Keen thinking is needed in the school of nationalism, or as we also call it, nativism. But when thinking paralyses doing, we’re left in the realm of intellectualism.
Uncle Arthur Calwell, the patron saint of Australian nationalism, would’ve lambasted intellectuals, and he did, as they transformed his beloved Labor Party into a cosmopolitan clique of internationalists and careerists. He was betrayed by Gough Whitlam, usurped, and Australia was robbed of what may have been its finest Prime Minister.
Calwell was thwarted by a ‘Movement’ of intellectuals who shifted the ground away from Labor’s traditional working-class base, to an anti-communist, right-wing set who split the Labor party. Their anti-communist stance was blinded to all else and it was they who paved the way for the dismantling of the White Australia policy. It’s a long, wretched tale, and those of us with preconceived notions of what that traditionalism meant, and the nature that we blindly attribute to what we believe the men of that class must have been like, are turned on their head by the detail of the history; by the intersections of competing groups; objectives and beliefs.
In short, we like to simplify. Traditionalists, as they call themselves, simplify a past that they wish to recreate. In truth, they are atavists. They cannot return to what ‘was’ because what was, never was; it’s how they believe it was. Which means that any attempt to create a past is to be ignorant of the complexity of that past, and its reality.
Australian nationalism has many heroes: John Curtin, Jack Lang, Arthur Calwell, Ben Chifley, William Guthrie Spence, just to draw from a short cast of political players. It might well be assumed by those entering nativism that all these folks got along with the same strident objectives. But that’d be wrong, and as much animosity and divergence existed between certain of these players in such a kind that looking back now, we might feel we’re being misled. After all, our primary motivation for entering into the nativist oeuvre is our awakening to the persecution of the white race.
It takes a scholastic mind to appreciate the history and discern these men and women and understand their place in that White Australia we so strongly wish to recreate. We don’t mean that ‘scholastic-minded’ folk are an elite at all, but just keen on their subject. And it’s that dedication to understanding where we came from, in all its incongruities, that enables us to figure out where we want to go. It’s no use saying ‘they did this back then, so we’re going to be just like them’ because back then the variables were all different. They lived in another time. Their era is bygone.
We meet so many who believe they can recreate the past to alleviate the troubles of the present. They’re not only from the nationalist spectrum, but they are also the ‘anti-racists’ who invoke the past so much that they reinvent the enemies of the heretofore so they can pursue their revivalist fetish. We are called ‘Nazis’ because they can only contextualise their atavistic subculture by having Nazis with which to do battle. Likewise, many of the extreme-right go around in adoration of Adolf Hilter and model themselves on his German National Socialist structures in the belief that they can resurrect his system and experience what they imagine it to have been like. In point, they are engaged in cultish practices. They will never live their dream.
Thus, while it behoves nativists to immerse ourselves in Australian nationalist history, we must disabuse our people of the desire to pattern their aspirations on archaic tradition, goals, and elements of past culture that by the edicts of modernity may never be again. Does this take some of the allure out of being a nativist?
For instance, while we model our movement on the old Labor traditions, most of that is notional. Only if solar flares were to destroy the electricity grids will we once again have cause to think and act in outmoded terms of human labour, since we’re into the digital age and advanced automation! We cannot return to the causes fought by our forebears because of the disparate circumstances. The horses of the past have bolted through gates long since removed. This is where intellectualism is useful because only the thinker tells us so, but whether he convinces us or not is another matter. It has to start somewhere.
The best place to begin is at the unifying factor that we still share with our heroes from the past — the fact that we are true Australians. Because we are true Australians, we are White, and the exigencies of the White civilization dictate the necessity for action, but what is that action, and how do we rationalise it into a plan?
White nationalists who are Eurocentric differentiate themselves from us nationalists because they see Australia as a European outpost. They betray their heritage by doing so and rob the future through their chauvinism. We are indeed concerned for all Whites, wherever they may be, but it is physically impossible and illogical that we can react as a whole to a situation that, while it has the commonality of purpose, is directed by considerations of geography, ethnicity, and immediacy removed from ourselves. How would France maintain its White population if they were to move across to England to fight their battles? How would Australia retain its White natives if we believed it was our preeminent duty to travel to Europe as if, were we to succeed in driving out the invaders, that it would then welcome us to its home? They would undoubtably say, “Thank you for your help, brothers, but you must now return to where you belong.”
Pan universal White Nationalism is useful in the sharing of ideas, contacts, and strategies but it’s defeated by the logic of nativism. Therefore, only nationalists (nativists) can carry on this fight. We say nationalists because we purposefully exclude all the political sundries who are lumped together with us, such as conservatives etc, but who share no commonality of design or aim.
Therefore, we begin with understanding who we are, learning of where we came from, but realise that the future cannot look like the past that we so fondly wish we could wish ourselves back to. It also means admitting uncomfortable truths to ourselves and ridding ourselves of the baggage of unrealistic assumptions about the support we might receive, absolutism in terms of ideas, and just whereabouts ‘things went wrong’.
A proper study of the times in which the White Australia Policy was betrayed reveal likely suspects, to be sure. It does pinpoint political traitors and fifth columnists — but it also disabuses us of misconceptions. The major failing of White Australia was, to be sure, White Australia itself. The Labor crusade of Arthur Calwell’s time were absorbed and pacified by an Australian people more interested in material reward than in moral virtue. Calwell would have traded the former for the latter in a heartbeat. But few others would, especially those he counted as his comrades in the Labor party.
The moral component is something very rarely discussed in nationalist circles, it seems often as if the same ‘at all costs’ mentality that poisons the so-called Left has made a victim of our own. They are not interested in right or wrong, just the means to the end.
Australians are, by and large, stupid people. That’s another uncomfortable thing to admit and almost blasphemous to say, but without realising and expressing this inexorable truth we cannot gain the wisdom to persevere. Arthur Calwell, who loved Australians dearly, but was perpetually let down by the stupidity of the voters as much as the ignorance of his colleagues, said as much himself after visiting Russia. His experience there witnessing how Russian children learned so much more than our youth prompted him to call us “Hillbillies”, a remark he didn’t withdraw from when later challenged. And that was a brave admittance for a man who was dogged through his political career by accusations of being a communist sympathiser, something he most avowedly was not! But it’s true. It was true then and we can see it now. One only has to log on to a Patriot page on Facebook to feel all the enthusiasm drain away in a shock of realisation. In that case, it wouldn’t be too wise to dismiss intellectualism altogether.
In conclusion, our message is that we must identify ourselves as a group, become understood of what we are, the reality of our situation, and prepare realistically for where we want to go. We cannot merely say ‘let’s get rid of all non-whites’ and expect that to be a plan because it’s anything but. It’s a revelation of ignorance. What then would our nationalist Australia look like? How would it be achieved? We don’t aim to answer all these pressing questions in this conjecture, but we will say that we cannot wait for mainstream opinion to find fondness with us because it never has. Nationalising banks would be one of our first steps as nationalists, but it was precisely that policy which cost Labor victory in the 1949 election, after which the party was cast into the political wilderness until it was overtaken by a leech named Gough Whitlam in 1968. By then, any hope of saving White Australia was gone with the dilettantes and progressives who seized the party.
They didn’t go for it back then and they won’t now because Australians are conditioned to a tributary system in which we are owned by foreign consortiums and at the mercy of international banking. As long as the materialist goods are imported, as long as the markets keep bringing us stuff which we don’t even need but desire very much then Australians (Whites) will be inert to their salvation. Arthur Calwell was a man bound by love to the idea of democracy and the apparatus by which it functioned. We suggest that was one of his major failings, for while we tussle with the character of our nationalism, remembering that it is nothing without morality, we must find a way to reconcile to the reality that it can only be achieved by us finding the means to impose it on Australia.