A certain type of conservative lingers among those who identify as white nationalists but whose networks are broader.

This particular strain of conservative, who prioritises ‘free-speech’ and who idly theorises about ‘Zionism’, soliloquises about ethnonationalism, but never actually supports nationalists.

Their commentaries often appear so alike nationalism that many have made the mistake of believing the commentators to be nationalists. And indeed, the commentators would prefer that their commentaries became accepted as nationalism, without the cruder, radical edges.

They are more of a reactionary animal and mistrust anyone who may argue for collectivism as opposed to unfettered free markets.

Intriguingly, these reactionaries, who also call themselves ‘Christian nationalists’ among other things, will go on long pseudo-intellectual discourses about ‘whiteness’ and its attendant faculties. They are often as tedious as those social justice warriors who condemn white nationalists in their identity politicking. They whine just the same and play the victim just as laboriously.

What’s absurd about this is that they are apologists for China. And their irony on the issue betrays their captivation.

But what captivates them? It’s been argued by certain of these commentators that by aligning with Chinese, who they equate as racial equals, that whites will become strengthened.

The Sino-Anglo-Celtic-European axis, they believe, supposes an innate interest that Asians share in preserving their blood. How misguided.

Another appealing aspect for them is their bedazzlement at the authoritarian nature of the Chinese state. They equate it, somehow, with being akin to a fascist state, and that enmeshed in the core of this authoritarianism is mutual respect for other races who seek to ensure our mutual survival. Fooled again!

It should not be too remarkable, though, for these are the same people who only need the suggestion of a conservative politician doing something ‘woke’ to their terms of reference to suddenly champion them. How long did they barrack for Pauline Hanson, and how many applauded Fraser Anning?

Yet, it’s from within this swamp of reactionary ooze that the free-marketers, all good libertarians, betray Australia. It is these economics-minded quislings who have long since supplanted the idea of a nation as flowing with blood with a mind to only monetarism.

They have divided the system itself: with defence and security organisations pitted against the political class and oligarchs like Gina Rinehart and Andrew Forrest who put the economy and their own gluttonous wealth before the Australian people. In their haste to secure capital flow, they actually bargain away democracy with China.

How foolish for the libertarians, those whose entire political psychology was centred around the democratic principle, to forego that freedom for the sake of gain. National criminals such as Labor’s former NSW Premier Bob Carr occupy a place of such pernicious treason that there is no firing squad with rifles of a high enough calibre to execute them in the manner they deserve.

The Chinese are driven by a system that exists only to ensure itself, not its people; its people are the mere worker ants labouring for that system. The system rewards only those who serve it.

Beijing speaks openly about ‘globalism’ and yet this is one of those ‘isms’ that preoccupy the reactionary dissertations.

China is not about to protect the Australian race; the system of multiracialism is one that it would ensure to safeguard its own interests since it is that mentality born of cultured white guilt that enables their incursions into our political life, economy, and nationhood.

Far from being a bright ally, the Chinese pose the greatest threat, not just to nationalists, but those naïve dreamers who believe a fat economy will ensure a healthy democracy.

The reactionaries, like the profitians (sic) who seek a place in Beijing’s court, do not understand China at all. They mistake their egregious defeats, such as uber traitor Andrew Robb’s China-Australia Free Trade Agreement (CHAFTA) with victories.

In this, those ‘Christian nationalist’ (an oxymoron) commentators who ridicule any warnings about the incalculable threat posed by China as Wall-Street-based scaremongering share the ranks of the foolish.

Never send a conservative to argue a nationalist message, especially when it concerns China. For, the Chinese hate us.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.