New Australian Bulletin’s Nathan Sykes chats to Nick Griffin, and Jim Saleam, about Ukraine, the dying dollar, and alternative nationalist paths. Grab a copy of The Great Reset FREE, for just the price of postage and packing. ONCE IN A LIFETIME OFFER This hardback gold […]
VideoInvalidating White People involves an oft-propagated theme that Whites have no culture. Ironically, this fallacy is disseminated via White man’s technology by people of colour who’ve blown a lung to enter White countries. Demoralized Whites are expressing this narrative about themselves in ritual self-denunciation. A […]
EnglandWe at NAB watch the spread of the so-called “dissident right” with bemusement. It is a swamp to us ideological hawks. But our commentaries meet deaf ears because of a near-decade-long effort to undermine traditional class-rejecting non-imperial Nationalists and shut us out of our milieu. […]
Australian NationalismNew Australian Bulletin’s Nathan Sykes chats to Nick Griffin, and Jim Saleam, about Ukraine, the dying dollar, and alternative nationalist paths. Grab a copy of The Great Reset FREE, for just the price of postage and packing. ONCE IN A LIFETIME OFFER This hardback gold […]
VideoNew Australian Bulletin’s Nathan Sykes chats to Nick Griffin, and Jim Saleam, about Ukraine, the dying dollar, and alternative nationalist paths. Grab a copy of The Great Reset FREE, for just the price of postage and packing. ONCE IN A LIFETIME OFFER This hardback gold embossed book worth $34 for this week is absolutely FREE, you only pay the p&p https://www.knightstemplarorder.com/f… Buy the Australian Nationalist White Book. This collection of cutting-edge essays on Australian Nationalism will provide a clear understanding of who Australians are, and why we must fight for our identity, culture, and our nation. Available at www.amazon.com.au
Invalidating White People involves an oft-propagated theme that Whites have no culture. Ironically, this fallacy is disseminated via White man’s technology by people of colour who’ve blown a lung to enter White countries. Demoralized Whites are expressing this narrative about themselves in ritual self-denunciation. A […]
EnglandInvalidating White People involves an oft-propagated theme that Whites have no culture. Ironically, this fallacy is disseminated via White man’s technology by people of colour who’ve blown a lung to enter White countries. Demoralized Whites are expressing this narrative about themselves in ritual self-denunciation. A video of a young English lad we caught on X articulates the point. Shared among users of the TikTok platform, shows the lad expressing his disgust of fellow Whites to a black man—the channel’s owner—hustling testimonials from self-loathing Whites.
The lad—best described as a “yob”— addresses the camera and declares, “British people do not have culture. They are uncultured. They just stole from the entire globe (sic). They are essentially racist people because we stole from the entire planet. Our national dish is chicken tikka masala, what the f*** is that about? We have about as much culture as a bit of pavement painted over with horse shit.”
The lad has failed to examine the validity of the proposition he treasonously offers the delighted West African interviewer he wants to impress. For the most part, he says “they” and not “we,” as if divorcing himself from his people. The fact that the black has no culture either—and that neither understands what the other means by culture—makes the testimony all the more infuriating. Behaving like a dancing monkey for this racist interloper adds to his contemptibility.
For starters, chicken tikka masala is English. Sure, its cooks and spices came from India, but they created the dishes for the English palate. They are English. But the lad’s statement, apart from not understanding foreign dishes—such as Western Chinese cuisine—also presumes to speak on behalf of all White Britons. Seemingly, he excludes the tastes of the black man to whom he is genuflecting, who, along with others of his dusky race, likely prefers fried chicken.
So, who is the “we” he finally speaks of? His fellow yobs from the council estate? His knowledge is limited so it follows that his life experience outside of his borough is too. To be fair, he is hardly alone in trying to crack the nut of culture, and what it means. And that’s because he lives in a period removed from when such culture was more recognisable.
He easily looks at primitive peoples—those few who still exist in Africa, who inhabit the Amazon, New Guinea, and the Aborigines who cling to their customs in Australia—and sees “culture.” That’s because those he covets are hermetically sealed in the era of hunting and gathering which they never evolved from. It is so radically different to the modern world that the first reaction of these ‘cultureless’ so-and-sos is to identify it as legitimate “culture.” And in this competition for an identity, they have no colourful feathers or repetitive chanting ceremonies equal to the task. There is a good reason for this—they have moved on from hunting and gathering.
One might understand culture as relative to the different phases in the development of civilised man. Yet, each shares a commonality of origins despite disparate shades. Who could dispute the magnificence of the bronze and iron age Celts and Saxons? Archaeology gifted us with such rich offerings from the past as the relics of the Neolithic settlement at Skara Brae in the Orkney Islands of Scotland. Within those diggings was evidence of people with culture—with style. Adornments and instruments—their proud stone possessions—were in place from the time of their abandonment at around 3000 BC to when a raging storm uncovered them in 1850.
How about Stonehenge? Celtic treasures? Which lacks magnificence? The Witham Shield? The Pony Armour? The Cultwagon of Strettweg? The Rune Stones? The Sutton Hoo treasures of a distant East Anglian king, Raedwald, including his ceremonial helmet? The Book of Kells? The Bayeux Tapestry? Do we dismiss Shakespeare as a hack? Chaucer? Are Turner’s paintings primitive scribblings? Perhaps Coleridge’s verse? Charles Dickens’s works? Oscar Wilde’s plays? Heroes that survive to this day—Sherlock Holmes to James Bond—are these not reflections of a strong ‘culture’?
History provides too many relics of the ancestors of those from the British Isles—including Scotland and Ireland—to allow such ignorance to go unchecked. What other race is so willing to sacrifice itself and its countries to aliens who hate them? How can they decry ‘colonialism’ without realising those strange races judging them are the new colonists? The wave of human molasses that’s rolling over England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales is not enough to awaken them.
Nevertheless, none of this adds to understanding how culture came, or comes about. Culture requires shared language, customs, myths, religion, and folklore. However, the factors governing culture are more pertinent to how we live and work. Those are ever-changing. If we feel as if we have lost a national ‘culture,’ this is because those aged in their 40s and under have never known the like. At least, not as “culture” is explained to them. It’s not a racial failing as it affects everyone. To comprehend the present void, we must recognise how the world has changed since the time of Raedwald and Shakespeare.
Overlooking the hunting and gathering stage of our evolution, which many primitive peoples are so admired for clinging to, the agrarian age of kings determined early English “culture.” The kingdoms, before and after unification, decided how the Angles, Saxons, Picts, Scots and Britons lived. It is noteworthy too, that when the people united under one monarch, England gave the world its first nation-state. That was an accomplishment of ‘culture’ if ever there was one.
In those boroughs, the family worked the land, shared chores, and prayed together. Life concentrated on the farm, and the most extraordinary excursion was to the village. In times of leisure the family—more so than the village—engaged in folk songs, and story-telling, while eating and drinking the products of their labour. The knitting and carpentry that clothed the family and furnished its home were products of its culture—its industry. Their world was the land they farmed and the village they often spent days travelling to where they bought and sold goods. Any imagination beyond those parameters was God’s business. The culture of the agrarian family, and the clans who fished the coastal regions, therefore, differed from that of the King, and those noblemen of his court. They diverged from the learned monks who were the custodians of knowledge. What then was English culture? It was a diversity of cultures, but each English. The industrial revolution changed that.
A self-reliant family unit migrated from farms to towns and thence cities. The home and workplace ceased to be the same. Thereafter, the mining pit and factory replaced the farm and the family changed how it was organized. Children were once incorporated into the family enterprise. With industrialisation, they joined the industrial organisation. This new social organization split the family. Their lives, once governed by the rising of the sun and the turn of the seasons, were measured by the clock. Where once they were born, lived, and worked in the family unit, they now travelled to find work. The family shrank; the workforce grew. The factory chimney substituted for the cottage’s hearth.
That revolution in how society organized altered the family unit and therefore the community. The culture reoriented to the new routine, the revised structure of the family, and how the family interrelated with the community. The family was smaller, the community bigger, and the nation spread from its shores. Where once the family consumed what it produced, its members now worked individually to earn so that it could buy that which it consumed. Where once the family cultivated and grew to sustain its existence, farming became an industry unto itself, and its produce a commodity. The sun had set on the agricultural era aggregating the once-dispersed lives of the islanders. National economic organization absorbed the self-sustaining family unit and it separated from the land. Industrialism led to imperialism and national conquests changed the culture.
The machine age arrived and with it, the mechanization of the people. Efficiency supplanted pace. The Englander expanded beyond his island shores with the power to conquer less organized societies many leagues from his place of berth. One might venture this was cultural strength.
Here we find that the advancements altered the English culture in other ways, yet all down to the power of invention. Able to project himself across the seas, his ability to trade and plunder wrote a new cultural code: a seafaring tradition for one, but also the trades that attended the building of ships. What the sailor discovered and brought back to his island home became as British as the men who trafficked it. A mercantile class used the lower classes to occupy lands wealthy in resources.
Aside from a few keen business-minded scoundrels, the lower classes were never the beneficiary of any looting. They were as much slaves of the imperial systems as those Indians, Chinese and others under the thrall of the Union Jack. The men of the military might have been kidnapped off the streets, and forced into service.
Nevertheless, tea, imported from India, was so important to English life its cultural significance attained relevance in the pleasing ritual of ‘afternoon tea.’ Just because the tea originated elsewhere did not nullify its assimilation and rebirth as property of ‘English’ culture. The same could be said about the sugar that sweetened the tea. Likewise, curry and its defining spices are not without ‘Englishness’ despite syllogistic arguments contrariwise. Chicken Chow Mein is no more Chinese than Yorkshire Pudding. The ability to source these cultural enrichments engendered a culture unto itself. The idea that ‘culture’ owes purely from the point of origin of its ingredients is a dull argument.
Industrialism synchronised the family, the nation and its culture. In this new national machine of industry, the working life dictated a new cultural mode. Communities in the towns and cities surrounding the new employers established the culture of their industrialized lives. Families interacted differently. Entertainment, religious observance, and the gathering of provisions, all became aspects of a centralized culture. Story-telling by the fireside moved to the theatre and vaudeville. The tavern was a community beacon. Where once the womenfolk sewed the garments, the family outfitted itself from merchants, and, if money permitted, the tailor. Whatever uniformity arose from the massification of the people constituted a cultural shift.
In much of this essay, we have adopted the vantage point of the poorer classes where ‘low culture,’ resided. We have overlooked the higher culture, but that’s because the lower classes and their culture—while less glamorous—yields stronger accessibility to the recognition of nationality as the majority of us identify with their experience. However, we gravitate to the cultural distinctiveness of the British aristocracy, to royalty, especially in its historical guise, being most prominent in art and literature. After all, England was stratified by class. The top tier is more emblematic, tantalising our aspirations.
But if technological advancement shook both cultural levels, it altered the cultural fabric of the nation. In doing so, the gap dividing the classes decreased, if for the time being only in an informational sense. Trains connected the provinces with the city centre, the steamship with distant shores, and the telephone reduced the distance of communication, formerly traversed by the dedicated mail system that took months, to a matter of seconds. Whereas the higher caste was less enamoured of the new inventions the lower classes seized on them instantly.
The cinema, disdained as lowbrow by the ruling class, appealed to their subordinates. This easier attraction to the less atavistic modes of society mounted the worker in the driver’s seat of the new technologies, advancing them into a higher economic placement, and empowering them with their mastering. By this we mean, they became the mechanics, the installers of the telephone, and artisans of the appurtenances of the shift that augured in novel cultural revolutions. Those modernizations instituted rapid changes that shifted with the advancement of the technologies that brought them. The British family once gathered around the wireless after their evening meal. It was a shared experience. The workplace, social and economic organisation, and technological advancement—all converged to determine British culture. Two world wars levelled the class pitch. Britain lost world dominance. Its empire broke apart.
Nevertheless, the thoroughfare of advancement did not cease. The War advanced technology faster. Television arrived, altering the family unit and its interactions. But the family was losing relevance with the march towards individuality and personal freedom. If the family followed the ritual of gathering around the wireless; to watch the television together; video and cable TV broke that apart. But the changes in work culture also became manifest as “mass production” was replaced by new manufacturing practises commensurate with the changed consumeristic and industrial patterns where the nine-to-five workday ceased to be the norm.
Industry and labour determined the culture: factory workers developed a culture to satisfy their needs. Perhaps it was the after-whistle drinks, or meeting at the football ground for the weekend match, culture followed the form of the social organisation which operated on high. The wireless, the television, and the bingo hall were all cultures regardless of how we rate their quality. But as the industrial age faded, we confront the challenges of the digital age that the lad we began the essay with is so confused by. Work time is no longer standardized, and neither is society.
The information age has supplanted all that the preceding phases of humanity took for granted. While we may have shifted from ‘mass marketing,’ everything is in the mass. The mass dictates in de-massified channels but it achieves its ends nonetheless. However, powerful forces with economic clout are pressuring social change. They are altering the fabric of the nation-state and attacking cultural identity. But more than that—they attack biological identity.
Simple definitions of ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are up for grabs, new technologies are ubiquitous, and distinctive culture is quaint. The mental association we have with nationalities are patent; they do not reflect their globalist losses. The world is what we connect to online.
Our culture is corporate branding, even in those nations that are still permitted the dignity of being recognised as possessing culture. The lad so confused by ‘culture’ has entertained an online culture that indicted him by a culture of ‘replacement.’ He has culture swirling around his head but he can’t identify it because it doesn’t have primitive motifs and isn’t pretty. But it’s a culture in its raw, mainline feel. He engages in it without realising it is both his and his black idol’s culture.
England has a police culture. It has a culture of hierarchical victimhood, and curiously, police are statistically counted as a large percentage of victims; having reported themselves thus. England has engendered a culture of self-abasement among its indigenous population that this foolish lad expresses. England’s culture is self-erasure; historic and cultural revisions that promote those non-indigenous to the island. The black man is told he has culture yet he doesn’t demonstrate anything higher than what the rest of England engages in.
England’s culture in its mainstream, lower-class form is shared online in pidgin English imported from West Africans and Pakistanis. It is a raunch culture derived from nihilism; fast food, alcohol, cocaine and designer drugs. The lad’s culture is music without melody but pulsating with aggressive bass and drums—a negrofied lyricist pounding rhymes that our lad imagines are irrefutable proof of black culture.
Indeed, that’s probably his sole determiner of culture. Even there he is conned. Is rhyming even black? Our self-despising White lad might be shocked to discover that rap is among a list of non-black inventions—it has historically White antecedents. Rapping originated in English literature and is found in Beowulf and Shakespeare.
‘Flyting’ was a form of rhyming insult where two gents exchanged barbs much along the lines of today’s ‘rap battles.’ These were often competitions at court between two courtiers seeking to enhance their profiles. Colourful verse laden with insult was good-naturedly traded back and forth. Whether an argument over ‘invention’ might teeter and totter according to one’s bias, the fact is that it was done before.
Similarly, the black man never invented the guitar—that was a German, Christian Frederick Maritn—but he made good music with it. Are we going to accuse him of ‘cultural appropriation,’ an expression favoured by radicalised blacks? Rather, they accuse ‘White’ people of stealing it from blacks. While Chuck Berry devised the raunch of the 4/4 rhythm early folk singers already played that musical phraseology, only minus the conspicuous libido.
Finally, while the English undoubtedly ‘plundered’ resources their presence industrialised the hitherto stagnant societies of the East, allowing them to grow to their present economic strength. The gripe against ‘imperialism’ occludes the benefits imparted—such as elevating them to equal terms. No ‘debt’ moral or otherwise exists to the coloured peoples of the Mid and Far-East and yet self-loathing is enculturated in Whites like this lad. But he will hardly receive an education that instructs him otherwise.
Culture, as we have seen, is determined by the economic realities of social organisation. Traditional culture is those quaint gifts from the past that we must preserve as they provide the time key to our identity. Little wonder then that this key has been deliberately hidden. However, it is still there, and the lad could find it any time he cared.
His culture is alive in folk songs, and in villages that still observe traditional practices. He needs only to switch off his computer and walk to a library, assuming it is not hosting a ‘drag queen’ story hour. There he will find his history, unadulterated by the globalists. ■
We at NAB watch the spread of the so-called “dissident right” with bemusement. It is a swamp to us ideological hawks. But our commentaries meet deaf ears because of a near-decade-long effort to undermine traditional class-rejecting non-imperial Nationalists and shut us out of our milieu. […]
Australian NationalismWe at NAB watch the spread of the so-called “dissident right” with bemusement. It is a swamp to us ideological hawks. But our commentaries meet deaf ears because of a near-decade-long effort to undermine traditional class-rejecting non-imperial Nationalists and shut us out of our milieu.
The Internet has, predictably, incited a subcultural matrix. In the exigence of today’s political divide, the Left and Right are pitted staunchly against each other. Social media exacerbates the cultural quarrel.
While ostensibly levelling the class barrier, it has blown the bulwark between age and competency. Any young twerp can insinuate themselves online and inflict their opinion, no matter how ill-informed. Once upon a time, the youth expressed themselves on the walls of lavatories and public buildings. Now, with social media, they can interpose themselves in any discourse.
Perhaps that is unkind and more than a little patronising. Likewise, it is everything we’re accusing the young of being, ageist. But the point has validity. For instance, while students may—and should—question their teachers, it would be an affront for a querulous upstart to storm into a meeting of physicians and mock them over arguments about medical procedures because he figures he has the same qualifications having watched a Netflix series about doctors. Today’s social media has created that type of situation, and, given the anonymity of the platforms, the foolish are at liberty to ridicule the wise.
The algorithms of social media judges value not by quality but by quantity. Fools gain greater rewards than the wise, who, if subjected to a campaign of defamation, are unjustly discredited. Reputations are ruined by rampaging mobs in the digital ‘town square.’
That scenario has relevance in the arena of political dissent we brooch today. The above situation is symptomatic of a wider problem. We’ve established the free reign of the ill-informed and those disdainful of luminosity. We have had a reasonable sketch of the online ‘town square’ where authority has little currency. Yet, that doesn’t mean the digital sphere is absent of class stratification. If anything, it is segregated by tribal classes. That is the nub of the matter.
This brings us to the eponymous “dissident right,” which is a hodgepodge of disparate positions that unite against the Left. It is driven by mainly young male Netizens creating networks among each other. Beneath that broad umbrella of the Dissident Right, they labour to define terms to advertise their positions. Those who claim to be “Fascists” interact with “National Socialists”, “Christian nationalists,” “Traditionalists,” “White Nationalists,” and so forth, until the lines are blurred. Many appellations keep them entertained.
The Dissident Right is an evolution of the Alt-Right, which, again, spawned on social media in 2015 in the US to support the election of Donald Trump. Curiously, we’re at the same juncture as then, although the Dissident Right are not all pro-Trump, and their positions—as with their cogency—are unsatisfactory. The young are deaf to the experiences of the political veterans and prefer to learn as they go. The trouble is, not that they are learning, but what they learn. They think with their mouths open and their fingers jabbing away at the keypads. It is painful reading their ideas. What brought them to this and not to that? You must locate where their mutual outlook interconnects to grasp why they get things so wrong. But first!
The Left doesn’t share unconditional agreement on every issue, but we know them for what they unite over. We recognise the Left as elitists who flaunt their academic credentials to denigrate “inferiors.” Moreover, the Leftist elites are the beneficiaries of economic and social privilege, yet they proselytize on behalf of the “marginalised.” They even include themselves in their ranks.
The smug, entitled, student radical comes from an elite school. Although he doesn’t work, he megaphones to the workers; knowing what’s best for them because his Marxist education tells him so. He is rewarded by the meritocracy with a career and lifestyle commensurate with his class; employed in a super-skilled profession we’re locked out of. To get there, he stood on the heads of the workers that he knows so well, and identifies with so passionately. They helped pay for his tuition. But he wouldn’t have them around for smashed avocado and Pinot Grigio. After all, they are down there, and he is up here. Besides, he lives in an exclusive metro neighbourhood where their presence would spoil the optics.
Our parliament is full of examples of elitists living in a bubble—even our unworthy Prime Minister, Anthony “I grew up in the housing commission” Albanese. He is impelled by class consciousness but is unaware of the fact that he is what he once resented. “Albo” worked ‘not so hard’ to become so. Indeed, he never held a legitimate job; he worked his ticket and climbed the ladder of the modern Labor Party.
Then are those Aboriginal “battlers” like Linda Burney, who is a millionaire on a handsome parliamentarian’s salary. Noel Pearson is a millionaire lawyer. The list goes on but you grasp: putting aside racial differences, they are not us. But they’re doing much better than we are. They are an ‘elite.’
The Left moralises on high while the world is stacked in their favour. The rest of us face locked doors. The Left elites are gated from all they rain down on us with their social, economic, and cultural policies—especially immigration. Their insularity buffers them from the reality they create. They are the 21st Century’s elite caste.
The Dissident Right is a political soup. Nationalists are not in favour with this bloc, but that’s OK, they say—those within call themselves Nationalists anyway; especially if they identify as “National Socialist” or “Fascist,” or whatever their young fancy dictates. But they are not because they abhor the only true Nationalists in the game; even if most can’t articulate their reasons why.
The history of Australian Nationalism doesn’t bear their claims to it, so they reinterpret the heritage to their taste. They share this trait with the Left. Still, if you can’t beat ’em, just claim to be them, that way you can declare them illegitimate. Yet, it doesn’t work like that. By stealing ideological property, they take what they don’t understand. They think it’s something it’s not, so it cannot work for them. But it misdirects the ‘seeker’ on a path that is not Nationalist but a divergent road. The positions of the Dissident Right revolve around conservative issues with White Nationalist concerns thrown in. Chiefly, they do begin with immigration and anti-White prejudice. Naturally, it is stirred with a generous spoonful of anti-Judaism. Lately, “Christianity” is being woven into the “Nationalist” weltanschauung. But it’s Christianity interpreted as these young agree among themselves (nothing new there); never mind that religion plays no role in Nationalism whatsoever. The inevitable trajectory of “far-right” dissidence is to another plane of class chauvinism.
A distinguishing influence in the “dissident right” is the abrogation of the ‘socialist’ element. Australian Nationalism is inseparable from its roots in the Labour Movement. The vision of Australian Nationalism was of a European people without the yoke of its hereditary class system. That did not make the original Nationalists “red-raggers,” since the abolition of class-centric sensibilities worked both ways. Shopkeepers and other merchants shared a platform with Nationalists. But never royalists.
A common misconception is that the Old Guard and New Guard were expressions of Australian fascism. But that wasn’t the case, being a reactionary order; regardless of Eric Butler’s vagaries. They were defending the Monarchy in Australia, and the mercantile class by association. However, that’s not how the likes of the Sydney Traditionalists, the British Australian Community, Andrew Guild and Frank Salter would view them; not their loyalties at any rate.
A distinct branch of alternative conservatism is proselytizing among would-be Nativists and cunningly waving them in another direction like a strip club’s doorman. Those “Anglophiles” bring their influence to bear in the dissident-right swamp. You find them with various social media characters identified with the “far-right” and platforms that give a voice to everybody but Australian Nationalists.
They do not accept the description “Anglo-Celtic-European” of our identity that Australian Nationalism observes but consciously omit the “European.” Likewise, they argue the Australian pneuma resides in England. We are just Englanders transplanted to Antipodean soil in the mind of this formation. To them, we spiritually belong in England. They cannot countenance a new Australian race that abhors the historic influence England has wielded on our fledgling nation: such as coaxing us into two devastating European wars we had no business joining. Thereafter, they slapped us with a bill.
Jack Lang, the Nationalist Premier of New South Wales was caught in the crisis of the Great Depression. He wished to defer “interest payments” to England for our privilege of losing the best of our countrymen in World War 1. In 1932, Francis De Groot and his New Guard threatened mutiny when Jack Lang tried to withhold payments to prop up our ailing economy. Likewise, Bob Menzies—revered by these fake Nationalists—said that it was better that Australians starved than withhold interest payments to the Old Dart. This is not the attitude of an Australia Firster.
Anglophiles admire the British Aristocracy. No one offended by class differentiation appreciates the monarchy. No Australian Nativist expresses loyalty to a foreign figurehead; especially one that has betrayed its race. However, youngsters from the Dissident Right are celebrating King Charles, the vilest of them all. No man has done more in England to betray his people other than Tony Blair.
This bespeaks the elitism they propose. Australian workers might be roped-in to support them but they are foolish. These are elitists and arrogant to boot. They envision an Australian ruling class loyal to the wreckage of Britain. Their atavistic mentality is a flaw, but they are traitors and outright opponents of Australian Nationalists, who seek a level field in which all Australians contribute to the Australian project.
Our opponents on the “far-right” despise us for this: it is an insurmountable bugbear. They dismiss us as “socialists,” and dispute the right of other Europeans to call themselves Australian. They gain influence in the Dissident Right and ally with a disparate assortment of organisations—including Neo-Nazis—to boil them in a pot. We have witnessed this with the “far-right” conservatives of the Liberal Party and its satellites. A historic precedent exists: they will court ‘Nazis’ before touching us. Now, while these same kids have acknowledged what we’ve had to say about those conservatives, they’re being conned by them anyway.
They are an elite and their goal is no different to the elitists of the Left. Be warned. ■
Matt Grant is the friend you have when you don’t have a friend. For Nationalists of the Third Position, who own the ‘Heritage,” which explains White Australian beginnings, Matt was a hero. We loved him. But then he turned Judas. He didn’t love us back. […]
Australian NatonalismMatt Grant is the friend you have when you don’t have a friend. For Nationalists of the Third Position, who own the ‘Heritage,” which explains White Australian beginnings, Matt was a hero. We loved him. But then he turned Judas. He didn’t love us back. Why? Because we weren’t the most popular kids on the street. Trite? Yes. What’s he got to say about it? It’s all part of his master plan. But no.
If you examine Matt’s history, you’ll meet an insecure character seeking approval. It’s like a Stockholm Syndrome. He sells out those he belongs with. Cosmetic appeal overrides loyalty. Like a cornered school kid intimidated by bullies, he chooses the cool gang over the unpopular kids. As such, his weakness has gifted political territory to those being handled by ASIO. But he wouldn’t know.
Matt Grant has done more to impress the opponents of Third Position Nationalism than he has to cultivate support from us. What has spawned this savage critique? Grant ripped the lynchpin of our association when he collaborated with Joel Davis in a video purporting to explain the “White Australia Policy” expertly in the past few days. That’s not the first of Matt’s gaffes, but it demonstrates a pattern. He has teamed up with this agent of division before. He supports anyone but the Australian Nationalists who, until now, helped him. Who is Joel Davis? Matt has never ventured to ask.
We thought of Matt as one of our own until realising we made him nervous. He never wanted or respected us, and like all of those born of his “millennial” generation, his loyalty is to his generational tribe and not to fellow ideologues. So, what happened? The enemy groomed him, and he fell for the seduction. Now, the Australian Natives Association is poison on our lips. We say “Joel Davis” as if that name should be known. But it shouldn’t because Joel Davis came out of nowhere and was suddenly a social media kingmaker. Who is Joel Davis?
Our investigations into Joel Davis continue. It’s a worry when uncovering the history of someone born in the millennial age proves difficult. Those from the X Generation have a legitimate excuse. They came about before digital records. But Davis didn’t, yet records are hard to obtain. We’ve encountered this phenomenon before, which means only one thing, a state operator. His life is a secret file.
We call Joel Davis a state plant. He has evaded digital records and comes from a milieu traditionally combative of Australian Nationalism. When the funds become available, we will thoroughly investigate Joel Davis, but right now, we’re satisfied that he’s from the dark side. The bastard has no sense of humour. That should be the first trigger. But then, when Nathan Sykes attempted to engage him in a dialogue on a Twitter chat room in December 2022, he ran away rather than engage. What was Sykes’s problem? He was in a dispute with a half-Sri Lankan school leaver over who was the legitimate “leader” of Australian Nationalism. If it weren’t for Twitter, Sykes would never have heard of either.
Sykes and Davis clashed earlier when Davis interviewed Grant. Neither recognised the Australia First Party. Davis would later say this was because he investigated the AFP’s electoral activity and noticed it had been quiet. Funny, since Davis is from Penrith, in Sydney’s West, and that’s where the AFP had its most significant victory—stolen from it. But that’s not a subject Joel had any interest or knowledge of. At that stage, he was a “Catholic.”. His claim to fame was a “paragraph” of his writing in a conservative volume produced by Imperium Press. An investigation into this company found a ‘Sydney Traditionalist’ group. Matt would never appear on Australia First’s Media, but he jumped at the chance to entertain this political nobody. This is interesting because it relates to Matt’s first contretemps with Australian Nationalist Nathan Sykes. Those “Trads” are the same group that has waged war—from an Anglophile conservative position—against Nationalists for years.
Tom Sewell introduced Matt Grant into the Patriot scene in 2015. Sewell recommended him to Nationalists, as he was with the “Patriots” and excluded from our dialogues by the direction of Blair Cottrell. Blair didn’t want White Nationalist ideas scaring off the “mainstream.” Genius.
Grant made White Nationalist noises, although he was, as should be expected, ideologically inconsistent. That’s no biggie for a newbie. But Matt was of a “Christian Nationalist” bent. Nathan Sykes invited him to explain his philosophy on his now-banned blog United Nationalists Australia. Matt accepted his invitation, and Sykes published his article. Grant would never thank Sykes or defend him when his “associates” attacked him. Grant has never published or shared anything by Nathan Sykes. On the other hand, Sykes stood firm in his defence of Grant. On the other hand, Grant took allegiances against Sykes and, at one time, bought into the lie of him being a “Jew”, although he didn’t have the guts to say it to his face. Sykes realised he was being played. Grant openly loathed him. This hurt.
In 2017, scammers hoping to cash in on the Alt-Right hosted Dingocon. The organisers of the ‘event’ invited whoever was popular on the “far-right” on social media to a Sydney meeting at a pub. Sykes was not invited, nor was Jim Saleam. No member of the Australia First Party was requested to attend. It was an invitation extended exclusively to those not involved with Australia First.
But that weekend, Matt, who was in attendance, stayed overnight at Australia First Party headquarters. He brought friends. At the time, he led the Eureka Youth League, Australia First’s youth division. His friends were members of the short-lived EYL. Grant returned and relayed the events. Saleam recognised those involved and deciphered the purpose of the gathering. Both he and Sykes published it. Loyal to his source, Sykes made a harmless reference to a memorable quote by Grant, who, about Neo-Nazi terminology, differentiated that from nativism by saying, “You say 1488, I say 1788.” Grant blasted Sykes.
Sykes pointed out the scam of Dingocon. Grant was furious for—in Grant’s thinking—alienating him from the ‘Dingoes’. These were hucksters out to exploit him, and Nationalists saved him and his friends, but his natural reaction was to resent us. Grant was particularly angry with Sykes for posting the “1788” quote and connecting it to him—no thanks to Sykes for honouring his sources or saving him from grifters. Grant was upset that those who wanted to screw him over would now think less of him. That is Matt’s mentality, to a tee. Those who were wringing him might think less of him. Unbelievable.
Matt ended the Eureka Youth League to express his contempt for AFP and exert his free spirit. He dug into the pages of Australian history books and discovered the Australian Natives Association. He stuck his finger on that page and declared, “That’s who I’m going to be.” He’s done an excellent job of it. But he’s alienated all the real nativists. Because Matt is weak and swings and bends with whoever is more powerful. The National Socialist Network and its propaganda maestro, Stefanos Eracleous, have fidgeted his organisation’s intellectual property into their general ownership. Matt’s response? Join their frontman, Joel Davis. Put Nationalists behind him.
Joel Davis has freely allowed Tom Sewell on his channel. What does this mean? Anyone associated with this clown is now tarnished with Neo-Nazi broad strokes. Joel knows why he did this, but the stupid fools that jump on board with this suspect personality have thrown their identity into his hands. Matt is now tarnished with the Neo-Nazi brush. His group are gun owners. They are recreational shooters. The Left has already seized on this. But now he is tied to Neo-Nazis. Sewell is the worst thing to ever happen to us, and Matt Grant would normally agree. What happened to his judgement?
Matt has a history of rejecting his natural supporters for those who want to use him. Does he think he’s using “them”? He doesn’t know who “they” really are.
Australian Nationalists will have nothing more to do with Matt Grant or his group. They are smeared with the contamination of Sewell and his faux Nazis. We will not defile either our principles or our organisation by linking to fools about to be proscribed by the state.
If Matt has such fixed opinions about Sewell, how come he compromised them at the first instance of believing that a suspicious blow-in like Joel Davis might improve his organisation’s profile? He has given validity to a spook, alienated his only true support base, and compromised the future of his members.
We officially have nothing to do with him. He chose his side of the street. Let him live or die on it.
Australians dreaming of owning a home need to wake up! The Australian government has given up on us and is allowing the Chinese to buy up Australian properties at a rate of $6m a day, or $2.4b a year, and experts say that’s a conservative […]
China invasionAustralians dreaming of owning a home need to wake up! The Australian government has given up on us and is allowing the Chinese to buy up Australian properties at a rate of $6m a day, or $2.4b a year, and experts say that’s a conservative figure.
Given how the Australian political establishment—which means all parties and political shades—has corrupted what it even means to be Australian, shortly we won’t even have terms of reference to articulate our grievance. After all, they will simply rejoin, “We are ALL Australians.” Oh, but we’re not.
The Chinese grew wealthy courtesy of American foreign policy that began when the Yanks enriched China at the expense of their eternal enemy, Russia. Now, safe in the confines of their oriental lairs, these consumerist automatons are buying up homes that at one time were predestined for the Australian race. That is what our great grandfathers fought the Japs for, after all! They didn’t beat the Japanese simply to have the Chinese slide in on a bamboo rug and take their place.
Outbidding Australians at the Auction Block, they are increasingly receiving a frosty welcome from desperate homebuyers who—suffering from the Labor government’s globalist policies—are struggling through a cost-of-living crisis stemming, in part, from astronomical interest rate hikes by the Reserve Bank. Yet, Albanese’s gung-ho immigration policies have worsened our financial dilemma. With international students now allowed to work as long as they like, and no end of ethnic diaspora ready to hire them ahead of Aussies, finding employment is tougher than ever, no matter what contrary statistics Jim Chalmers magically waves before us.
Albanese’s open door for international students, with over 450,000 visa holders having arrived and that same amount still due to settle in our overcrowded cities, is displacing the Australian on all fronts. We will be lucky to land a gig serving coffee to the new class of wealthy Chinese the government is so keen to welcome. All the service jobs will be taken by Chinese and Indian students!
This is to say nothing of the rental crisis which worsened when the borders reopened post-COVID. And Albanese and his fellow traveller Chalmers couldn’t wait to open those! Not only are they afflicted with the mentality that still believes, after all the evidence to the contrary, that high immigration creates an economic stimulus, all it does is please Albanese’s globalist bosses in Davos. The rest of us pay for the ambitions and private interests of the political elite. Don’t forget, most of them are landlords and routinely deal in property. They are tight with property developers and WEF planners anxious to establish “15-minute cities”, such as that being constructed around the Aerotropolis in Western Sydney.
Australians cannot wait for politicians to give us a break because it’s not about that. We are where they want us. And with Albanese already cosying up to Beijing promising them even bigger chunks of our nation, and a chance to settle here in vaster numbers, even the most ignorant must disabuse themselves of any flim-flam around “multiculturalism.” Australia is not an economy and it’s not theirs to give away to every Indian and Chinaman hungry to shove us out of our homes! No, we are not afraid of being called “racist” when that is meaningless as a word and is wielded against us by those eager to ethnically cleanse us from these shores.
All over the West, the reality is sinking in, that a synchronised attack is occurring against all Western nations. The political class has anointed themselves as the supreme controllers of our fate and destiny. Albanese is so cocksure we’re all stupid he spends most of his time sucking up to G7 leaders on the world stage where he shucks about like a ventriloquist’s dummy. He couldn’t care less what’s happening here unless it involves selling us out to a criminal cartel of half-Aboriginal scam artists eyeing off titular power in the parliament. In other words, promoting The Voice.
But we have a voice, too, and it’s time we raised it. Not only must the Foreign Investment Review Board tighten its controls, but it must be abolished altogether! There must be NO foreign investment of any kind and particularly that which involves the diabolical Chinese.
Chinese and Indians (and the rest) are not like well-conditioned Westerners. They don’t have any moral qualms about displacing the native people. Not even the slightest concern about whether or not we can find housing will have them pause to think about what their Disneyland money is doing to us. Don’t expect any of these aliens to care whether they crowd us out of the job market or take the rented roof from over our heads. They laugh when they see Australian families forced to camp in tents because foreign-born real estate agents regard us as pond scum.
Get mad, get angry, and get organised. Stop The Oil protesters think nothing of halting busy commuters on the way to work. Instead, drivers should just step on the pedal and roll over the top of them. But the same could never be said of loyal Australians who turn up to Auctions where fancy Chinese are flashing their nouveau-riche stacks of Yuan. While making these interlopers, be they brown or yellow, feel unwelcome we must take it upon ourselves to change the Parliamentary system that has betrayed us every day up until recently when they scrapped the reading of the Lord’s Prayer in favour of the bogus ‘Acknowledgement of Country.’
These Muppets are not a higher caste than us, they are not Lords and we are not Serfs. The invasion of the Chinese shows us that it’s not the foreign invaders alone who are the problem, but a parliamentary system that is designed to work to bring them here. The Westminster Parliamentary system failed England and it’s destroying us. It needs scrapping along with the grifting politicians who inhabit it.
Stand up, Aussie, before it’s too late!