aboriginal “voices” [in] the federal parliament. Aboriginal representation in the form of MPs is hardly new either. Neville Bonner was elected to the Senate in 1971. He was followed by Ken Wyatt who joined the House of Reps in 2010. Thereafter came Nova Peris, the egregious Linda Burney and others. Given Aborigines are such a small percentage of the population there isn’t necessarily a lack of balance.
All the same, Aborigines don’t suffer for want of services, entitlements and grants. The hard-working and self-reliant “mobs” receive funding to the tune of $4b annually, all provided by the taxpayer. Survivors of the so-called Stolen Generations—Aboriginal children removed from dysfunctional families destroyed by the grog and offered a leg-up in the White man’s world—receive an ex gratis payment of $75,000 for the horrors they experienced in polite civilisation. Then comes the sweetest plum of all—mining royalties.
Mining royalties are gathered by the federal government and then divvied out accordingly for disbursement among their communities. What happens to that money?
An ABC story from 2021 focused on Tenant Creek in the NT at mining distribution time. The journalist interviewed Joebessgo Mayers, the head of the community’s anti-truancy team who has his work cut out for him since 40% of kids play truant. Yet, what incentive for them is there when they’ll get money for doing stuff all? The community receives royalties from the mining companies for operating on “their” land. But they’re also remunerated for infrastructure such as mine haul roads and railway crossings.
Royalties in the NT amount to about $230m a year. Since 1976, the government has collected $3.2b for the federal-government-managed Aboriginal Benefits Account (ABC). So, how has this almighty shekel improved their lives?
Mayers reckons, “When they get their royalties, families are more active with alcohol. They buy cars and electronics and whatever’s left over goes straight into alcohol and gambling at a certain house where people play for big money.”
He then explains how the kids don’t attend school because they’re “watching their parents gamble.”
And, while Tennant Creek is technically a dry town, the entrepreneurial “brothers” hop in a Ute and drive to Mount Isa where they pick up the grog and flog it for a 400% markup back home. So much for throwing money at the problem. Still, they could always travel to the big smoke and get a job.
Woke hiring practices guarantee that any black fella with half their salts could approach a company and be guaranteed an “employee of the month” plaque before hands were even shaken. Universities would prostrate themselves before any budding young Aboriginal student who turned up interested in a scholarship. When it comes to “diversity” the absolute apex of the pyramid is Aborigines. So, where is institutional racism? It appears to be pointing in only one direction—at the despised Whites. The only reason Aborigines aren’t availing themselves of these free kicks into polite society is that they can’t be bothered. How else does a varying race achieve “60,000 years of continuous culture”? The secret to their lack of success lies in the untapped resource of indifference.
Besides, who needs to “strive”—or not, in their case—when by dint of being “indigenous” and belonging to a lucky community is a cash cow in itself? And we’re not talking about the loser ‘boongs’ stuck in corrugated tin shacks out the back of buggery, but the ones living in mineral-rich Native Title areas, where sitting on your arse and dreaming up an unwritten history grants you territorial rights and ensures your mob receives a sizeable slice of annual mining rights once the government bean counters are done playing their Jewish piano.
The biggest mistake the “Right” makes is assuming that all this social justice claptrap is tied to an [misguided] egalitarian intention. Like everything else, it’s about the lolly. If the government seriously gave a damn about unilaterally “tackling disadvantage” they’d raise the dole from $40 a day to an amount that a human being can live on.
The other side of that argument is job availability which they could solve by ending immigration. The rental crisis would end as it did during COVID when the borders were closed. Education standards would improve by returning to the basics of teaching and avoiding PC fads in the classroom. If universities weren’t marketed to Indians and Chinese students eyeing permanent residency but were concerned with imparting higher skills to Australians, they would be free. Most importantly, they would disengage us from the disastrous American global capital system and deal directly with the Cost-of-Living crisis. A loyal administration would dispense with the fallacy of sustainable energy, making power bills affordable. All they would need to do is put Australia First and that would include Aborigines by default.
But none of this will change. Instead, we need a “Voice” [to] parliament as a panacea for all that afflicts the “soul” of the nation. The world needs to see us vote ‘Yes’. But more so, the global corporate plutocracy and the UN Human Rights Commission demand our obedience.
The fervour for the multi-billion-dollar Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement was embraced by extremist Marxist-inspired militant Aboriginal groups such as WAR.
Captain Cook, who has become an expression of “invasion,” is targeted by these ignorant partisan soldiers and their ideological cohorts. Sure, he’s dead, but his statues were vandalised during recent Australia Day protests. In concert with the war on European history which we see across America, Canada and Europe, councils are now suggesting the “solution” is to remove the statues. Captain Cook’s legacy is addressed in the controversial Referendum Council Final Report 2017, p. 17:
‘Cook did not discover us, because we saw him. We were telling each other with smoke, yet in his diary, he said “discovered”.’ (Torres Strait)14
‘Australia must acknowledge its history, its true history. Not Captain Cook. What happened all across Australia: the massacres and the wars. If that were taught in schools, we might have one nation, where we are all together.’ (Darwin)15
Then again, Australia Day is itself under mortar, with Woke councils around the country doing their bit to abolish this “divisive date.” We’re told we need a “national conversation” about our national day. The date, according to Indigenous Australians—or rather their far-left inner-city “voices”—is a painful reminder of their dispossession. It’s an obvious target for those inclined to abolish White Australia by abolishing the date. This fails to take into account that White Australia was abolished as soon as they tore up the WAP, and sanctioned multiculturalism as our national policy—all due to the efforts of conservatives, leftists, and their Jewish “advisors.”
A referendum on The Voice is a de facto referendum on Australia Day and, let’s face it, the last vestiges of White Australia.
One of the first items on an elected Council’s agenda will (likely) be to “change the date.” Again, this is necessary for us to maintain our place in the crumbling globalist order. But we do know that two sections of the Constitution in the Council’s crosshairs are 25 and 51(26) with their references to ‘race provisions.’ Forget that the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 supersedes both (they say that Federal Parliament is not bound by this Act so it doesn’t go far enough). Section 25 can be used to prevent someone from voting based on race. That’s a Section that needs exercising, not removing. However, when has any party, or government since the day prevented a single person from voting based on race? They pander to the various races, not stifle them. Notwithstanding, they consternate Aborigines and their Zionist legal Advisor, Mark Leibler. Therefore, they also insist on including the following, “…inserting a constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination.”
So, they aren’t just asking for an amendment to ‘include’ an Aboriginal voice, but they insist on doctoring two sections that have previously been the subject of certain procedural complexities. Then they want that little assurance tucked into our national paper. What else do they want? Their wish list hardly ends there. The most insidious and ironic dimension here is that they’re asking for the removal of references to “race” all the while bending the Constitution to a particular “race provision” that enables them. Then again, they’ve got a Jewish lawyer.
Whether by design or not, the new Australia will bear the motif of Aboriginality. What good is a faded European identity with a nation of multiracial consumers? By conditioning us to embrace “multiculturalism” they successfully deculturalized us. Take a look around—the only cultural cleansing is against Australians, who, even our kin aren’t aware are distinct people of the world.
Australians may one day heed Nationalists and realise that we’re being expunged from the country our ancestors built. Nothing less than absolutism will preserve us. The Aborigines are bafflingly silent on the issue of the millions of immigrants being poured into Australia, with every one of them driving us further into minority status. That would run afoul of their Zionist colleagues.
The Jewish Community, by and large, are a champion of The Voice and Aboriginal Grievance. Mark Leibler is a high-flying legal beagle and a senior partner at Arnold Bloch Leibler. Yet, he is also the National Chairman of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC). A long-time social justice lobbyist, it’s fair to say he’s no friend to White Australia. So, it’s little wonder we find he’s also the co-chair at the Referendum Council. Right now, he is tirelessly plugging the Voice and is deriding any “naysayers” as “a minority.”
Historically, this traces back to 1938 when an Aboriginal rabble-rouser named William Cooper marched to Melbourne’s German consulate bearing a letter condemning Kristallnacht and the treatment of Jews in Hitler’s Germany. Needless to say, the letter was never received. Resultantly, Aborigines are one of the few races that Jews are prepared to allow to share the mantle of victimhood as ‘Holocaust’ equals.
Leibler recently wrote in the Australian Jewish News, “Keep in mind that, just as we bristle when other sections of the Australian community try to dictate to us what antisemitism is and isn’t, or how we should feel about the Holocaust 70-plus years down the track, we should respect, trust and support Indigenous Australians to determine the best approach to healing their wounds.”
Or, to put it another way, they should capitalise on their perceived grievances forevermore, just like the Jews.
Unsurprisingly, the Referendum Council embraces the dissolution of Australia through the vice of “multiculturalism,” which is counter-intuitive to the whole aversion to “invasion.” The arrival of the English was wrong, but every other race under the sun is welcome. If you recognise that incongruity you may be instructed by its portent. Never forget, the role that Jews played in forcing multiculturalism on Australia with Polish Jew Jerzy Zubrzycki revered as the “godfather of Australian multiculturalism.”
The next question follows: what do we do? One option we no longer have, hypothetically speaking, is to disengage from society and establish communes on sustainable land. No, all of that land is protected by Native Title. How much of it? Australians would be staggered, but 50% of the continent is controlled by Native Title holders. That figure is growing along with the claims.
Aborigines make up 3% of the population. Yet, they’re the tail that wags the dog. The corporate cartels are right behind The Voice. One per cent of the world’s population owns two-thirds of its wealth. Tens of trillions of that capital are controlled by two investment management companies, BlackRock and Vanguard. The comparable influence between the social value of Aborigines and the power of the corporate oligarchy is interesting, even though it’s just a parallel.
BlackRock and Vanguard are, naturally enough, big players in the WEF’s 2030 agenda. They are in accord with the Global Reset, or Fourth Industrial Revolution. That being so, they subscribe to ESG Investing (Environmental, Social and Governance Investing). As Investopedia explains, “Environmental, social, and governance (ESG)—or Impact Investment—refers to a set of standards for a company’s behaviour used by socially conscious investors to screen potential investments.
“Environmental criteria consider how a company safeguards the environment, including corporate policies addressing climate change, for example. Social criteria examine how it manages relationships with employees, suppliers, customers, and the communities where it operates. Governance deals with a company’s leadership, executive pay, audits, internal controls, and shareholder rights.”
In other words, an investment may be subject to de-financing if it isn’t on board with the social and environmental programme espoused by the WEF and adopted by the corporate plutocracy. This involves everything from preferential hiring of LBGTQI people, promotion of transgenderism, abortion-positivity, renewable energy and carbon control, and the social justice issues of “minorities” and “First Nations People.”
ESG compliance is monitored and rated according to the Corporate Equality Index, which is assigned with “Rating workplaces on equality and inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer employees.” The CEI is a report published by The Human Rights Campaign Foundation, which is an intimidatory front for the LGBTQI community. So, BlackRock and Vanguard, which control so many companies, are also charged with ensuring that companies comply with the social justice regimen, which masquerades as “human rights” campaigning.
Naturally enough, BlackRock is backing The Voice, so therefore its Australian companies are promoting it. BlackRock is the main investor in Australia’s ‘Big Four’ banks: ANZ, the Commonwealth Bank, NAB, and Westpac. It also controls Woolworths and Suncorp. All are committed to The Voice’s success. The SMH reported that earlier in the year, Thomas May, a representative of the maritime union and an “Indigenous advocate” who serves on the board of Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition (AIRC), briefed NAB employees “about his involvement in the Yes campaign.”
The article reads, “He explained what is being asked and what it will mean for Indigenous people and Australia if the referendum is successful or if it fails. About one-fifth of NAB’s 28,700 Australian staff attended or watched the briefing.”
But whether or not these corporate overlords are involved, all Australian companies follow the principles of ESG, as such it’s predictable to find the list of those promoting The Voice are BHP, NAB, CommBank, ANZ, Rio Tinto, Wesfarmers, Woolworth, Coles, and just about every “leading social justice and civil body.”
Finally, for those companies, bodies, and individuals donating to the Yes campaign, tax deductions are being offered. However, not so for those funding the No campaign, because they’re officially regarded as spreading “misinformation.”
We make a big mistake if we assume that Aborigines, in all their different groupings, unilaterally support a Voice. When we hit the outback, and the remote communities, most have never heard of it. Those who are questioned prove sceptical about what it would achieve. For many, it’s seen as the hobbyhorse of the “urban Aborigine” with all its Marxist affiliations.
Aboriginal representatives make themselves wholly unpopular when they criticize their communities’ reliance on welfare and the expectation that the government bears the onus for their wellbeing. The other lot demonstrates hostility to the government and insists on self-determination while simultaneously demanding government support; thus, posing an irreconcilable duality.
Firstly, they are rejecting responsibility, and secondly, they’re seemingly handing control of their fortunes to the government—two stupid mistakes. If they’re genuine about trusting in the parliament—which they’re not—it is both lazy and disingenuous. After that, they cry “institutional racism” and tout statistics that should shame them, to adduce that bias. Rather than be humbled by their incarceration rates, the statistics are a political cudgel to wield, while the responsibility for their actions is absolved on the grounds of alleged persecution; and therefore justified.
If they embraced the Australian project, that criticism might be harder to wield against them. Under those circumstances, a duty of care is implied, at least in the Nationalist interpretation of the function of government. But only insofar as they can give in proportion to what they take. This, of course, is easier said than done, and we’re aware of that, but to rally behind a different flag, screech anti-Australian slogans, and adopt a “sovereign” identity hostile to the nation makes them enemies of the state. But the strategy of the Aboriginal lobby is to agitate Western liberal guilt to achieve the best of both worlds.
As with the African Americans, with whom the staunch elements of their movement identify, the reality is at odds with their rhetoric. So much is offered to Aborigines to help them “close the gap” that it’s tantamount to favouritism. Much of it is exploited by fake Aborigines. The truth is, those who do not take the opportunities, are indolent. But in education, the figures of those committing to bettering themselves, either for personal reasons or on behalf of their community, are improving, so where there is an independent will, there is a way.
Superficially, the only reason the Aboriginal grievance industry wants Constitutional Recognition is “just because,” so there has to be more. Viewed objectively, nothing of substance is in it, and the basis for wanting a “Voice” is spurious. But that’s “just because” they know Australia would not tolerate what they’re asking for. A Voice is meaningless. There is no argument, no report, and no perspective that articulates a single compelling reason why they should have it. It’s all an appeal to emotion that risks rolling in a Trojan Horse cloaked in the drivel of humanistic sentiment. So, who are they petitioning?
A notion to dispel is that the Australian government acts independently or in the interests of the Australian people. We have a definition of government—we have the idea—but then we have the reality. That reality is what put Anthony Albanese in the Prime Minister’s office since no majority voted for him. Albanese landed the top spot through preferences, and protest votes, but mainly due to the egregious performance of the outgoing mob. That’s democracy. In effect, and to put it crudely, it’s like choosing between two lumps of dogshit. If Australians were permitted a range of voting choices real change might occur should a nascent party on the fringes be allowed its chance, then democracy might produce a force that works solely for Australian interests. But the government saw that when they changed the electoral rules to hinder micro-parties.
That’s aside from all the obstacles the AEC places in the path of those foolish optimists who take the electoral pathway to nowhere. The game is on show in America with the Democrat Party and their lies, disinformation, treasons, hypocrisies and—without putting a too finer point on it—their evil. That’s the playbook that Albanese and the gang are reading from. The Voice is more about pleasing the gatekeepers of the New World Order than offering a random boong a hand up the ladder.
Another mistake is to chastise the first arrivals via a critical construal of history. Such programs dominate what we shall call the “New West” and arrive at the conclusion, nearly always, that history must end at that point and begin anew while removing all trace of that which preceded. This is a uniquely American attitude to history, which is not a source of pride or knowledge, but an inconvenient point that must be abandoned as quickly as possible for the sake of ‘moving forward.’
In this instance, and contrarily, it means making the Aborigines’ inglorious past the official history of Australia, with a bunch of stuff about how evil Whitey was. What matters most is the future, not the present, and certainly not the past; which is something shameful and hateful. The future of Australia shall be the past but with that past at the helm. The American view is that the past was a place where bad things happened, injustices that must be addressed today, and reparations offered for those historic wrongs—reparations which are always material as if pouring money on a wound will cure the cut.
And right there is the unstable element in this mindset: the notion of ‘guilt,’ fashioned after the arguments of ideologues haranguing us with an issue that is part of a deeper, wider agenda. Conscience supplants all in their worldview, even if that conscience is reacting to emotional coercion and not rational considerations.
Throwing government at the problem hasn’t worked, much less money, which as we saw in Tenant Creek, is fuelling the very vices destroying the Aborigines. No government has achieved anything with the Aboriginal portfolio and the answer as to why is something that they cannot stomach—that nothing can be done. Nothing should be done. It’s all up to them, not to us. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink. Handing them the steering wheel to Australia will result in a massive wreck.
Hypothetically speaking, while owning so much Land Title, and if “recognition” is achieved in another reworking of the Constitution—the next phase of the process—what if the Council decides it wants to let the Communist Chinese onto Australian soil? If Parliament vetoes the move, what if they ask the Chinese for ‘help,’ citing their sovereignty as overriding any objections by the Australian government? What if the new definition of Australian IS Aboriginal?
By far, the first concept to grasp is that Aborigines are not Australians but Aborigines. Conflating the two blurs clarity on the issue and has nothing to do with right or wrong, good or bad. Before settlement and Federation, Australia was not a nation, or even a “nation of nations” as the misleading speech behind the confected term “First Nations” implies. The vast continent was not a developed land subject to agriculture, housing, and the logistics of carriageways and infrastructure—at least not in the influential European fashion. You can see why Captain Cook assumed by the standards of the day that it was terra nullius.
Having been here “first,” in migratory tribes (as opposed to being unified in a nation or state), it is flawed to confer on them the status of ‘Australian citizens’ (much less, subjects of the irrelevant British Crown), and it’s not something they should want. That’s not to forget the Aborigines that served valiantly in the armed forces and who continue to protect the top-end in NORFORCE or to dishonour those who’ve displayed the utmost hospitality to outback stragglers in times past. This is not about hate at all, as Marcia Langton would have us believe when she says that if the referendum doesn’t get up it will “embolden racists.”
Nevertheless, they are recognized as Australian citizens and have been since 1949 with the Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1948. Yet, in their council dialogues, they either betray ignorance of this fact or regard it as immaterial without inclusion in the Constitution.
The essential deception of the Voice and the changing of the Constitution—and we hammer this point because it’s so important—is confusing Aborigines and Australia. We are two separate entities, and inviting the “fauna” (sic) to be recognised, not only as “Australians”, but the first Australians, overlooks that Australia is a nation apart from the primitive tribes that squatted on the land, without the concept of “ownership.”
They were not a “Nation”, much less the plurality as the misleading nomenclature of “First Nations” implies. Moreover, there was no unity. They are citizens of Australia and therefore entitled to all that brings. But they are Aborigines, not Australians, nor should they want to be, especially given the bellicosity of their objections and their so-called “truth-telling” with all its rigid and persistent criticisms of Australia. This country was not cultivated for their benefit or to reflect their culture, so there will always be a cause for disunity. They’re asking to sit up front of the bus, euphemistically speaking.
The Voice is a test case for Recognition to lead to a “treaty,” which is when we start talking about reparations, and thereafter a ruling race of former spear-throwers. If the voice is only laid out insofar as to guide parliament, what would a house top-heavy with Marxist-schooled lefties want to achieve on behalf of Aboriginal Australia? Sure, alterations might be subject to successive governments, but they may not, because we’re in unchartered waters and sailing without a compass.
Adjacent to the implied ‘recognition’ that a Voice will impart is actual ‘recognition.’ But that’s a whole different board game and where the proverbial devil is in the detail. Recognition leads to the ‘Treaty’ and Treaty is where Australia begins being broken up. We’ve already headed that way thanks to Native Title, which those who partook in the formation of the final Report don’t believe grants them anything.
As it stands, where the High Court doesn’t hand ‘stolen lands’ to Native Title, governments simply buy up the disputed area and gift it to the Aborigines. This has happened in Tasmania and elsewhere. But it’s not just land that’s been given over. In late March, the South Australian government inaugurated a Voice to Parliament, the first state to do so. If all the States followed suit, it would amount to the same thing, at least in theory.
Far from being purely domestic, as we’ve been told, the Voice is already preparing for representation on the world stage. This is an obeisance to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In March, Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney, herself part-Aboriginal, announced the appointment of Justin Mohamed as Australia’s official Ambassador for First Nations People, a title as convoluted in its sophistry of wording as in its application.
In this new role, Mohamed will “lead the Office of First Nations Engagement in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade,” most likely to oversee lucrative mining contracts. However, it means that Aborigines—or at least their Marxist arm—are now involved in shaping Foreign Affairs policy. Nothing could go wrong there, considering they cannot even handle their affairs, much less that of a “Second Nation” (sic).
It’s apparent then that this Labor government has big plans for The Voice, and being as how it borrows so heavily from the corrupt American Democrat Party’s handbook, there’s no telling what level of subterfuge they’ll resort to realise this ambition for the UN.
Putting aside all of the conservative arguments about a Voice—that it will “divide the nation by race” (the nation is not just divided but drawn and quartered by race due to multiculturalism)—it’s the expectation of “Recognition” followed by the “Treaty.” If history is any guide, we only need to look to New Zealand. But not for too long or you might develop cataracts. However, when the NZ High Court opened the door for the Waitangi Tribunal as an advisory body it created a monster. It’s now wormed its way into every major policy decision in NZ, with the power of veto over major pieces of legislation, effectively making NZ’s parliament a bitch for the Māori lobby, which explains a lot.
As Canada set the model for this madness, it’s expected we follow suit. Thus far, we’ve held out, owing to a mewling conservative government. If the Liberals had continued moving to the centre, and as the centre moves further to the left, inevitably they’d have pushed for it too. Peter Dutton might be plugging the No Vote, but he’s an indefinite leader and we already know there is a desire for bipartisan approval among the “squishers.” And what would they be approving?
A quote from the Statement of Record of the Referendum Council’s 2017 dialogue articulates the underlying resentment, “Australia got a whole country for nothing, they haven’t even begun to pay for it.”
But it’s what was removed from the final report and retrieved under the Freedom of Information Act that reveals the smoking gun, proving that the ambition of the Council is not just to put Aborigines in the Constitutional driver’s seat, but to heap upon them lavish sums of taxpayer money:
“Treaty could include a proper say in decision-making, the establishment of a truth commission, reparations, a financial settlement (such as seeking a percentage of GDP), the resolution of land, water and resources issues, recognition of authority and customary law”
The bracketed section was redacted. Ultimately, though, or at least according to a “secret agenda” discovered in a Canberra and handed to One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson, the Voice is very much a Trojan Horse. The agenda leaks what they hope to pursue if the Referendum passes and it’s quite a list. Among the items are that Aborigines would pay only 50% tax; they would “own” beaches and national parks, meaning, as happens in New Guinea, we’d have to pay to use them; Aborigines would get first pick on all public housing; Aborigines would make up 10% of all judges, magistrates and police officers; since they owned the water, we’d have to pay whatever corporation Aborigines formed for the utility; and the Voice Council would receive a budget equal to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. There’s more but if you aren’t trembling now the rest might send you flying through a plate glass window.
A legal question exists as to whether the act of introducing a Voice, amounts to “Recognition” and automatically triggers the Treaty process. If that’s the case, and Australians are stupid enough to vote Yes, then it’s welcome to the Plantation. Australians would be living to support the greatest race in the world, the Aborigine. If that happens, civil war might very well follow. And who would the Abos call on to “re-establish order”? If it wasn’t China, then you could call us pigeon pie and eat us up. ■
Britain’s leading nationalist Nick Griffin and Jim Saleam join “some bloke” from New Australian Bulletin to discuss the deep state crucifixion of Donald Trump – The ‘Turban Triumvirate’ now in control of the UK and Ireland and MORE!
VideoBritain’s leading nationalist Nick Griffin and Jim Saleam join “some bloke” from New Australian Bulletin to discuss the deep state crucifixion of Donald Trump – The ‘Turban Triumvirate’ now in control of the UK and Ireland and MORE!