Australia’s ethnically Chinese-Malaysian-Australian and lesbian foreign affairs minister, the former “mean girl” Penny Wong issued a missive to Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iran’s morality police from the viewpoint of Australian, nee Western, “humanitarian” values.

One could unpack those “values” all day, but we’d never reach the next paragraph. So we’ll take it as having been argued tirelessly that any “values” that include condemning war while fomenting it; grooming school children with homosexual pornography under the veil of “inclusivity”; targeting those children for hazardous sex-altering surgery; infantilizing western nations with identification fantasies; poisoning the citizens of the world with untested vaccines to enrich the pharmaceutical giants and thin out the world’s population; waging a cultural war invoking “science” while offending reason: and deliberately replacing the parent race with a polyglot of racially and ethnically extraneous invaders while tearing down their significant host culture by rewriting history to favour the coloured interlopers—are not values but their total absence.

We must also remark on the utter affront to the memory of the Australian Labor party that Wong represents. It existed to keep her—and her paternal race—out of the country, let alone in such an important position within the Labor Party. But right there is the narrative. Labor has no spiritual lineage to the Australian workers’ party of old. It is an effrontery to the memory of great Australians and Labor men such as John Curtin, William Guthrie Spence, Arthur Calwell and Ben Chifley, to name but a few. It is illegitimate in every sense other than that system that maintains a balanced order satisfying to the western hegemonies. Only, that heretical order is no longer balanced but quite demonstrably unhinged.

In a recent announcement, Australia’s foreign-born Foreign Minister, Penny Wong, declared the Albanese government is imposing human rights sanctions against Russia and Iran.

The financial sanctions on Iran will target individuals involved in the development and supply of military drones being used by Russia in Ukraine. The nature of the sanctions against Russia was not defined. Nevertheless, they are a geopolitical gesture from a government signalling virtues they are bereft of. The sanctions relate respectively to Russia’s security action in Ukraine, and, not just Iran’s support for Russia, but its “human rights” record. Why then wouldn’t a truly righteous government, concerned with the (myth of) western liberalism and human rights not look closer to home? Why would it instead not aim at Canada for killing 10,000 of its poor and disabled citizens a year to spare burdening its healthcare system through government-assisted suicide? Or why not instead call to account the Netherlands, Belgium, or any “friendly” European country that has introduced the frightening concept of “suicide pods?”

Why would a government truthfully concerned with corruption and global justice not dissociate its people from America—particularly while it’s under the control of the despotic league of the Biden crime family?

Joe Biden is a corrupt president with a crooked, drug-addict (reputedly paedophile) son—protected from the consequences of their actions by a nepotistic relationship with America’s department of justice, which they’ve weaponized against scrutineers; along with the FBI.

Together, the Bidens have murky ties to Ukrainian, Communist Chinese and other business interests that are not in the national interest but entirely their own. They are nefarious concerns that even link with the COVID virus, its research and release. Biden is compromised through his degenerate, flaky son to so many countries they’ve had business dealings with that it poses one of the greatest potential security issues the US has ever faced. How many shady foreign operatives have incriminating evidence from Hunter Biden’s sordid drug orgies? What will they do to hush it up there?

A rudimentary answer to the question about independence from the USA would submit that Australia still foolishly clings to the belief that we need America’s protection from China. That means we’ll accept them as defenders regardless of the country’s moral turpitude. But being so exhausted from supplying the equally ruptured Zelensky regime with arms it wouldn’t be possible at this rate even if they harboured the predisposition to fulfil our expectations. Therefore, if the Australian government—or the opposition—want to invoke morality, then we need a national conversation about what that constitutes rather than relying on the memetic symbolism that the political-media-industrial establishment espouses and we’re expected to take for granted.

In an ideal world, the Australian people would demand the political class deliver an extensive, sound, reasoned argument for continuing to be America’s lapdog. But they won’t because they can’t, despite the frenetic efforts of US apologists like The Australian’s Greg Sheridan and others, who are so blinded by the myth of American ideological supremacy that they refuse to acknowledge its malignancy. As such, we continue to do so based on assumptions about moral absolutism. The myth sustains through what the guardians suppress.

America styled itself as “the good guy” following the two world wars. Its crusade was to enlighten the world and rehabilitate empires of old with this idea of democracy and free markets; of personal freedom and collective liberty for all.

Before the era of American economic and ideological expansion, Australia’s titular authorities were afear of radicals chasing republicanism, in the American style. Ironic that thereafter, following both wars, they realigned themselves to America’s favour when all that remained of that great power’s idealism was its prejudice against historical Europe.

America, as Croatian political philosopher Tomislav Sunic argues, has no use for history. It charges ever onward, disdainful of any reverence to the past. That too is true of Australia, except among those patriots, who stand alone from the political castes. After all, we hardly teach our history, and that’s part and parcel of what we’ve become, as much as it’s the continuance of that which we’ve always been.

By diverging into the subtopic of history, we can examine this nation of ours. For, it is not “ours” and never has been. Who are “we”? At one time even that question depended on one’s pecuniary, and thereby social, perspective. To better understand that query requires an understanding of Australian history. Thereafter, that little piece of history becomes the Rosetta stone for unlocking all those existential puzzles perplexing the bewildered Australian mind in questions of identity and ownership.

Australia wasn’t divided up by Australians but by banks, and financial institutions. They owned the land and the means of production. The political battles fought as the states approached federation bifurcated along class lines—or, that of the worker versus the monied classes.

Our form of government was created to represent their interests. It was a struggle for the workers to form a party, but it was nowhere as near as bitter as the fight to first wrest control from the elites and establish the unions which launched their party.

The perfidy of the pastoralists and their guardians knew no limits. Injustice was metered out brutally to those unionists who dared challenge their status as common labour. The effort to proscribe unionism was immense; the desire to restrict universal suffrage was overwhelming.

The White Australia policy was a concession to the idea that an Australian was the son of a new land, but only in part. It was mainly a compromise to secure commercial stability.

Regardless, the Australian man demanded priority in employment. All liberty begins with the right to fair remuneration and sustainable pay in trade for wealth-creating labour. The dreaded “chow”—the Chinaman—was a multitudinous threat to that entitlement as well as the expectation for the pursuit of happiness. The “pursuit of happiness” appears nowhere in Australia’s flawed constitution, but it is the expectation of every man and is also the forebear of revolutions.

The chow population in Queensland reached such a high rate that it nearly outnumbered the Whites. And to harvest the sugar cane, the growers brought in the Kanakas—who were exploited horribly.

The “gentry” of parliament was obliged to favour the demands of plantation owners and pastoralists. Most of them had vested interests in capital, they honoured their personal needs by doing so. Indians were to come next since they were regarded as suited to the northern climate, which defeated the White man.

The unionist who protested against the use of the Kanakas and the importation of labour from the subcontinent wasn’t entirely motivated by race, but by common decency. A large portion of those Islanders was kidnapped from their homes by unscrupulous scouts.

One can see the diversion from conceptions of self-hood and nation held by the worker compared to that of the industrialist et al, whose paternity decided “what was best” for all. In other words, whatever was sweeter for them. Naturally, this conditioned amorality within them.

Whereas, the spirit of that worker, and his ally, the aesthete, held loftier in vision than the grim predictability of the morbid cigar-chewing mercantile man. His “dreams,” such as they held any wonder, were dark clouds of greed rent with lightning flashes of hubris. He knew only ambition, and so his aspirations for his colony were tainted by self-interest.

The necessary “myth” of Australia is missing because it was arrested at the point of national growth. Our most solid legend—as Australians—resides in the “spirit of Anzac.” What a wretched myth. The decision by Australian men to dutifully answer the call of their colonial master, whom they should’ve instead left to his imperialist quarrels, butchered Australia’s manhood and decimated the following generation.

When the subsequent clash came around, our male stocks were once more impacted. Thus, seeing no other choice, Arthur Calwell acquitted himself to his post-war vision of bolstering the population by importing the dispossessed of Europe. His natural assumption was that, as fellow Whites, they would harmonise with the concept of a White Australia. He was wrong.

The Labor Party of Calwell’s day—that which sparkled with the dream of an Australian race—detoured into the imposters of today. The nature of unions changed with the recipe of their political diet. When Whitlam came to power, he had a vision of nationalisation. However, his ambition didn’t involve the Australians as an ethnicity, but as a population. He declared the White Australia Policy dead and was proud to bury it.

Today, what is uttered in hushed tones of national embarrassment, and which has been turned into a pejorative, was a genuine enterprise that might’ve resulted in the very best of European civilisation being distilled through an unpretentious filter—cleansing European man of the shackles of class and privilege and restarting the endeavour of Europeanness in a new, prehistoric land. The experiment might have produced a White, and egalitarian society had it not been derailed by the ideological charlatans and euthanised by the parasitic class. 

The importance of preserving ‘Whiteness’ in Australia was essential to the project of forging a distinct people and their nation. A melting pot of races has no character and is either arrived at by migratory happenstance—and thereafter maintained through collective compromise—or susceptibility to coercion. One group will always seek the whip hand as power can never be shared; racial or political. Out here in Asia, surrounded by coloureds, only through sheer will could the originality of the Australian people endure. Sadly, that vision was betrayed.

Cold rationalists might’ve appreciated this, but the capitalists could never resist any opportunity to improve profits through cheap labour. With this prospect, some—maybe not all, but most—desired the opening of Australia to “coolie” labour. And with the onset of Zionistic post-war liberalism, the west was saturated with the left-wing ideas that Hitler expelled from Europe during the war. They took root in America at a time when naïve Australian politicians had hitched our wagon to its rising star. Therefore, it’s little coincidence that when in 1967, under the egregious president Lyndon Baines Johnson, America’s civil rights program was overhauled—its rules on citizenship and migration amended irreversibly—and being in lockstep with the USA, so were ours.

The White Australia Policy was killed off and by the mid-1970s Vietnamese refugees poured in, along with refugees from war-torn Lebanon. The gates were open, and they widen every year, as the solution to any economic downturn or growth forecast is predicated on importing more and more immigrants.

The necessity to hold to anti-imperialistic (read—European) pseudo-values requires that immigrants be sourced from non-White, non-English speaking backgrounds; partly in surrender to our precarious position among teeming populations of Asians; and likewise through the innate liberalism hatched out of latent Christian mores. As such, White Australia transmogrified into “multicultural Australia.”

Remember too, Australia helped to establish the United Nations and that was a mistake for the ages. This indenture to an organisation, whose original purpose expired long ago, serves another agenda entirely. Because of that, we’re obliged to adhere to its rules and accommodate all of its socio-political dictums. We don’t oblige them all—nor does any of its members—yet we remain within its scope.

White Australia had diminishing champions, as the paranoia in the intervening years between WW1 and the Vietnam war, was obsessive anti-communism. The new Australians Calwell had bet on were bemused by White Australia. Those who arrived without pre-programmed bolshevik ideals were prepared to accept any coloured ally so long as they were anti-communist.

The assumption that our new countrymen would respect our hereditary authority was dumfounded by the realization that they did not regard us as any more than English colonists. There was nothing original in our identity as far as they were concerned, as they came from countries with rich histories and old cultures; their weary chauvinism clashing with Calwell’s cockeyed optimism.

Moreover, our policy of multiculturalism, which they lobbied for on both sides disabused them from assimilation. The idea of multiculturalism is exactly so that interlopers can sustain their own cultures and languages, begetting communities, without needing to. Certainly, it isn’t always the case that the children of immigrants don’t by and large succumb to the cultural pull of the new land; it’s just that the “culture” is no more ours than it is theirs—rather it’s the vacuum of consumerism.

Add to the mix the stages of neoconservatism, radical liberalism and Zionism infusing American thought—therefore becoming the boilerplate for western idealism—and you wind up where we are now: with western European history, or putting it expressly, White history being overwritten, as White people are relegated to the role of the “other.”

We are smoke billowing from the exhaust pipe of a brand-new machine. Australia is in the throes of this mess while America is disintegrating from all the culture bombs it’s let explode throughout the once mighty nation.

Given the rhetoric of the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is the think tank and policy setter for all these misleadingly labelled “progressive policies,” that form the basis of the ‘Great Reset,’ then this is the necessary stage of “resetting.” That’s not simply a global economic venture, or even strictly relating to the cult of global warming, but is a racial distribution of power and priority fashioned with a decidedly Semitic prejudice.

Australian history is being rewritten in convoy with militant black identitarianism, for which the intent is to teach American history from the perspective of the enslavement of blacks. The idea was conceived by a firebrand African-American journalist for the New York Times, who dubbed it ‘The 1619 Project.’

You will find this reverence for the “noble savage” in Canada, and America too, but American black supremacists are willing to go so far as repudiating history that at the same time as setting their identity from the time-point of slavery, they are prepared to believe that they’re the true American natives. Certain black power sects claim to be the original Israelites.

Those bothersome European nations—where the people are indigenous to the lands—are instead having their White people displaced, and their history erased based on “racism.” Consequently, the representations of, say, the English people are being coloured over—literally—in historical representations and the retelling of stories coded in Anglo-Saxon DNA. This is happening on television, in film, and in advertising, as much as it is for the rest of us Whites. Statues, street names, and the titles of colleges and landmarks are likewise being removed for diabolical reasons. England’s power structure is equally de-Whitening.

Since there can be no common point to begin a history to include all these disparate races, tribes, and communities within Australia today, European history—that of the parent race—is being substituted with Aboriginal culture. At its best, Aboriginal culture is foggy lore stuck in a permanent circle loop of a primitive man with a spear occasionally recording depictions of animals in stone-age paintings. It is a curiosity, not an achievement steeped in virtue.

To forcibly “convert” Australian society to Aboriginal culture, despite that culture coating being a superficiality, abandons all the lessons, principles, wisdom and knowledge of European civilisation to a unifying gesture.

Meanwhile, White Australian history is redefined as “imperialist” and regrettable. Neither is accurate or true. Yet, none of the immigrant races who score a free pass while White Australia is under attack is offering to leave. They are not ceding to “Aboriginal ownership.”

Moreover, none will embrace the fact that Australia is Australia and Aborigines are Aborigines. White men built this country—irrespective of how the Aborigines feel. The Aborigine built nothing.

There was no “first nation,” just indigenous tribes. This land was sitting ripe for the picking. Nobody realised that initially, given this continent is so far away, and hostile for the most part. But the British took possession of it in the name of the King, used it as a penal colony, and from there a nation was born. It’s a triumphant tale not to be confounded by the bullying of duplicitous ideologues.

The question becomes one of “rights,” and yet how these rights are determined is arbitrary and incongruous. The old replaces the new, and if the old cannot resist the new, it’s a fait accompli—as the new is always seeking to usurp what came before. It’s none truer than of mankind and, in western society, the generational rifts.

To become sidetracked into an argument about the legitimacy of the Australian nation is to miss the point—they do not propose a dialogue but issue declarations. There is no “reasoning,” but directive. And it’s all as deceptive as the White liberals parasitising off Aboriginal identity. Nevertheless, the fraud runs deeper!

The Aboriginal narrative allows those banks, financial institutions and the descendants of barons who profited from parcelling off the colonies to now appropriate the cause.

For it was not the Australian people—who arrived in chains or were brought over as cheap European labour, prospectors, or however the dice rolled for them—but the financiers who dispossessed the Aborigine of his land. The squatters bought it up and sold it off to the next tier of the exploiter. Now, they have the gall to act as the inquisitors of reconciliatory conscience. The trick card here is that there’s nothing to reconcile. The moment you choose that card the game is lost. Sensibility triumphs over practicality, and ultimately, reality.

One can penetrate deep into the Amazonian rainforest, where either they find beauty or the savagery of existence. Beauty is subjective and the reality of existence will kill you in any number of ways. We are all subject to our place in the animal food chain, and thereafter, to the whims of nature. The human quest to order its environment and control nature is perhaps the ultimate vanity, yet it is our instinct. Ethics are a refinement of culture once the struggles over the environment, and the security of the food chain, are achieved.

Beauty conceals ugliness when stripped of its illusory appearance, and ethics obscure intentions. As far as Australia goes, threatening the country’s survival, in deference to an abstract set of values, bound by political fashion, not decency, is a change that “democratically elected” representatives do not get to make. The idea of democratic representation has moved from service—and its role of management—to control.

The idea of western liberal democracy is at an end. It has betrayed itself, as democracy inevitably does. The very word has now become a signifier repurposed to conceal its opposite meaning, as we’ve seen with how the Democrats—and western media—use it to deceive voters. But it misinforms its citizens more so when that representation is juggling the interests of outsiders and a foreign set of masters.

When the meaning of words is altered to suit a political agenda then the language is no longer cultural but official jargon. A nation must be culturally homogenous for its political system to make sense. If there is no shared language, culture, or values then its leaders become the masters and not servants. They are not leading a nation but controlling a country and that’s a major difference. If the citizens do not share unity but only reside in their precinct then nationhood ceases and all changes with it. Yet, every country has an essential resource, and its benefits must flow somewhere. If not to the people then to whom?

We earlier discussed how Australia’s two-party system was founded to represent two distinct interest groups: the worker and the bosses. The bosses assumed the guise of “conservatives,” while the original nationalistic model of the Labor party represented the pursuit of egalitarian, nationalistic ideals. Those conservatives were conserving—not culture or values—but a system that favoured them. They were about resisting change, not because that change was positive, but because they had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. Even the status quo has changed, although only in terms of its beneficiaries.

Thus, the two-party system is in its death rattle and a national vote results, not in an overwhelming choice of a particular party, but in a consolation result derived from the vagaries of preferential choosing. The test is so convoluted, and let’s face it, rigged, that you ask for an apple and end up with an orange.

There is so little practical difference between Australia’s two major parties that they might as well merge into one. The aspirations of those remaining minor parties with enough members to satisfy the shifted goalposts set by the Electoral Commission. And we cannot return to what was, as what was, is no longer true. It’s not about the worker against the bosses in the distribution of wealth and the management of Australia but between those with differing opinions on economic priorities.

This leaves us with no real “left” or “right.” What we have is a government, not centralised, but concerned with our international configuration. All the important choices are made in America and trickle down to ensure that we stay a Yankee franchise. This means taking on board their social models and engaging with their enemies. It amounts to sharing their “purpose,” as self-interested and wicked as that may be.

To accommodate this multicultural, western liberal, globalist system Australia has become a commercial theme park designed around Aboriginal motifs.

The vision of an “Australian man,” with a culture that sprung fully formed from European civilisation, is lost. The vision is for the theme park—and to safeguard that amusement park for its beneficiaries. They’re not the Australian people but its citizens drawn from anywhere and everywhere. And they aren’t subject to Australian law so much as the decrees of the WEF. Politically, we’re not concerned with Australian issues but the same preoccupations that begin in America to distract the west.

That’s why these days, those from the authentic political left, are alienated from their native patch; they’re scratching their heads wondering what happened to it. And the clue as to why lies in the unifying concept of the exploited and their exploiter at the core of their ideology and its numerous guises—the worker.

While some on the left make noises about “the worker,” they’re employing a euphemism for “the have-nots.” Those ‘have-nots’ are regarded as “unemployed workers.”

Aside from being archaic, that’s a class distinction. In reality, it’s about ability and potential. Arguably, those tie back to class, but only in theory, for the opportunities to improve oneself have never been better.

In history past, the working class were just that—born to serve the lords and robber barons. Only the most industrious could scratch their way out but they’d never, regardless of whether they discovered the secret to alchemy, be admitted into the living rooms of the high-born class. It was simply how society was stratified. America and Australia might’ve offered a “new way,” but class condescension continued through the idea of “old” versus “new money.” Today, little of that remains, and where it still resides, the anachronism of it all is queered by its intrinsic quaintness.

The “victim” has replaced the worker, and identity politics denotes those who would otherwise be marginalised, so the pre-emptive goal is not to proselytize for their acceptance, but to change the society around them, and all the variants of them to come. But this hides the deeper motive, which is about uprooting the nation to create a blank canvas.

The zealot has become the ultimate political actor and yet nowadays we’re all required to be fanatics; either on the right side of the “narrative” or as the villain. However, in the dialectic, the “extremist” is he who won’t abide by the narrative. For, while we speak of “firebrands’ and “ideologues” so far that itself has been exposed as a con. To scratch the surface of these movements and their antecedents (a force for change in Australia too) reveals self-interested “beneficiaries.”

Take for instance the Black Lives Matter movement and its founders. They have been exposed as swindlers, enriching themselves on donations made in good, albeit misguided faith. Their actions amount to criminality. And the inciting incidents which gave the movement its momentum were frauds perpetrated by the media and political opportunists.

Derek Chauvin did not “murder” George Floyd. Floyd died as a result of ingesting multiple fentanyl tablets before they were discovered by the investigating officers. He never had his knee on Floyd’s neck, but on his shoulder; here, the camera lied. Those officers from Minneapolis behaved strictly according to the book. Floyd did not cry out for his mother, but for his (white) girlfriend whose pet name was “mommy.” And Derek Chauvin was not a “sadist” but a respected officer.

 Ultimately, the major victim of that epochal tragedy was Derek Chauvin. He became the sacrificial lamb for the great social reset.

Once upon a time, people were lacking information—there was too little until the new technologies came along and the Internet gave us too much. But the result is still the same, despite that information being out there, too many remain ignorant. Therefore, it’s not information they’re lacking but the inclination to learn. ■