The Revolt of The Anglophiles:
The New Political Anglos & Frank Salter’s Deconstruction of Australianity
Click here for a slightly edited and expanded version of this article.
To compose a short piece to criticize an old friend, particularly one who has contributed so much in recent years to the critique of Western liberal attitudes and policy on ethnicity, identity, immigration, genetics and related issues, is not easy.
Yet, if something arises in any political-theoretical literature which is very much mistaken, it follows that a potentially dangerous situation could come into being at the level of political formation. I am concerned that Frank Salter has theorized of late in such a way that a potential for action predicated upon a false-consciousness — the basic recipe for a political defeat — is confronting us. My interest is political formation, the development of a conscious cadre-based and popular movement that will ensure Australia remains Australian, that the European ethnos and culture of this land endures beyond our time. This means that the ideological groundwork for such a movement must reflect the facts and the history of our country and make the essential judgment as to where we now stand and how to propel forward motion.
Of course, I must affirm that the essential works of Frank Salter should be consulted and widely read by all with the capacity to understand, not just in Australia, but internationally. I refer to a brief catalogue of Frank Salter’s books to make the salient point that he cannot be ignored as a primary thinker in the culture war with globalist liberalism.
So, when I read his pieces in Australia’s Quadrant for October and November 2012 — “The War Against Human Nature III: Race and the Nation in the Media” and “The War Against Human Nature Part II: Race and the Nation in the Universities” — and observed that they were reviewed by some American racial-nationalist publications as fair expressions of truth for Australia, I was dismayed. I was further concerned that some Australian conservative commentators had picked up upon his arguments and endorsed them. The genie is beyond its bottle and must be confronted.
The Setting for Dispute
Briefly, the Salter material at issue addresses the coal-face development of Australian liberal attitudes on immigration and multicultural policy over a long time period. Salter rightly documents the culture war being waged by media and other forces which serves the effective recolonizing of the country. In particular, he refers to their obsessive ritualized attacks upon Australians of “Anglo-Celtic” background. He rightly states that the propaganda of the dominant liberal elite makes racism a sin committed only by “whites” — and “Anglos” in particular. He records examples of the intolerance of academia towards traditional Australia and its crafted attack upon “whiteness.” All this is vital and interesting material.
However, the subject matter and the discussion is keyed in such a way to effectively equate Australianity with Anglo-Celtic ethnicity and a culture that can be interpreted as being essentially British, with the very idea of the Australian Nation an Anglo-Celtic construct (but sanctified in our wars). I hope these comments do Frank Salter justice because I can see his argument no other way.
I cannot but place the label of Anglophile upon my friend. He has essentially restated in a contemporary context the long-held views of many Australian conservatives.
Nonetheless, I can say that unlike the material offered by some Anglophiles in Australia over time, the Celts had a minor look-in with Salter’s articles.
Of course, one could nit-pick the idea of ‘Anglo-Celtic’ employed both by Salter and the conservatives and suggest that even mentioning our Irish past and Irish input to the national ethos causes some of our political Anglos no little angst. I note that Salter failed to fully address the Celtic question. After all, it was a tangled history of contention between the Anglo conservative imperial establishment and the poorer Irish migrants fed on Emerald Isle resentments over British rule. Yet, it might also be said that the Irish ethnic stream mutated culturally beneath the Southern Cross and fed the river of Australian Identity and the ideology of independence. Certainly the Irish awareness of the criminality of the British Empire assisted the anti-conscription movement of the First World War. And who really can say our raw Irish were so wrong to decry nation-murder? Their response was mixed between Ireland and Australia, but their sentiments were clean, while the Anglophiles of that day went on to found secret police organisations and the first paramilitary structures to defend the imperial outpost at war. I cannot say that development was a good thing if one takes a long view. The old contention has long since died away in Australia which is the relevant point, but it is certain that for Australians colloquially dubbed “Anglo-Celtic,” the proportion of Irish blood in their veins is high.
Basically, Anglo-Celticism would imply an acceptance of a fusion of two great European families. It should follow that the political Anglos of today would have concluded that a new nationality had emerged, but I doubt that is really a kernel of this thought-system. I charge that the Anglophiles of all types, Frank Salter included, are hung up on the “Anglo” bit. That is not good enough, and it misleads.
Times have moved on, and Frank Salter rightly perceives an external threat to the survival of Australia. He says:
Anglo-Celtic Australians are being rapidly displaced by mass Third World immigration that they were never asked to approve, are excluded from multicultural forums, and are the prime targets of political correctness, including a growingly coercive legal apparatus.
I charge that this is a false position because it is white Australia, the formed nationality called “Australian” and I say too along with any other unassimilated “Anglo-Celts” and other “European ethnics” who are the targets of the system. It is white Australia in general that will be displaced by the Third World masses. Of course the system does attempt to hook unassimilated groups into its order to disrupt the formation of a clear racial demarcation line in immigration matters (i.e., it sets up an idea that we Australians are all “immigrants” and puts some white immigrants against the mainstream).
So where are we? The Salter material would not alone constitute a problem for an Australian nationalism (as I shall define shortly) if it was the isolated view of a single publicist, and even if it was part of a line of thought sharpened to the present.
However, a moment came for a revolt of the Anglophiles against the settled positions of the nascent Australian patriotism and nationalism. From 2005 the Anglophiles, hitherto marginalized, regrouped and decided to undo what had been achieved and argued. Indeed, they had probably rankled a period of years at the weight of the Australian nationalist argument and resources. At least, the trace data tells me that. From rancor came action. I am minded of an old adage from Mao: when the revolutionaries rebel against the reactionaries it is good, but when the reactionaries rebel against the revolutionaries, great evil is done.
The current Salter articles have been published in Quadrant as part of a series and other articles by him have appeared there over the last few years. Quadrant styles itself as a conservative journal of intellectual opinion and cultural commentary, that is conservative on some areas of social policy but which espouses free-market liberalism. Quadrant is also not any sort of “white Australia” publication as one recent contribution showed beyond doubt. It should not necessarily be said that anyone offered space in Quadrant should refuse it. However, Quadrant is much more than its self-description.
I do not refer to the peculiar Cold War circumstances of its foundation courtesy of the CIA front, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, as being in any way determinative of its quality, but I must make note of its place in the arrangements of the Liberal Party of Australia.
Essentially, Quadrant is a specialized journal whose essential objective is to harness intellectual forces to the conservative arsenal. Its function is to shore up the “conservative” side of the globalizing regime. In other words, it represents a type of Australian “neo-conservatism.”
Quadrant would always seek out intellectuals and other useful authors and critics, enmesh them in the conservative scene, while holding itself out as a non-politically-correct publication that offers an opportunity for them to influence the “mainstream” debate. In fact, it would be the mainstream that would simply co-opt the target and employ his views as warranted.
If Quadrant has now chosen to publish the Salter material at issue, then it is appropriate to ask: why would they do so?
To ask the question is really to answer it. Quadrant’s interest in stymieing the efforts of nationalist-minded Australians has depth. Its former editor, Peter Coleman, was the prime instigator of one of Australia’s major scandals, the imprisonment of immigration-critic Pauline Hanson. It can be said that Coleman’s shadowy “Australians for Honest Politics” stitched Hanson up and achieved a major success against her movement.
Journalist Margo Kingston wrote of this grubby plot not long ago:
From your position on the ceiling you can see that the table below is occupied by four stalwarts of the neo-liberal scene, including a couple of associates of its most influential intellectual forum, Quadrant magazine, published from another fashionable Sydney suburb, Balmain. There’s former NSW Liberal leader and ex-federal MP Peter Coleman, a Woollahra resident, father-in-law of Treasurer Peter Costello.
She concluded that Quadrant was more than it seemed. Indeed, it is possible to say that it is an element of a veritable Liberal Party “dirty tricks department” (albeit the psychological action section) which embraces political and cultural-ideological action.
Even given the foregoing, it would be irresponsible to suggest that anyone who wrote for Quadrant was a shady character. Many fair-minded people have written for Quadrant. However, it is from a nationalist perspective an inescapable suggestion that Quadrant’s editors, let alone the Australians for Honest Politics group, would recognize at once the destabilizing power of an Anglophile position inside a developing opposition movement to mass immigration.
If the real challenge for Australians was one involving the need to displace the current globalizing state and building the unity of all “whites” against the Third World intrusion, then a movement that opts to have its audience (the Anglo-Celts) exist inside a multicultural system as an “ethnic” group — and which by its very nature must divide those whites against each other — would be a blessing. The first option is political to the core and the second an abstinence from the pursuit of power, a deconstruction of Australianity which the regime itself cannot but see as part of its own agenda howsoever it is dressed up.
If the political Anglos accept their cooption without resistance then the neo-conservatism of a state force intrudes onto our political territory as a Trojan Horse.
Genesis of a Problem
I detect that the current revolt of the political Anglos began with an article in the New Times Survey of the conservative and generally Anglophile Australian League of Rights. Why there? I don’t know for sure. I do note that the old League was always sympathetic to any expression of Anglophilia; its publications are widely read by conservatives, and the veritable manifesto they published seemed well researched and endnoted. It would travel.
That article: “Racial Treason: From White Australia Policy to the Yellow Australia Policy” by two pseudonymous writers, attacked Arthur Calwell Australia’s post-war Immigration Minister, accusing him of undermining “Anglo” Australia with his wide-European immigration policies and even suggesting he was not genuine in his defense of White Australia. They blamed him in “historical” terms for being the author of Australia’s current Asianization crisis. They smeared him by mixing in chatter about Fabian socialism and noted that Melbourne’s Jewish community (which has usually favored Asian immigration) had once praised him for the widening of immigration source-pools after the Second World War. They played on Catholic and Irish dislikes of Anglo Australia as a basis of his treason and even bagged Hero of the Nation, John Curtin. The aversion to our Celtic heritage stood out in this diatribe. They deplored the migration to Australia of people of Slavic background. False flags and smutty smears and twisted arguments abounded to the point (I need not record them) where the uninitiated may have concluded that Calwell was part of an alien conspiracy.
But this article gave its own game away. An attack upon “so-called Nationalists” who revere historical nationalist labor heroes and White Australia supporters Jack Lang and William Lane and who regard Calwell as flesh of their flesh was the crux of the matter. I suspect that was the article’s actual political point and the clever if somewhat falsely crafted article was a declaration of war on these “so-called Nationalists.” The nationalists who uphold the nativist-nationalist and White Australian nationalist traditions of Lang, Lane, Calwell and so on, are well-known — and this writer is one of them. The Anglophiles had opened hostilities against those who argue the thesis that Australia has a native identity of its own and that its folk are drawn from all European source pools.
Enquiries of the League as to the real identities of the authors were stonewalled and ultimately this writer personally was put under public fatwa by the League National Director, Don Auchterlonie, in September 2011. And yet, League founder Eric Butler, whatever his heart-felt sympathy for the Anglophile view of Australian history may have been, had moved publically long ago towards a defense of Australia’s overall European identity rather than a staid espousal of the virtues of an idyllic Anglo imperial and colonial past. I praise Eric Butler for that.
From 2005, it seems that the revolt of the Anglophiles intensified. I believe Anglophile concerns played a role in the messy attempt by certain persons to seize control of the old nationalist Australia First Party in 2006-7 and which produced the Anglophile Australian Protectionist Party with its (then) link to the British National Party. Of course, this activity was the “political side” of things.
The new political Anglos have other muscle of more renown.
Professor is its most well-known advocate of the Anglophile line. His book The WASP Question: An Essay on the Biocultural Evolution, Present Predicament and Future Prospects of the Invisible Race was a statement that argued for an Anglo-Saxon (Fraser is shy on the term “Anglo-Celtic”) global-nation living in diaspora inside the mechanics of the globalized order. Whatever the many useful and interesting observations it may make upon the Anglo-hatred of the multiculturalists, counter-hegemony, the work cannot be viewed as part of an Australian literature of resistance to the state; rather it seeks divorce from the state by establishing an ethnic-cultural identity without territory linked to a revivified monarchy. I would aver that no European race, invisible or otherwise, can exist without territory over which it is master.
Professor Fraser does not accept that Australia has an identity beyond a place where Anglo-Saxons dwell. I debated Professor Fraser on these and other issues of Australian identity in 2009 and I am pleased I did. Indeed, we should also accept any interesting commentary upon our national identity (as I did). I was bemused to observe that Fraser denied we exist. This is the ultimate verbal act for deconstruction. Yet, he has been invited since to speak to various groups who need not indulge this version of free speech.
Alan James of the British Australian Community (an organization referred to favorably by Salter as a model for a community representative force for his “Australians”) has recently authored New Britannia: The Rise and Decline of Anglo-Australia. This substantial work gets down to the nitty-gritty.
For James, the definition of Australia itself is a transplanted Britain with its destiny and its history simply intertwined with the Mother Country. Australia has no identity of its own and its real history that demonstrated the betrayal of Australia by the former Empire at every point — from the opposition of the Empire to White Australia and its plans to introduce alien races, its nation-murder of the young men at war and its sundry foreign policy deficiencies — rates no critical mention. It seems too that our Irish (“Celtic”) component seems to count little either, and James confirms as other Anglophiles have over time, a disregard for the Irish.
Nonetheless the website of the British Australian Community (BAC) states (by way of including the Irish):
The history and culture of Australia from 1788 until recent times is simply an extension of the history and culture of the British Isles.
English, Irish, Scottish and Welsh people (plus a few other related northern Europeans) came to Australia, and created the culture that we now recognize as traditionally Australian. Everything that we think of as Aussie culture came from those islands of the north Atlantic that were known in Roman times as “Britain”
The nationalists reject that “British” concept of Australianity absolutely and call in aid the work of P. R. Stephensen by way of refutation. Indeed, Stephensen directly confronted similar nonsense in the 1930s where “the British Garrison” as he dubbed them suggested Australian culture was weak and derivative only. Again, we witness the deconstruction of the Australian identity, the nation vanishes, whites are divided. Given that the BAC is a lobby and cultural group, we see the essential de-politicization of the struggle (although we would debate what “struggle” is being discussed).
I could say: in passing that the BAC has some links to the Protectionist group and to the League of Rights, completing the circle, such groups providing the outreach structures for the political Anglos.
The problem restated lies for me in the question of political formation. The struggle being waged against the nationalist position neutralizes potential cadre, confuses recruits, creates strife and delays the mobilization of a white Australian nationalism.
We now move towards defining the parameters of Australianity and the false consciousness model of a British Australia as advanced by the political Anglos.
Defining the Anglos
But what do the political Anglos believe of Australians? Salter says:
Anglo Australians are a subaltern ethnicity. They are second-class citizens, the only ethnic group subjected to gratuitous defamation and hostile interrogation in the quality media, academia and race-relations bureaucracy. The national question is obscured in political culture by fallout from a continuing culture war against the historical Australian nation. Many of the premises on which ethnic policy have been based since the 1970s are simply false, from the beneficence of diversity to the white monopoly of racism and the irrelevance of race. The elite media and strong elements of the professoriate assert that racial hatred in Australia is the product of Anglo-Celtic society. But in the same media and even in the Commission for Race Discrimination most ethnic disparagement is aimed at “homogenized white” people.
Of course, much said here is true. There is a culture war in Australia and it has been pursued by media and other elites. It is equally an oddity that when the “political class” hits at something Australian, it will often “Anglify” the object of its hatred in order to supposedly delegitimize it and strike it down. In that regard, the defense of our admittedly Anglo heritage (a component we say of our overall European heritage) is valid and important. But is it sufficient and is it a complete definition of the Australian reality? I suppose the Anglophile’s trick lies in stating the Anglos are an ethnicity in the new Australian reality, that they remain the “historical Australian nation” which must re-negotiate its place. I might go further and suggest that if the multiculturalists have a “false consciousness” of Anglo hatred (when it is White Australia they are in fact attacking), the political Anglos retaliate in similar form. Two expressions of false-consciousness confront each other.
The Australian nationalists would have preferred to say that, with a few significant upper class exceptions, Australian Anglos had long assimilated themselves to not being the “historical Australian nation” but rather being a proud component stream of that nation.
Frank Salter has opted to obliterate from the discourse the group he rightly defines as an enemy target — “homogenized whites.” Indeed, I would happily argue that a large slice of English-speaking Australians are in fact, homogenized whites and that as a group “Anglos,” whether branded Anglo-Celtic or Anglo-Saxon, do not really exist as proposed in the Anglophile literature and certainly not in the strength claimed.
The Old Frank and the New Frank
Frank Salter did not always hold the view of Australian identity he now does. Of course, we are all entitled to change our minds and we are all entitled to “mature” and develop as aptitude, perception and circumstances permit.
I suppose my trouble with the new Frank is that I am still at one with the old Frank.
In the Australian National Alliance (ANA) in the years 1978–1980, the view of the Australian Nationality was advanced by Salter and others that I believe was correct and which Australian nationalists have held to pretty much ever since. I shall describe it as best I can in a paragraph:
Australia was founded as a colony of Britain. It was regrettable that no war of independence ever ensued, a factor that left behind confused sentiments and delays in acquiring independence. In any case, the rise of the USA to a global power transferred control of Australia after the Second World War to the Washington/New York system although various colonial residue was left behind. In the years after that war, a consumer capitalist order disintegrated Australian social and cultural cohesion in the direction of suburbanism and apoliticism. An Australian identity had formed in the Australian cultural springtime of the 1880’s and was compelled to develop itself amidst the imperial overlay. The Australian population was diverse in terms of its European input, far more so than Anglophiles allowed and that to a great degree this was welcomed by the nationalists in the labor movement as a sign that the Continent was a collective possession of the Anglo-Saxon, the Celt, the Germanic, the Slav and the Latin peoples whose biological and cultural fusion was normative and natural. Immigration after the Second World War was designed to buttress Fortress Australia and its “white” character until that notion was overturned by multiculturalism. A threat from China, from the Third World generally and from refugee armadas would eventually compel a breakdown of any white separatisms whether “liberal” in character or otherwise. A new war of independence would be needed to secure the future of the new nation. In that war, the fires of a nativist nationalism would be stoked and the final character of the Australian demonstrated to the world and a new state formed to establish the Workingman’s Paradise.
It is rather obvious that this world-view contrasts in toto with the position of the new political Anglos.
The ANA was, thanks to Frank Salter, the first “anti-immigration” organization to publish leaflets, posters and other literature in other languages and to formally reach out to Euro migrant communities. This was a deliberate act and hardly a concession to multiculti. It was hoped that the European-immigrant communities who were being encouraged to separate from the mainstream white English-speaking group could see our logic and in their acceptance of common dangers, a common vision could be advanced.
In my view, the old Frank was an innovator. For good reason, when a new party paper was established for a new Australia First Party, the name Audacity was chosen. This was the name given to the Australian National Alliance paper by Frank Salter and E. F. Azzopardi.
The uncompromising Australianism expounded in those days travelled well and is usually the position taken by a new generation of activists — before the matter is ever even explained to them! In other words, the view is organic and obvious.
That the Anglophiles now contrive something else puts them at odds with the only possible formulation of the facts which permits constructive political action.
The Salter Program and the Australianist Response
I must place before the readers the concise program now offered by Salter to answer the threat to Australia and its identity.
However, I note that the program is predicated upon an awareness that “Britishness is an ethnic category, not a racial one.” The reduction of Salter’s Anglo-Celts into an ethnic group is a further element of the deconstruction that abolished the white nation. We now see the capitulation to the state.
One or more Anglo councils are needed, non-governmental organizations along the lines of other ethnic councils but oriented more towards promoting the scientific study of ethnicity and nationalism. The council should also advocate for Anglo Australians, broadly defined. An Anglo council, and ultimately a federation of Anglo councils, would defend its constituents’ ethnic interests — against defamation, exploitation and demographic swamping. It would demand full representation in multicultural bodies and seek consultative access to government. It would lobby for schoolchildren to be taught the true history of the nation. It would affirm its attachment to the land of Australia. And it would insist that if any people is to be recognized in the Constitution, pride of place should be given to that which founded the nation and provided its infrastructure, political and legal systems, culture and language. Representing the core national identity and the majority of Australians, such a council should adopt a conciliatory role to smooth ethnic relations but in a manner compatible with defending its constituents’ rights and legitimate interests. The effect would be to democratize multiculturalism and the immigration industry by giving the majority of Australians representation in those spheres for the first time.
I am reminded of a comment: “I don’t want a seat at this table. I want to take a proverbial chainsaw to the table.” It may be fairly opined that Salter is advocating a sort of accommodation with the very mechanisms which are destroying the traditional Australia he purports to defend. Indeed, it is more than unlikely that the present Australian state would accede to any “recognition” of any hypothesized Anglo council or its works, unless it was truncated in such a way as to be a useful adjunct to the system’s management of dissent. As his possible Anglo ethnic lobby force, he offers the British Australia Community.
Indeed, we nationalists are not concerned to “survive” in some marginalized way, but to reclaim the birthright that is ours – the Continent Nation.
As far as Australian nationalists are concerned we require a party organized at the community level and in alliance with any other forces to reject the state and its multiracial-multicultural ideology through the articulation of a different Australianist position expounded by extensive outreach; it must mobilize youth in the schools and universities into a movement of acculturation and defense; it must act to demoralize and undermine the system’s workings and act to incorporate all who can be assimilated into Australian cultural norms by appropriate methods; it must create national-liberated-zones in cities and towns and areas where Australianist norms predominate and are inculcated and state ideals excluded or rigorously challenged. All together, such a party must struggle to supplant the regime howsoever that can be done by becoming a mass political force organized by cadres but reflective of a populist ideology and method.
I suppose Salter is a sort of post-millenarian who sees the process of destruction so far advanced that he contracts for a type of survivalism. He says of his Anglo Council that it is:
. . . a national lobby that represents its constituents’ ethnic interests. Such a national whip would defend Anglo-Australia’s interests against a political class that has been squandering those interests for decades. That is one, perhaps the only, way, to retain the benefits of the nation-state in an era of mass migration and self-serving elites.
How could this be? In fairness, I must be harsh. To win the political war I see developing will be more than difficult and we may well fail; however, the Salter program is fairy-tale stuff and devoid of the slightest hope despite the shiny practical-politics-packet it may come in.
Two Lines: A Matter of Political Space is Decisive
It is clear that the positions arrived at by the Australian nationalists contrast absolutely with those of the Anglophiles. Reasonably, while both sides may make this or that point about cultural defense or anti-hegemonic method or whatever, only one side can hold the political truth in its hands.
In my view the matter cannot be settled by debate, but only in struggle. The debate (sic) is simply methodology to psychologically prepare our cadres and foot-soldiers to fight the matter through not only by direct discussion with anyone misguided by Anglophile falsehood, but in normal political work which increases our resources.
The defeat of the new political Anglos means we must locate and colonize available political space. Political space is not too well defined in the literature. It may be a geographical area where the establishment’s writ does not run, an available sub-culture, a distressed social group, white ethnic groups turning towards Australian identity for survival, places within a city liberated by our presence, a voting clientele, cultural and historical associations. Our Australia provides countless opportunities. By applying ourselves to the construction of a political movement that sallies forth from the space which nourishes it, we can outlast and out-organize those who would drag us backwards towards a colonial world long past. Indeed we can win the independence struggle.
Unlike the political Anglos we Australophiles are fortunate to have but one fatherland, but one motherland. We are strictly antipodeans and we do not need any more to fantasize of Home. We are Home. We may be Europeans by blood but we know our Place. Our national poets, like Ian Mudie, tell us that the alcheringa is within us and that Eureka’s fires warm us. We are told by Stephensen that harsh and crude men will save White Australia and we take up the call. And like our Hero John Curtin, we would wage savage guerrilla war across a scorched landscape and burn our country rather than sell it out and fight long years — until victory.
Sorry Frank. We are Anglo-Celts no more.
1. See: http://www.amazon.com/Frank-K.-Salter/e/B001HPYUJ4
2. See the on-line versions at:
3. Kevin Macdonald, “Frank Salter on Race and Nation in Australia,” January 24 2013 at: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/01/frank-salter-on-race-and-nation-in-australia/
4. I have summed up much of that in the first chapter of James Saleam, “The Other Radicalism: An Inquiry Into Contemporary Australian Extreme Right Ideology, Politics And Organization, 1975 – 1995,” PhD thesis, University of Sydney, 2001.
5. Tanveer Ahmed, “Politics: How Conservatives Can Win the Ethnic Vote,” Quadrant, April 2013. See: http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2013/4/how-conservatives-can-win-the-ethnic-vote
6. Margo Kingston, “How Abbott Funded The Fight Against One Nation,” New Matilda, 11 December 2012.
7. John Peterson and Rohan Phillips, ”Racial Treason: From White Australia Policy to the Yellow Australia Policy,” New Times Survey, August 2005.
8. See “Defend Australian Nationalism,” a collection of articles at: www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/defendnationalism/indeex.html
9. Andrew Fraser, The WASP Question: An Essay on the Biocultural Evolution, Present Predicament and Future Prospects of the Invisible Race (London: Arktos, 2011).
10. Alan James, New Britannia: The Rise and Decline of Anglo-Australia (Melbourne: Renewal Publications, 2013).
11. The British Australian Association website is more than instructive. See: http://britain-australia.org.uk/
12. Percy Stephensen, The Foundations Of Culture In Australia: An Essay Towards National self-Respect, 1936. See this and other works:
13. A composite from the newspaper Audacity, numbers 3–7 (1977–1979)
14. Matt Parrott, “Republican National Committee Report 2013:
A Declaration of War on White Americans,” Counter-Currents Publishing, March 20 2013.
Source: Ab Aeterno, no. 14, Jan.–March, 2013.
Revolution with Full Benefits
IQ Is a Phenotype
Enoch Powell, poslední tory
An Open Letter to Scott Adams
New Video! Why Do White Nationalists Sabotage Their Own Movement?
White Fragility & The White Nationalist Manifesto: A Comparative Analysis
New Video! “American” Is an Ethnicity!
PUA vs. White Nationalist Perspectives on Mating
Mr. Saleam has a complex writing style, but I think I entirely agree with his core objections to Salter’s approach. I won’t pretend to be qualified to comment on the technical merits of Salter’s work, and no one will mistake me for being qualified to do so anyway. I also won’t pretend that a practice has value merely because Frank Salter promotes it.
There is no value that I can discern in promoting stale, divisive, backwards-looking and irrelevant categories of analysis like “Anglo,” “Anglo-Celtic” or “Anglo”-anything. Accordingly, I challenge anyone reading who believes promoting these categories has value for white interests to defend their choices. What premises justify these categories? What do you hope to accomplish by promoting them?
It seems to me that generic “whiteness” as a stand-in for “blended Euro stock” makes perfect sense for analyzing the dynamics in a diaspora nation like Australia. If “whiteness” works for our enemies, or in this instance for the enemies of white Australians, surely it can work for us whatever the differences in our sub-ethnic, cultural and historical legacies.
I’ve had my differences with the BUGsers, but God bless them for their persistence in reminding everyone the essential conflict is “white versus anti-white.” Greg Johnson has made a similar point many times. The enemy sees us as white however we might want to see ourselves. Therefore, anything that gets in the way of whites collectively fighting back as whites ultimately serves enemy interests intentional or not.
The time is right for people with the talent and ability to do so to begin emphasizing broad forms of Euro identity. If a dim bulb like me can figure that out, serious intellectuals like Salter and Fraser ought to be able to as well.
The Identitarians would agree with you on this I believe as do I. He ends on a strong and fierce note.
Jaego amplifies – wisely – the essential point made by Lew.
I have long argued that The Brand Called White has had so much of its market value destroyed as a EXPLICIT political organizing tool that it should all be cast to the dustbins of history.
On the other hand, an Identitarian focus, properly defined, allows us much maneuvering room in the political system, particularly as part of a metapolitical focus from which many acorns can grow.
This line of analysis is worthy of extension. We can Do Something with this.
Jaego/FOC, I guess I was not clear, or my thinking is muddled, or maybe I’m not getting Saleam’s point, or perhaps we’re talking past each other.
At any rate, I disagree that the market value of brand white is shot if we’re talking about diaspora nations like the US and Australia. If this is true, what’s the point of BUGS? They break it down into white v anti-white.
White has cultural relevance if for no other reason than the enemy makes it relevant. Unless I’m mistaken, Saleam’s primary objection here is to Salter using problematic classifications like “Anglo-Celtic” that have little real relevance in today’s Australia and impede the kind of unity necessary for white resistance in Australia.
Maybe Greg can clarify Saleam’s point here. His writing style is complex, and one probably needs to know some Australia history to really make sense of his dispute with Salter.
Lew, you are correct in your reading of Saleam.
Lew: “If this is true, what’s the point of BUGS? They break it down into white v anti-white.”
Great. Me a white rabbit, you a white rabbit. Let’s work together for the benefit of all white rabbit-kind.
Alternately: your Irish supremacist identity: legitimate; my Anglo identity: illegitimate. Your sob-sister history against the Anglos: sacred; my dislike of such politics and preference not to play that game, especially against fellow-whites: weak, and proof that Anglo identity is unimportant and can be dispensed with. Not great; actually, up your nose with a rubber hose.
Or let’s take the lead from BUGS this way: ASIA FOR THE ASIANS, AFRICA FOR THE AFRICANS, WHITE COUNTRIES FOR EVERYBODY!
Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.
Some people saying there is this ethnic – national problem among whites. Apparently this ethnic problem will be solved when the Anglos in all the countries they built give up their identities and dissolve into bottom-of-the-barrel rabble, looked down on by hyphenated-whites.
White racial unity requires this, apparently. But white racial unity does not require that the Irish give up their identity. (Or even stop playing vindictive cultural politics against the Anglos.) Nobody thinks this ethnic problem requires the Spaniards to being Spanish, or the French to stop being French, or the Germans to stop being German, or the Croats to stop being Croatian, or the Ukrainians to stop being Ukrainian, or the Russians to stop being Russian. The white ethnic problem will be solved by the obliteration of Anglo identity and only Anglo identity. (Scots don’t count, since they’re Celtic, and redefining Celtic to mean “Irish only” means Scots already don’t exist.)
Anglos have made HUGE concessions for the sake of a common (white) identity in Great Britain and in Australia, for starters. This ethnic disarmament is hardly ever mutual, and the free riders of common white identity not only don’t put down the ethnic sword, they don’t even respect the bottom-line limit: fight among whites if you absolutely must, but don’t import non-white allies.
The only obvious reward of all this soft-pedaling of Anglo identity has been weakening it and emboldening enemies to say it is unimportant and should be abolished.
When a lot of people started flying the Cross of Saint George instead of the Union Jack, I thought it was unnecessary and divisive. I now think it’s necessary and appropriate, and I was slow to get the point.
But I’ve got it now. I have had it with this game.
If anyone thinks there is an ethnic problem among whites, if anyone thinks a useful common front is too difficult to imagine if it includes ethnically self-aware Anglos: fine; go ahead and abolish your ethnicity. Shut up, go away, cease to exist; take the advice you’re trying to give to others.
And as for any talk about this being something that dissolves all identities not just Anglo in the vanilla melting pot: I call shenanigans We’ve been there, we’ve tested that theory at a great price, and we know the results, and so do you.
Lew: “Mr. Saleam has a complex writing style, but I think I entirely agree with his core objections to Salter’s approach. I won’t pretend to be qualified to comment on the technical merits of Salter’s work, and no one will mistake me for being qualified to do so anyway. I also won’t pretend that a practice has value merely because Frank Salter promotes it.
There is no value that I can discern in promoting stale, divisive, backwards-looking and irrelevant categories of analysis like “Anglo,” “Anglo-Celtic” or “Anglo”-anything. Accordingly, I challenge anyone reading who believes promoting these categories has value for white interests to defend their choices. What premises justify these categories? What do you hope to accomplish by promoting them?”
First, review How Whites Took Over America Part 2, because you’re that guy saying, before you can object to your culture being wiped away you have to define it. Well no, actually, I don’t think there’s any necessity for Anglos to justify why their identity and culture should not be obliterated, even if theoretically it would only be melted away in a pot of all other European identities – and we now know due to very costly experience that it never ends there.
How about you just obliterate your “stale, divisive, backwards-looking and irrelevant” ethnic and national identity, and leave Anglos alone?
Only I have a question: how often has smothering, melting away and obliterating the first-settler / old stock / ethnic core of a white nation strengthened that nation against anti-white influence and non-white mass immigration and ethnic power games at the expense of whites?
I mean, you want to wipe away a nation (actually it’s a bunch of nations) because that’s supposed to be good for the whites. There should be convincing evidence that this is true.
Do you even have a theoretical argument that whites are better off, healthier, happier and more effective when they are less ethnocentric, less culturally cohesive, have less in common historically and nationally, and dissolve any specific ethnic and national history in “concept nation” talk like: Australia has a native identity of its own and […] its folk are drawn from all European source pools?
Who has a lived, gut, ancestral, blood-and-bone understanding of –> all <– European source pools, with no preference for say English over Basque literature? What kind of "my-land-and-I'll-fight-to-keep-it" culture is that, that has no specifics as to language, food, songs or anything else? Where is the evidence that "anywhere and nowhere" is the right place to be from, if a white nation is to hold its ground?
You’re the one promoting views that serve anti-Anglo interests. Maybe you haven’t noticed, but your own elites have been applying the British colonial model in Britain itself for the last few decades. I’ve read that London is no longer a British city.
You think I don’t care about Anglo culture? You couldn’t be more wrong. When I think about the Asiatic hordes befouling the land that gave the world Shakespeare, Newton and so many others, it makes me ill. In response, you’ve apparently decided that opposing the Irish ought to be the priority. Well I have a different view. As far as I’m concerned, the Anglo elites allowing this tragedy to happen deserve the gallows.
The Asiatics aren’t going to prioritize preserving Chaucer and Shakespeare OR Joyce and Yates. Only a fool would believe that. We will have to come together to preserve the best of the West’s high cultures.
I’ve more to say in response to you and on the topic in general. I hope Greg Johnson keeps comments open.
Have you read A.K Chesterton? About how the Anglo/Jewish Elite made the English people think the Commonwealth Countries wanted nothing to do with them anymore? And how they told the Commonwealth Countries that England was tired of looking out for them? As usual it was a masterful job. Go over to Kevin MacDonald’s site: there is a five part series about how the Jews destroyed the White Australia policy.
I have a lot of sympathy for your point of view – and I grew up hearing Irish fight songs. As did Madison Grant. He said America was English and should have stayed that way. As did Wilmot Robertson about the Irish intransigence. But as Lew said, your Elite got in bed with the Devil and sold you out. It’s just too late now for the world you wanted. Better a White future than no future at all. Maybe England can still be saved, or at least parts of it. Maybe. But not if we can’t get past squabbles like this.
Jaego: “Have you read A.K Chesterton?”
I have not. Thank you kindly for putting me on to him.
Jaego: “I have a lot of sympathy for your point of view – and I grew up hearing Irish fight songs.”
Thank you again.
Jaego: “But as Lew said, your Elite got in bed with the Devil and sold you out. It’s just too late now for the world you wanted.”
That is the same argument that we should give up on a White future.
Jaego: “Better a White future than no future at all.”
I think Dominique Venner was right about many things, including him defining himself as a white man first and most, and then one of French nationality. That is the right way.
I understand what is first and most important. But that doesn’t mean I accept being disinherited in an ethnic-national sense.
Jaego: “Maybe England can still be saved, or at least parts of it. Maybe. But not if we can’t get past squabbles like this.”
I appreciate that you are advocating harmony. But we already have an annual, official Harmony Day, brought to us with the assistance of the Australian Multicultural Council (AMC), where “equity and access” (for “ethnics” at the expense of Anglos) is strategized, where antisemitism is officially a problem and antiwhitism is not. I don’t like this kind of harmony.
I would prefer the kind of harmony where Anglo-Celtic Australians are recognized to have as much right to a national existence in Australia (where we are about 70% of the population) as the Germans have to a German life in Germany (where they are about 80% of the population. And you know, with treacherous governments, that percentage can drop in a hurry.)
I do not mind the idea that we should be part of a great white coalition, in Australia and globally. I think that’s a great idea. I have said many times: I am not a white nationalist, I am a white internationalist.
I will never accept that the legitimate price of white unity is to say along with Jim Saleam: “Sorry Frank. We are Anglo-Celts no more.” No! As long as that is the price of getting past this “squabble” we cannot get past this squabble.
Of course, Jim Saleam doesn’t expect this “squabble” to be resolved except by struggle, by a fight in which “our” (!) cadres and foot-soldiers put down the Anglophiles:
It is clear that the positions arrived at by the Australian nationalists contrast absolutely with those of the Anglophiles. Reasonably, while both sides may make this or that point about cultural defense or anti-hegemonic method or whatever, only one side can hold the political truth in its hands.
In my view the matter cannot be settled by debate, but only in struggle. The debate (sic) is simply methodology to psychologically prepare our cadres and foot-soldiers to fight the matter through not only by direct discussion with anyone misguided by Anglophile falsehood, but in normal political work which increases our resources.
The “squabble” or the “struggle” or the “fight” will continue, apparently, till error (that is the side of Anglophiles) capitulates to “truth” (that is his side), and we all say “We are Anglo-Celts no more.”
White Nationalists seek to promote harmony among different white ethnic groups, in order to unify and strengthen our people so that we can end multiculturalism/multiracialism/white dispossession and regain control of our future. Multiculturalists seek to promote harmony between whites and non-whites as a way of greasing along the process of white dispossession. And you vehemently reject both projects because they use the word harmony. That strikes me as superficial and really somewhat neurotic.
The basic pattern of neurosis is that one goes around with a chip on one’s shoulder, a set of grievances, which one then unleashes in an inappropriate manner. Instead of unloading on the real object of one’s resentment, one unloads on someone else who is merely reminiscent of the offending party. In short, one is not dealing with reality as it is. The real world is just a set of screens upon which one projects one’s obsessions and triggers for venting one’s rage. Bitterness is a kind of neurosis, because one’s anger over some past slight warps one’s perception of the present.
Have you really not noticed even now? Jim Saleam’s article is suffused with the inter-ethnic aggression that you threatened to ban me for pushing back against, and that you still insult me for with this trite psychoanalysis.
As for “past slights”, that is not the point, the point is serious intellectual hostility and ethnic strategizing. And visceral anti-British hostility is part of that pattern of ethnic strategizing.
“Harmony” in this case is not just a word, it’s a strategy of dispossession, a strategy that in practice in Australia has blurred the line between intra-racial harmony and inter-racial harmonizing, as white ethnics moved continually and inexorably from mass immigration at the accepted price of full assimilation, to (once in the country) rejecting assimilation as being “too Anglo-conformist”, to “integration” and to “multiculturalism” and “full-blooded multiculturalism” in which ethnic coalitions, themselves increasingly non-white, have pushed for all they are worth to make Australia non-white, reducing Anglo power regardless of costs to white common interests. Jim Saleam’s characterization of this as simply other people trying to beguile ethnics against non-immigrants (while the ethnics were purely passive) is definitely not the whole story; and all the way along the moral pressure has been on the Anglo-Celtic Australians to be harmonized, to seek and achieve harmony on the immigrants’ terms by making more and more concessions, and ultimately by accepting silently (or else) that inter-ethnic relations will be mediated by “ethnic” bodies where if you are Greek or Lebanese or Vietnamese you can sit down, but if you are Anglo you must leave the room.
This has not been good for Anglo-Celtic Australian interests, and our interest in Australia is as valid as the French interest in France. It has not even been good for white interests to the exclusion of our interests. There is no sign that it ever will be or could be good for white interests.
The theory of a minced, post-Anglo-Celtic “culture” (without history or roots such as British-Australian culture has), may be theoretically neat, but in Australia it’s been at best a bust at defending white interests, and at worst it’s been a strategy that begins with empty promises and ends in a brown and yellow tide.
What next? The context is, complete assimilation on a basis of full racial and moral equality, which Anglos have wanted, freely offered and urged from the beginning, and which apparently everyone here concedes is incumbent on the immigrants, is a non-option because the non-Anglo ethnics have always rejected it once they got a foot in the country, and they always will; instead they push (with the support of our own treacherous leaders) for an ethnic/racial spoils system which excludes Anglo-Celtic Australians and operates at our expense, and they like mass immigration, which further dispossesses Anglo-Australians and adds to the all-colors “ethnics” coalition.
In that context, what do we do? I want Anglo-Ethnic Australians to have a seat at every inter-ethnic discussion table, and it should be the seat at the head of the table. I want the British-Australians at those tables to defend our specific ethnic interest, which includes above all a white racial interest.
Frank Salter was right to raise the issue, and Andrew Fraser was right to spell out what is necessary.
No, I don’t see it, because it isn’t there.
You sound like American Anglo chauvinists who are perplexed when people who are supposedly being accepted on the basis of “full racial and moral equality” object when the Anglos assume they will always be “at the head of the table.” Which is it? If “full racial and moral equality” means something more than just part of a smug sense of moral superiority, it means that the head of the table is going to rotate from time to time.
Full racial and moral equality is what you have when you step off the boat from Estonia in the initial surge of “Balts”, and instantly you are equal to any other British-Australian (which at the time was just “Australian” since that was, prior to mass non-British immigration, the national identity); but by coming here you agreed to act like other British-Australians, and you will be held to it and given every possible help, in a good spirit, to get you into the swing of things. British race patriotism logically would not apply to you, but nobody wanted to draw that line; you are equal. And in an extremely, consciously and ideologically egalitarian country with a high degree of collectivism (compared to hustling Americans or the class-bound stay-at-home British) there is very little of a social pyramid for you to start at the bottom of; you really are fully equal, in fact and spirit, not just theoretically and legally.
Someone who took that deal heart and soul (as I guess more Balts did than any other ethnicity) could be trusted to sit at the multicultural table and represent the British-Australian interest. They would not feel themselves to have any other interest; if they started stacking positions with their fellow-ethnics, those fellow-ethnics would be British-Australians, not Balts. (Nor would they be threatened if someone else got that seat, because another British-Australian would represent them.)
Of course if the ethnics had assimilated instead of refusing to, there never would have been a multicultural table where spoils are negotiated among white, black, yellow and brown “ethnics” at the expense of British-Australians.
Organized ethnics drew the line against the British-Australians. They always have. They always will.
That is why British-Australians need representation. Which at the present time we do not have. And which Salter and Fraser say we need. And which Saleam does not want us to have.
Greg Johnson: “You sound like American Anglo chauvinists who are perplexed when people who are supposedly being accepted on the basis of “full racial and moral equality” object when the Anglos assume they will always be “at the head of the table.” Which is it?”
I want us always to be at the head of the table in our own country. If you want to be the one at the head of the table, be one of us.
Greg Johnson: “If “full racial and moral equality” means something more than just part of a smug sense of moral superiority, it means that the head of the table is going to rotate from time to time.”
Not in the opinion of the multicultural ethnics, who never even give us a seat at the table.
I think there is a real contradiction between assimilationism and ethnonationalism. Isn’t a culture more than just a language and a legal system and a calendar? Isn’t it a whole outlook on life, a way of being, a kind of soul? If a Balt can really assimilate fully to an Anglo-Celtic identity, then doesn’t that imply that the Anglo-Celtic or simply Anglo identity is pretty thin? If anyone can be you, then there can’t be much to you. And why would anyone from a real culture want to assimilate to something that thin and cast aside whatever remains of his native identity? Is it not possible for Anglo culture to be enriched by other cultures?
I think that the only reasonable sense of assimilation that should be required of immigrant groups is: language, law, calendar, manners, driving on the correct side of the road, etc. Beyond that, there will be many different cultures, and over time, all of them will assimilate elements from one another creating a new blended European culture and identity. That process is well along in the US and Canada, and I assume in Australia and New Zealand as well.
Greg Johnson: “I think there is a real contradiction between assimilationism and ethnonationalism.”
There is a tension. I would not call it a contradiction.
Greg Johnson: “Isn’t a culture more than just a language and a legal system and a calendar? Isn’t it a whole outlook on life, a way of being, a kind of soul?”
Greg Johnson: “If a Balt can really assimilate fully to an Anglo-Celtic identity, then doesn’t that imply that the Anglo-Celtic or simply Anglo identity is pretty thin?”
No, it implies that Balts are racially very similar to Anglos and Celts, in a way that Chinese, Javanese and Bantu Africans are very much not.
And it implies that, on the basis of that rare capacity to fully assimilate, each Balt will accept a psychological and cultural revolution. Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, a Marshal of France, crossed the Swedish border and was instantly Swedish and wholly devoted to Swedish interests. (Even though he never learned to speak the language.) His family reigns to this day, without any problems, because they are entirely Swedish.
That is what I mean when I say: if you want to be the one at the head of the table, be one of us.
Greg Johnson: “If anyone can be you, then there can’t be much to you.”
Is there not much to Jewish identity? Because they accept (some) converts too.
Greg Johnson: “And why would anyone from a real culture want to assimilate to something that thin and cast aside whatever remains of his native identity?”
Because Australia was (for the whites) a new continent and a grand adventure; because nothing could be more splendid than to be British, including British-Australian (I am speaking of the mentality of the time, not of the discouragements of this era of white decline); because the country you were coming to was prospering and wanted white citizens to populate it and own it, not just menial workers to toil for it; because your own country was a war-torn wreck under Communist rule; and because assimilation was the clear expectation coming in.
I haven’t been able to find the film online, but there is a film from that era, encouraging immigration and acceptance of the new immigrants, with a very white woman denying that she had an a past and an original country, and saying that she only wanted a future. That is what was wanted.
Greg Johnson: “Is it not possible for Anglo culture to be enriched by other cultures?”
Look, it’s not that complicated: you can have the best of everything, including full acceptance within the ambit of British race-patriotism, which used to be a big deal, but you have to be one of the people.
Liberty, equality, fraternity: pick two. A tough choice but luckily for you it’s been made for you. You will be equal and you will have fraternity. Is that not good enough for you?
Of course it’s possible to pick up useful and valuable foreign ideas and bits of culture. British people were always wandering around the Empire picking up exotic stuff and bringing it home. It’s fine to do that – it would be un-British if nobody did. But you have to do it as one of the people, and not as a foreigner trying to displace bits of British Australian culture in favor of your culture. “We Latvians have a better way” should not pass your lips.
Greg Johnson: “I think that the only reasonable sense of assimilation that should be required of immigrant groups is: language, law, calendar, manners, driving on the correct side of the road, etc.”
I think complete and warm acceptance in a prospering, rather collectivist and intensely race-patriotic, white, free, egalitarian and rather conformist culture is a good deal. There was no better deal that could have been offered. Then and there or ever and anywhere.
This of course is the notorious “Anglo-conformity” that the ethnics resented, spurned and had junked in favor of “integration”, “multiculturalism”, “full-blooded multiculturalism” and “youth for open borders”. With the full encouragement of our traitorous politicians.
I agree as well. The national identities aren’t important in heterogenous countries like America and Australia. But obviously the White Culture and Identity that evolved from all of them is. Exactly the opposite is the case in Europe. And if memory serves, I believe Identitarianism makes this distinction as well. Hopefully one of them will show up and confirm and perhaps Fourmyle can clarify his point too.
Thanks to all for the constructive criticism.
Allow me to clarify my statement.
Not one Republican comes forward to even mention Whitaker’s Mantra. Not one Republican comes forward to deal with Affirmative Action, save to praise it to the skies, and fund it to the Heavens. The word “White” has been replaced with two terms that have become synonymous in practice – “racist,” which is a code word for “White,” and “white supremacist,” which is a code word for “racist,” but much more straightforward in its intention.
We are the one “minority group” that you can attack without fear. The gelding of the Americans is all but a done deal, save for isolated pockets that can organize along Identitarian lines – American Identitarianism, if you will.
The EXPLICIT mention, while useful, becomes more useful if it can be accepted as the crystallizing phase of political organization. The direct approach can be blocked. The indirect approach – implicit Whitness, implicit Western Civilization – is another story, When Fox News’s Megyn Kelly told one and all Santa Clause was a White Man, she came as close as you could to IMPLICITLY and openly supporting the White race, and THAT is why she was so vehemently attacked by so many of the New Left, the New Middle.
Look at how the guys at Duck Dynasty have prevailed by standing on Christianity. NOT Institutional Christianity, not organized Christianity, but simple, “the cultural foundation of the nation is Christian” beliefs and practices. Note that Duck Dynasty Robertson has learned from Paula Deen, and is NOT doing the ritual ap9logizing that is so much a part of the indoctrination process. Note how Jesse Jackson is now going national in his attacks on Robertson, and how strong his metaphors are.
The Big Guns have been called out early, as “they” are afraid of the power of the Sleeping Giant they are awakening. THIS is the soil from which an EXPLICIT Identitarian ethos can flourish as the manifestation on an IMPLICIT, positive manifestation of, Whiteness, and (Western ) Civilization.
Well that makes sense but why not do both? The Elite do it all the time. Put out an extreme idea and then allow the resistance to back you up a bit to where you wanted to go. So let our hard core Idealists talk about White everything until people are willing to deal with the “reasonable” people who talk only about implicit Whiteness a la Church and Culture. If the two factions could understand each others roles, then we’d be cooking with gas.
Since the article was published by Ab Aeterno, it was slightly added and a few sentences added for clarity. The final version is at.
I thank readers for their comments.
Dear Dr. Johnson
I noted a number of errors in the article forwarded on from Ab Aeterno. Since you have done me the honour of publication, might I suggest, the article is replaced with the final version?
Sure, send it on.
Could you send me the revised paragraphs so I can incorporate them, without the necessity of reformatting the whole piece? Thanks.
Delegitimizing Anglo and Anglo-Celtic Australian identity, and demonizing it through Irish “awareness” that the Anglos are criminal villains is just another example of the Irish unwillingness to let go of useless hate.
What the Irish usually mean by “Celtic” is: strong ethnic sub-racial identity for me but not for thee, damn the English, and as for the Palestinians, oops I mean the Scots, they do not exist.
This article was about as helpful to the white Australian cause as Teddy Kennedy and Tom Hayden’s Irish hatreds were to the white cause in America.
Australian identity, Australia as a white ethno-nation, was undermined in two phases, the second radically worse that the first.
The first was the undermining of real Australian identity in favor of mass non-British but white immigration. This went with the logic of original Australian identity, which was emphatically white, just as the MARCH of the GREAT WHITE POLICY poster illustrates.
But it went terribly wrong, as the “ethnics” felt an interest in undermining the national identity, not accommodating it or merging with it. Al Grassby and Jerzy Zubrzycki are two examples of influential “ethnics” who did everything they could to undermine Anglo Australian identity, and supported the destruction of white Australia too.
These and other “ethics” provided cover for and added vastly to the force of “anti-racist” politicians such as Barry Cohen. (Who was also a fierce anti-Apartheid campaigner, though that was never part of his ministerial roles, just a racial obsession.)
The second and radically worse phase was and is the destruction of white Australia, legislatively, demographically and in every way. Irish anti-Anglo hatred might not seem relevant to that, but Prime Minister Paul Keating thought otherwise. Australia had to stop being British as thoroughly as possible, and that meant becoming an Asian nation.
(Samuel P. Huntington gave this evil project a chapter in The Clash of Civilizations, rightly predicting it was doomed not because any elite in Australia stood against it, but because the Asian nations consistently excluded Australia in their diplomacy, insisting that “being in Asia” was not good enough. They wanted “Asian faces.” This drove Australia back into the American camp, more than ever before. Of course the American camp is also a “multicultural” camp.)
Apparently Jim Saleam thinks we need to go back and do the phase 1 national destruction more thoroughly this time, delegitimizing Anglo-Australian identity even on the racial right. I disagree.
The only “useless hate” on display here is your own.
I really am in a quandary here. I don’t know whether it is best to simply ban anyone who indulges in these kinds of inter-European tribal feuds, or to allow discussion of them, if only to supply cautionary examples. The danger of the latter course is that (1) nobody who is wrapped up in these sorts of identity issues is ever convinced through rational discussion, (2) their mind virus might spread to others, and (3) their presence makes the website revolting to my chosen audience, namely people from whom petty nationalism has no appeal.
I would be interested in the thoughts of my readers.
I would be interested in the thoughts of my readers.
Taking a long-term view, my suggestion would be to aim for an ideal in which individuals can profess an ethnic ‘background identity’ and a (hopefully moderate) preference for those who share that ethnic background identity without this spoiling or threatening the larger racial effort. Easier said then done, of course, but far from impossible. I hate to kick a man when he’s down but it must be noted that the great holdouts on this point are the Anglo-Saxonists.
On the other hand, there is a troubling tendency among ‘diaspora’ pan-Europeanists to taboo the historical founding of countries like America, Australia and Canada. Hearing them tell it you’d almost think these countries were founded by the simultaneous arrival of Europeans from all quarters. Given what the actual historical record was I hardly think it’s perverse for the British-descended to wonder just what’s in it for them (this despite the point I made above).
So much for analysis, but what should therefore be done? I recommend a firm hand. Treat the ethnic squabblers the way you would a Stormfront hothead who mistakenly believes his righteous rage confers upon him the right to “tell it like it is” by wading into a discussion and talking down to his betters – the hothead isn’t often wholly wrong, but the nonsense he spouts makes him far more trouble than he’s worth.
The key tactic we have been, and will be facing, is the invalidation of our thinking today, and our selves, in time. This has grown in sophistication, with attacks becoming less forthright and direct, and more subtle, aimed at diverting us into futile paths.
Savitri stated, in her constructive criticism of Uncle Wolf, is that the problems is NOT that he was ruthless. It’s that he was not ruthless enough, and did not (frequently) purge his ranks of those who did not contribute in a direct, positive way to The Cause.
A wise man once said, “You are the average of your five closest friends.” Allowing people who you would not invite to a meeting to participate her simply lowers the quality of what we do here. How many people from Movement past would you allow to publish here?
More on a metapoint, counter-currents is defining what it saw distantly, at its beginning, and that is a common intellectual framework linking philosophy, culture and Race in a much more accurate melding of Ideas, and Ideals. Now is not the time to waste time being rational with the irrational.
I had no idea the Irish/English hatred was still so hot outside of Ireland. Leave it up. We have to hash this out or Australia is done for.
I’m reminded of something Charles Williams said. The Transcendental England of Arthur is Logres. The Brutal England of Empire and Colonialism is Britain. The compromise between these two is England as it is. The same break down could be made for many other Nations as well.
I would be interested in the thoughts of my readers.
The Scots, English, Irish and Welsh are all British and deGaulle was quite right in keeping Britain out of Europe for we are not Europeans. The British and Europeans are White and we have our similarities but we do not belong under the same government. A federation from Greece to Ireland would work but not under the tight unilateral controls of a monstrosity like the EU. Micro controls don’t work. The Irish are being played to break the cohesion of the race.
White nationalism is an American thing but the West as a whole has its similarities and that is good enough for me. United we stand, divided we fall.
Still reeling from seeing the Traviata defiled to suit a PC Negro (they’re polluting even opera, where are we going to find refuge?) and I find all my posts here deleted. While Sandy’s one with his coded anti-other Whites message is still there. As I said, Alain Soral is winning many converts among racially-aware White French exactly because he portrays WN as being a kind of right-wing Atlanticism. I don’t want to repost everything I’ve written about De Gaulle, Nigel Farrage and Daniel Hannan and the UKIP dishonest implicitly pro-White and explicitly anti-European position, as if the two could be distinguished. Retrieve from your recycle bin if you care enough, as far as I’m concerned I deem myself banned from this site unless you finally explain to me why 90% of my posts, most of them well-written, thought-of and poignant get routinely deleted as if I were a troll.
Your comments often use crude racial slurs and often seem cranky and trollish. So I delete them.
Delegitimizing Anglo and Anglo-Celtic Australian identity, and demonizing it through Irish “awareness” that the Anglos are criminal villains is just another example of the Irish unwillingness to let go of useless hate.
That is ridiculous. Saleam wasn’t proclaiming Irish grievance. Read Fraser’s reply to see how Fraser formulates what it is to be White Australian. He ignores the fact that our ancestors were here from the start and had every bit as much input to modern Australia’s formation as the British.
When Fraser talks Anglo-Celt and British he means Protestant Anglo-Scots. He does not include Irish Catholic descended and is divisive therefore.
If Fraser wants to claim Australia as belonging to him and his alone then he should own White Australian capitulation as being the province entirely of his own people, rather than blaming the “Emerald Isle” descended etc
Saleam is trying to unite White Australians of every ethnicity whilst Fraser wants to separate from us into his own ethnic clan of “WASPs” and “British Anglo-Celts”.
Andrew Fraser formulates Australian identity correctly, and the ax-grinding anti-Britishness of Jim Saleam’s article illustrates why it has to be formulated like that.
Jim Saleam’s article is a declaration of war against British-Australian identity. This is though British-Australians, having founded the country and built it up, and still being around 70% of the population, have been reduced, as Fraser says, to a subaltern identity. So we’re down, but this is not enough; he wants us out.
This, apparently, is not “divisive”, but repudiating that attack is “divisive”. Racially aware whites who would not say that German identity has to cease to exist and be replaced by a blended European identity, who would not say it’s “divisive” for a Frenchman to be French in his own country and so on, will say: it’s good to insist that British identity be eliminated and it’s wrong to say, no we will not be eliminated.
This shows that the British descended peoples in the Anglosphere have to be aware of themselves and look out for themselves.
Australia’s founding identity in old pictures, with its enemies.
I think that Titus Didius Tacitus misses a lot. As a participant in the anti immigration movement rfrom the very early 1970’s, I have been through the British-Australia ‘debate’. I have always drawn a huge distinction between the ‘Anglo’ contribution to our country and the Empire and the local elite which served the City of London and little more. Further, I always drew a distinction between the Fenians and what I call Emerald Isle resentments against Britain and the Irish contribution to our folk identity and so on. I also noted that the broad thrust of ‘assimilation’ of our large European migrant communities after 1946 was interrupted by multiculturalism that sought to turn them against the mainstream and which has divided them thereafter. The question must be: what do we do with all this history?
I think that the arguments of that 1930’s and subsequent seer of Australian identitarian politics, Percy Stephensen, who has been published on this site and published by me, puts it far better. He saw the development of a local identity arising from the European components in the late 19th century, long before the Irish question weighed in during the First World War and mass European migration began after 1946. And he noted that Australia was never as ‘Anglo’ as the Empire group asserted. Australia’s gemeral European identity was set then and recognised then by some of our greatest cultural icons and critics. If Australia is a Nation, then all the questions are resolved. The Anglo-Celtic stream of the nation is an obvious and large one,but not the only one which melded into Australianity.
The problem I see is one where the political Anglos of the present render the cause of national defence a terrible disservice. It is also unnecessary that they do this.
The idea that any Australian nationalist is here to complete a process of destruction of our Anglo aspect would only be true if Titus Didius Tacitus misses the point that a new nationality formed in Australia.
As a “diaspora pan-Europeanist” who is very familiar with the totality of Salter’s work, I’d like to express my interpretation of Salter’s Quadrant articles (note: I am speaking for myself here and not for Salter and my interpretation may of course be mistaken).
I read Salter’s articles when they were published and I never got the sense that he was restricting the definition of “White Australia” solely to those of “Anglo-Celtic” descent. I did read his work as asserting the primacy of Anglo-Celts (i.e., British Isles descent) as the core ethnic and cultural component of Australia – the key founding stock. I’m not an expert on Australia, but my understanding is that the founding of that nation (similar to the USA and Canada) was an Anglo endeavor. Thus, I see Salter’s emphasis on a core Anglo-Celt identity as perfectly reasonable, particularly as I don’t see it as excluding non-Anglo Europeans who assimilate to the Anglo-Celt core ethnicity (here I see Salter as being distinct from Fraser, who in my opinion really is divisive).
I see no incompatibility with being a strict pan-Europeanist and, at the same time, having an understanding of historical realities and basic fairness. The “White ethnics” in Australia (and in America, Canada, etc.) have in my opinion an obligation to assimilate. After all, if you live in a nation founded by another people and if you are similar enough to that people so that you are assimilable, then you can and should assimilate. The nation should not descend into a morass of squabbling ethnicities, with Diaspora groups strategizing against the founders. On the other hand, those non-Anglo Europeans who genuinely assimilate should be accepted and the White Australia concept needs to include them. You can end up with a White Australia made up of various European ethnic elements, of which the predominant element is the Anglo-Celtic.
As far as the charge that Salter’s essay is too moderate – it’s true that talk of “councils” is not the sort of “red meat” that radicals such as myself look for. But the target audience in Quadrant is more or less mainstream conservatives. We may debate the wisdom of engaging conservatives (I’m skeptical) but if one decides to reach out to the conservative mainstream, then you need to get them started thinking in ethnic and racial terms. Salter’s Quadrant articles seem to me a perfectly reasonable and legitimate approach to reach out to Anglo-Australian conservatives and have these people start thinking in ethnic terms, which can later lead to a more explicitly racial aspect – since all White Australians have a vested interest to oppose non-White immigration.
“radicals such as myself ”
Why call yourself a radical?
Your comments are reasonable, sensible and conservative.
Ted is reasonable, sensible and radical. Not conservative. Please don’t associate Ted with conservatism. Let’s flush conservatism.
Dr Saleam’s article is based upon the false historical premise that Australian national identity emerged out of the nativist ideology of an antipodean colonial movement set in opposition to the British Empire. In his view, despite the successful Federation of the six British colonies which gave birth to the Commonwealth of Australia at the turn of the twentieth century, Australian nationalism was still-born. Saleam is convinced that a revolutionary “war of independence would be needed to secure the future of the new nation”. “Regrettably,” the Australians failed to emulate the American colonists who had thrown off the British yoke a century earlier.
The problem with this interpretation of Australian history is that it refuses to acknowledge what one historian calls “the necessity of Britishness” to the construction of a stable and sustainable Australian national identity. “Drawing on ethno-symbolist approaches to nationalism”, Russell McGregor contends “that Britishness provided the necessary ethno-cultural foundations for Australian nationhood, the only available repertoire of myth and symbol that could fulfil the nationalist aspiration for unity”. At the same time, he recognizes that “Britishness in the antipodes was significantly different to that of the British Isles, as were the civic/territorial components of Australian conceptions of nationhood, giving rise to a distinctive British-Australian composite nationalism”.
The distinctively British ethno-cultural foundation of Australian national identity amounted to a form of British race patriotism. But, according to James Curran, in the aftermath of the Suez crisis, and the decision of the UK government to join the European Common Market, Australia’s political leaders “were faced with an emotional muddle and a rhetorical dilemma. The inability of Britishness to act as a focus for Australian policies and priorities left a void in the Australian self-image. It provoked a crisis of national meaning. One of the most fundamental ideas in Australian cultural and political life, the belief that Australians were part of an ‘organic’ worldwide community of British peoples – united by blood, history, language and tradition – had to be significantly revised at this time”.
In other words, Curran continues, a “people who had identified themselves so intensely with the British race, who saw themselves as a bastion of this race in the southern seas, now had to shelve their race consciousness and embrace the notion of being a ‘multicultural’ community. As the old, monolithic British story lost its vitality, these leaders had to make sense of a new era, characterised by a diversity of cultures, especially those of Asia. Since Britishness had given such powerful meaning and cohesion to the people, what would replace it?”
The answer, of course, is the official multiculturalism which has reduced Australia’s founding people, the so-called Anglo-Celts (Australians of British descent—who still constitute somewhere around 70% of the country’s population) to the status of a “subaltern ethnicity”.
Dr Saleam’s critique of Salter fails to set out the premise of the argument he is attacking. Following the collapse of British race patriotism, the composite character of Australian national identity was lost, leaving behind only “the civic/territorial components of Australian conceptions of nationhood”. More recently, however, the multicultural cult of the Other has compromised the integrity of the Australian proposition nation by recognizing the supposed special status of the Aboriginal people of Australia.
Salter’s response is to call a spade a spade and draw the obvious conclusions. To grant special constitutional status to the Aborigines is to create an ethnic constitution. No ethnic constitution for Australia can be legitimate if it fails to acknowledge as well the decisive role played by the British race in the creation of the Australian nation. In other words, Salter is not asking merely that Anglo-Australians be granted a seat at the multicultural table; rather, he demands (implicitly at least) that they be seated at the head of the table.
It is rather hard yards to accuse WASPs of divisiveness and treason to the cause of pan-Europeanism when they demand recognition as a constituent element in the multicultural regime. Clearly, other white ethnic groups such as the Italians, the Greeks, the Serbs, the Croats, not to mention our friends from the Emerald Isle, have not been slow to benefit from the racial spoils system which feeds on the social capital created by British Australians over the past two centuries.
Ted acknowledges that other white ethnic groups who migrated to Australia had an obligation to assimilate to the norms of British Australia. But Mark Lopez has shown that soon after arriving the various southern and central European migrant groups complained about the assimilationist program of “Anglo-conformity”. As a consequence, by the late 1950s assimilationist policies were replaced by the “integrationist” rhetoric which paved the way for the full-blown multiculturalism which followed the abolition of the White Australia Policy.
Dr Saleam closes by declaring that “We are Anglo-Celts no more”. The fact is, however, he never was and never can be a member of the once-proud British race. I am confident that Frank Salter will agree with me when I say that, despite our reduced circumstances, those of us who are of British ancestry have an obligation to preserve and protect our genetic interests in the face of all those who would deprive our posterity of its birthright.
Interesting. Is Frank Salter of English descent?
Btw, who is Andrew Fraser, the ex-pat Canadian Protestant to be telling us, who are seven generations Australians out of Ireland, what it means to be an Ozzie?
Fraser can take his proud British heritage and stick it up his arse.
I’m with Jim Saleam and all my fellow White Australians.
I’m somewhere between the two of you.
Just like Fraser contends that “[Saleam] never was and never can be a member of the once-proud British race.”, I would also argue that Fraser never was and never can be a member of the once-proud Australian nation.
As far as the debate goes, why on Earth would we give up power? We don’t need to make tribal alliances, so why make concessions?
Secondly, only a genuine Australian identity will convince the Australian people to reject multiculturalism – and we can’t have a genuine Australian identity without having an Anglo-Celtic core. Some artificial vague notion of whiteness doesn’t really appeal to Australians like it does to Americans.
I believe Salter is of English descent, but I really don’t know the full details of his ancestry.
There are of course major differences between Australia, New Zealand, and Canada (ANC) on the one hand and the USA on the other. All were founded by those of British stock. However, the USA established itself as a nation through a bloody war of independence from Great Britain (followed by the war of 1812). The ANC nations path to independence was quite different. The political, social, and cultural ties to Great Britain were, and are, much closer. The sense that national identity in ANC is tied to “Britishness” is therefore much stronger. Hence the greater problems integrating White ethnics. Assimilation of the ethnics even in the USA was a long process, spanning many decades (some would argue that it’s not yet fully complete). Whether it is even possible to fully achieve in ANC without the problems identified by Fraser is questionable.
But then, I did say I’m not very familiar with the ethnic dynamics of Australia, other than knowing the history of the nation. I generally support Salter’s work but acknowledge that this is an issue best debated between the likes of Saleam, Salter, and Fraser. The converse should be true as well; I note that people who lack any understanding of American ethnic dynamics will express opinions that make little sense in the American situation.
Having said all that, I find it difficult to believe that all White ethnics in Australia are unassimilated, refuse to assimilate, and are hostile to the founding ethny. Surely, there must be some genuine allies there? But again, I’m careful not to make dogmatic statements about a nation that I don’t live in.
I do stand by my assertion that the ethnics have an absolute obligation to assimilate.
My father’s family arrived in Virginia 400 years ago, and all of my ancestors are from the British Isles going back until the 10th century and before, so I definitely have Anglo roots. The English who settled North America could have created and maintained an entirely WASP society if they had wanted. But since our ruling elites put both religion and commerce before ethnicity, they opened the country up to increasingly heterogeneous groups of immigrants, supremely confident that they would always rule the roost, even as they preached universal principles that undermined their hold on power.
Some WASPs realized the error of their ancestors’ ways, but far too late to do anything about it. I know American WASP chauvinists who still rant against the Irish, blind to the fact that it was our own greed which led us to support Irish immigration to drive down the wages of our kinsmen, and it was our own arrogance that led us to think that we would always maintain power even though we preached principles of inclusion and upward mobility to the people we wished to exploit economically.
I don’t know how applicable this is to the Australian experience, but in the American context, in which there has been overwhelming mixture of European stocks (I have English and Scottish ancestors, for instance), and in which whites need to unite against other races for survival, residual Anglo chauvinism and its Hibernian opposite number are, like most forms of bitterness, both backwards-looking and self-destructive. We need to get over it.
As for an ethnic obligation to assimiliate: yes and no. Yes in terms of language and laws and all the good things in our Anglo heritage. But do we want people to assimilate to the weaknesses and pathologies of Anglo culture as well?
By assimilation, I mean of course the good things, and intra-European ethnic intermarriage, etc. I don’t mean everyone should become liberal universalists.
What I mean can be best defined perhaps by what I believe should NOT happen: ethnic groups acting like Jews and Gypsies – Diaspora coherent groups with group strategies aimed at maintaining an ethnic exclusivity and strategizing as coherent groups against other groups, including against the founding stocks. I do not believe European ethnic groups living in nations founded by others should live in enclaves, isolated from other groups, refusing to participate in building the general social capital. I don’t believe these groups should develop an “us vs. them” attitude (as do the Diapsora Jews and Gypsies and Overseas Chinese).
I do believe that ethnics living, for example in America, should identify as White Americans, intermarry with other White Americans, and follow the norms of traditional American behavior that resulted in a nation so attractive that their ancestors wanted to emigrate to begin with.
At the same time, we all need to ditch the universalist moralism.
As per Australia: there ultimately is no danger of Australia turning Slav or Latin. There is a very real danger of Australia turning Asian. The ultimate problem is not Anglophilia or White ethnicphilia but Asiaphilia – a disease that many ostensibly on the “Right” suffer from.
The subject is a vast one and I note the continued bursts of comment.
I am minded that many of our Australian labour nationalists, radical nationalist writers and even some of our ‘Anglo’ political figures around the turn of the last century reasoned that Australia was part of a “white girdle of progress” around the world and considered that Australia had a special destiny of its own. Some expected that the country would move away from the old Empire although they were not sure how that may be. I would re-encourage that mythology allowing of course the Empire is long gone. Our nationalist war-time Prime Minister John Curtin reasserted that mythos against Japanese aggression. He fought the war in the actual name of White Australia and made it very clear he put the relationship with Britain in its proper perspective.It is the mythology that is now primary in ideological formation.
As Andrew Fraser just said, we are on this Continent now in reduced circumstances. It is the logic of the nationalist position that mobilizing a resistance will create a nativist movement. I can’t see how it could create anything else if it expected to at least try to win. I have used Spengler’s phrase – will this or will nothing at all.
We certainly can point to elements of our past and settlement for inspiration. There can be no doubt that all the European tribes (sic) contributed to Australia’s birth and development, particularly the English. No one, least of all me, disputes that for a second. However, when we mobilize that part of our nation’s past that comes of that quarter, I have had the concern that the political Anglos seem to deny the others and incorporate ‘Celtic’ into their armoury whilst not exactly sorting through the relationship of England and Ireland in Australia. Those disputes contributed to defining the Nation and a lot of it wasn’t pleasant, but they’re over now.
Increasingly here – I would say overwhelmingly – amongst those who say they are nationalist minded, the nativist line is the public face of the movement. I would truly hope that when the battle is finally decided the ‘political Anglos’ will make the right choice. I prefer to believe that they will.
What Andrew Fraser said. Including where it contradicts what I previously said.
The white ethnic problem will be solved by the obliteration of Anglo identity and only Anglo identity.
Who here is advocating that? No one. The problem of ethnic hostility here is primarily one-sided. Those claiming to be the victims of ethnic animus are the ones projecting it. I’m advocating complete White ethnic assimilation and the primacy of the founding stock. Is anyone here arguing otherwise? And in the European homelands themselves, who advocates even an ethnic heterogeneity? Who is advocating that “group X remains itself but Anglos must be dissolved?”
But white racial unity does not require that the Irish give up their identity.
In Ireland, no. In America or Australia or Canada, it absolutely does. Don’t put words into our mouths. Don’t set up strawman arguments to knock down. That some Irish (the Kennedys come to mind) did bring over their ethnic animus was despicable and I for one condemn it.
Greg Johnson’s comment is important – the people ultimately responsible for squandering the Anglo patrimony in the Diapsora are the Anglos themselves. We all talk about how the Jews are primarily responsible, for example, for the 1965 Immigration Act and the subsequent Third World transformation of America. All well and good. Who let the Jews in America to begin with? Who brought Negro slavery and the Black plague we’re stuck with? Who brought in the White ethnics?
It’s not like any of the consequences couldn’t have been foreseen. The Jews have a millenia-old history of nation wrecking. A constant of history is that slaves are always – always – eventually freed. It”s known that ethnic and racial heterogeneity can cause societal chaos. The American Founding Fathers and the subsequent American elites were all educated men. They knew the history. They just didn’t care.
I don’t see how having White ethnicities squabbling with each other as they are all racially displaced by Color is helping any of them. The idea that “white unity” is uniquely unfair to Anglos is a myth. No one here at Counter Currents is asking the Anglos of today to make concessions any more or less than any other White group.
those of us who are of British ancestry have an obligation to preserve and protect our genetic interests in the face of all those who would deprive our posterity of its birthright.
The people most responsible for depriving your posterity of its birthright are your co-ethnics.
We’ve been there, we’ve tested that theory at a great price, and we know the results, and so do you.
Can’t speak for Australia, but we certainly know the results for America. Even decades ago, the ethnic data from Alba clearly showed that the majority of every White ethnic group (I do not include Jews in that category) was primarily outmarrying in direct proportion to their relative numbers in the population. Every generation, the proportion of monoethnic White Americans decreases. Every generation, specific ethnic identities diminish in importance. St Patricks Day in America is an excuse for folks to get drunk. Italian festivals are an excuse for folks to stuff their faces with pasta and pizza. German day marches are an excuse for folks to munch on hot dogs and swill beer. Intermarried White groups in America – the vast majority anyway – don’t take narrow identities seriously. And I doubt that younger White Americans with Irish blood have any sort of animus toward Anglos – most likely they’re part Anglo themselves.
If Jim Salean had done me the courtesy of reading my book, rather than inventing a straw-man version of it, he would know that it is concerned with “the rise and decline of Anglo-Australia” – as its sub-title clearly states. It is not, as he seems to imagine, a political tract, but rather a history.
Despite Jim’s claim that “… the [book’s] definition of Australia itself is a transplanted Britain with its destiny and its history simply intertwined with the Mother Country”, most of the book deals with the way Anglo-Saxon culture has forged its own destiny in Australia. Despite what Jim says, the relationship between Empire and Australia is explored at length, including the tensions involved in that relationship. Despite Jim’s claim that “… our Irish (“Celtic”) component seems to count little either”, the book’s index offers 22 separate pages for “Irish”, and others for the likes of “Mannix”, “Catholic” and so on.
In short, the book on which Jim comments bears as little relation to my “New Britannia” as his threatened “cadres” bear to reality.
I think Titus Didius Tacitus distorted my position when he said:
“Jim Saleam’s article is a declaration of war against British-Australian identity. This is though British-Australians, having founded the country and built it up, and still being around 70% of the population, have been reduced, as Fraser says, to a subaltern identity. So we’re down, but this is not enough; he wants us out.”
I have most assuredly declared war (sic) against the ‘political Anglos’ and have been fighting these folks ever since Frank Salter, Ed Azzopardi and myself penned in 1977 the articles of association for the first Australian nativist organisation in decades.
My gripe with the new crop of political Anglos is that the situation for Australia is much more desperate than the situation decades ago and they have opted to deconstruct our Nationality.
The idea of declaring war (sic) upon Australians whose biology hails from mainland Britain and Northern Ireland and Eire is what we Australians call a furphy – an attaempt to misdirect the discussion. In my experience those Australians of a patriotic disposition in the community who have connections to mainland Britain and Northern Ireland do not consider themselves ‘British’, but Australians; similarly with those with the connection to Eire. I have real difficulties with the political Anglos using the term ‘Anglo-Celtic’ but still harking back to the imperial patriotism of the past. The two things are contradictory and break in Australia over the Irish question. I really suspect many of them mean ‘Anglo’ and not ‘Celtic’.
It is my argument that the political Anglos have set out to reduce Australia back into ethnic building blocks. It is my argument that they deny Australian Nationality. Frank Salter did use the term “homogenized whites” as his description of some people. I reason this idea can be as much biological as psychic and cultural. It expresses much about Australia. In other words, Australians can be a Nationality no less than English, French, Swedes and Americans and Argentinians (the latter two having a relevancy to the present discussion). And by breaking it up the Nation into building blocks the political Anglos are a challenge to the mobilization of a natioalist movement.
The debate will continue in Australia and readers of Counter Currents should read up on it as it develops.
I thank the writers here fo making my Christmas season more interesting.
Dr. Jim Saleam: “I have real difficulties with the political Anglos using the term ‘Anglo-Celtic’ but still harking back to the imperial patriotism of the past. The two things are contradictory and break in Australia over the Irish question. I really suspect many of them mean ‘Anglo’ and not ‘Celtic’.”
When did “Celtic” become the sole possession of the Irish, to the exclusion of Scotland, Wales, Cornwall and the Isle of Man?
Or did the Scots never settle in Australia in any numbers?
Because if there were around 1,900,000 Irish in Australia and around 1,800,000 Scots, and around 1,000,000 Cornish people, say, and around 80,000 Welsh, all Celtic, and the Scots and the Cornish and the Welsh did not share Irish anti-English sentiment to anything like the same extent or really at all, then those who used the term “Anglo-Celtic” would be on a sound footing, whereas appropriating the term “Celtic” for the Irish alone and verbally pitting the “Celts” against the “Anglos” in contradiction to Scottish, Cornish and Welsh sentiments and interests would be dubious.
And even if those numbers are off a bit, there are more than enough Scots-descended Australians alone to make the appropriation of the “Celtic” label as Irish and opposed to “Anglo” dubious.
He’s not implying that “Celtic” applies solely to the Irish. He’s saying that the term “Celtic” elides a distinction within the British Isles between the colonized Celts (the Irish) and the colonizers (the Anglos and everyone else). You can’t celebrate a kind of British imperialism and an Anglo-Celtic identity and overlook the little problem of Ireland. That of course sticks in the craw of Australians of Irish descent, just as reminding you of it sticks in your Anglo craw.
Saleam goes further and says that linking Australian Anglo-Celtic identity to Imperial patriotism really boils down to Anglo identity. Is that legitimate? Well, England was the driving force of the Empire. And beyond that, the Scottish and the Welsh increasingly do have a consciousness of themselves as colonized peoples as well. I have no idea about the Cornish or the Manx.
But not even in the case of Ireland has that Celtic national consciousness been sufficient to revive the common use of Celtic languages, in the way that Israel revived Hebrew as a national as opposed to literary language.
Greg Johnson: “You can’t celebrate a kind of British imperialism and an Anglo-Celtic identity and overlook the little problem of Ireland.”
Yes you can. There was a valid Anglo-Celtic alliance. That the Irish had and have passionately anti-English attitudes does not negate that, any more than Brittany being French negates it, or any more than Anglo-Americans opting out of the Empire negates it.
Greg Johnson: “Saleam goes further and says that linking Australian Anglo-Celtic identity to Imperial patriotism really boils down to Anglo identity. Is that legitimate? Well, England was the driving force of the Empire.”
The British Empire was as Scottish as it was British, always and everywhere. Disentangling the Scots from the British Empire would be like disentangling white Southerners from the American armed forces and the peculiar American quasi-empire; yes there is some resentment in the “colonized” but the fundamental story is one of British or American unity and cooperation. There would be no way for Scots to take the Irish attitude that the British Empire was “criminal” and that they were victims and its enemies; it was their own nation’s achievement too, and a very large and lasting one.
To talk of the Irish hating the English may be tactless, but it is much more accurate than to talk of an Anglo-Celtic conflict and deny the reality of Anglo-Celtic identity.
Scotland is a tiny country compared to England. How, then, could the British Empire be just as Scottish as English?
The issue here is not whether there can be an Anglo-Celtic identity or alliance, but whether that can be linked with patriotism about the British Empire. That is really the poison pill here.
Greg Johnson: “Scotland is a tiny country compared to England. How, then, could the British Empire be just as Scottish as English?”
Scots make marvelous workers and soldiers. The truth is in the regimental histories. Or if size is everything, the British Empire was overwhelmingly Indian, of course.
Greg Johnson: “The issue here is not whether there can be an Anglo-Celtic identity or alliance, but whether that can be linked with patriotism about the British Empire. That is really the poison pill here.”
I see no reason to take a poison pill rather than accept the obvious historic reality of Anglo-Celtic patriotism linked to the British Empire.
British race patriotism existed, as Andrew Fraser said. Could it have excluded the Cornish, the Welsh and the Scots? It could not have, and it didn’t.
I haven’t even mentioned the patriotism of Ulster, as shown in France in World War I, because it wasn’t particularly relevant to Australia. But that’s real too, and it goes against the dichotomy of criminal imperialist Anglos versus the Celts as victims in opposition to the Empire.
Anglo-Celtic identity, race-patriotism and cooperation in Imperial projects such as Australia was very real; Irish-Catholic hatred for the English does not negate any of this.
Let me start by saying that White disunity and inter-European disputes ultimately only aid our enemies. That being said, ignoring the issue will not be of any use. Also, though the article at hand was written with Australia in mind, the general question and the issues raised are just as pertinent to North America.
I believe local, native identity is necessary. Therefore, a certain brand of “nativism” would have to be a component of any American identity in the end. But that certainly doesn’t mean anyone should be ranting about the Irish or Italians. Why should we re-fight old battles amongst ourselves that very few people care about anyway?
This is a kind of politico-historical anachronism, especially if we are to take into account Carl Schmitt’s friend-enemy conception of the political. Unfortunately, it seems to crop up all too frequently. I think it may be caused by a combination of people not really having much hope for real-world success (ie. all is lost) and a general “preservationist” stance.
The first part can be combated by giving people more hope and a big step in that direction would be to quit squabbling over inconsequential things and historical trivialities. Liberals are out to change the world into a better place and, on the other hand, some among us want to know whether you stand with Bill the Butcher or the potato-eating Papists. Identity matters a great deal, obviously, but you should realize that creating huge divisions amongst Whites in North America over Irish vs. English or Germanic vs. Slavic, etc is pointless.
Secondly, we should embrace a future-oriented viewpoint. As has been said before, we should be more concerned with the race we are to become than what we were: not preservation, but continuity.
Something could probably be said about the link between “preservationism” and conservatism. We’re not out to create a museum. We are living and living things change.
I think Americans are in a uniquely beneficial position for what has to be done. We should remember that our country was open exclusively to any White European who wanted to obtain citizenship for quite some time. We had a certain version of WN from the beginning. Certain European groups raised concerns, but only when big business was trying to flood the country with them. For example, there had always been Irish in the American colonies. In fact, you could find examples of most European ethnicities.
We did create our own identity and certain aspects of our own culture. My suggestion would be to continue to build towards who we are to become and not let a petty and misguided preservationist notion trip us up on the way there. In fact, if some were skillful enough, I think a whole mythos could be created out of the American odyssey from colony to homeland.
Yes, who can forget Wolf Tone and the United Irishmen – Catholics and Presbyterians against the Crown. Washington’s Army at Valley Forge was full of Irish Presbyterian Colonists.
And who can forget the Genocide, the so called Potato Famine when there was lots of food, just not for the Irish. Ireland was producing and shipping beef and grain all during this period. Many Englishmen didn’t know what was going on. Others knew and were smugly satisfied about it. The only defense the English Elite have is a bad one: they often treated their own people just as badly.
My Father was an Irish immigrant. He spent many years working in England and felt the English working class were the finest people in the world. They welcomed him into their homes and pubs without prejudice. None of the clannishness which the Irish often had for Irishmen from other areas. He hated the English Elite – who can blame him?
The Irish don’t see Irish Americans as Irish. Their position makes sense since the two countries used to be so different. On the other hand, the kind of International Nationalism Titus endorses is indicative of great strength and mastery. And as Mr Johnson said, the Irish language movement turned out to be a joke, just something one had to do to get ahead. The Irish wanted all things modern and American – even as their Anti-Americanism grew. Indeed they became so much like England in the early days that some of the Revolutionaries wondered if the whole thing had been worthwhile.
Interesting stuff to those who have been involved. But as you say, we must be moving on. We must forget about Wolf Tone, the Famine, and the Queen. The Queen has obviously forgotten about her people. Being Queen of England is different than being Queen of the English. And the Celtic Internationalism I desired must be fulfilled by a White Internationalism – that doesn’t trespass on my American identity.
The publication of this curious and generally intelligent, but in parts assertive – too assertive – and tacitly Anglophobic (to a degree), essay has stirred a hornet’s nest of stinging controversy about our overlooked portion of the world that Mr Johnson is to be thanked for affording attention to.
In the first instance, my reply must be prefaced with a statement on the genealogy, and therefore “moral standing” of the two principal controversialists, viz. Dr. Saleam and Prof. Fraser. In both cases this will be done with that courtesy and goodwill which are indispensable for civilised discourse, without resort to utterly distasteful name-calling and similarly pointless hyper-racist fanaticism.
Given Dr Saleam’s origins are not purely Anglo-Saxon, the apparent stridency and insistence of his depreciating the peculiarly Anglo-Saxon elements to the populating of Australia, and our foreign policy and military operations of yore and of today, all over a semantic quibble about the emphasis or no of “Anglo-Celtic”, this naturally piques the oversensitivity of those tempted to take part in the “Hey, me and mine are victims too, therefore we’re holy in our victimhood and deserve your bountiful pity and redistributed multi-cultural goodies”. In a few sentences or reasonings, e.g. ascribing “criminality” to the British Empire, this tactlessness was evident and though indiscernible, or mild, to American eyes, was not so to some Australian readers.
Prof. Fraser is known as a brave and erudite patriotic academician and his works broadly on legal and political culture, and specifically on Anglo-Saxon and associated ethnic communal mores, are well-conceived if unoriginal. That said, Prof. Fraser is a Canadian immigrant who came here as a man advanced in years, and his dogmatic division of Australian society into “Anglo-Saxon” and non-“Anglo-Saxon” as if immutable and ethereal metaphysical entities seems a way to elevate strangers such as him to positions of intimacy whilst thrusting down other Australians, howsoever multi-generational, mixed or loyal, because of the non-Britishness of their surnames or of some of their genetic material. In short, no doubt unintentionally and benevolently, he gives the impression of searching for quarrels just as Dr Saleam does, with equal innocence I’m sure, about ethnic distinctions between English-surnamed and Irish-surnamed Australians which have no actual significance for the elite or the masses.
This isn’t America, Irish here are colonial and indistinguishable – at the folk level since at least the First World War – from Anglo-Scotch descended Australians. In truth, the three are completely intermixed and blended. Only a fantasy-inhabiting resentment-peddler mired in the interminable American (and Canadian) ethnic grievance industry would transplant these irrelevancies to our shores.
With the patience of Dr Johnson (for I know the length of my comment), I’ll post a second remark analysing the substance of this controversy and the reality and prospects of the present circumstance next.
That said, Prof. Fraser is a Canadian immigrant who came here as a man advanced in years, and his dogmatic division of Australian society into “Anglo-Saxon” and non-”Anglo-Saxon” as if immutable and ethereal metaphysical entities seems a way to elevate strangers such as him to positions of intimacy whilst thrusting down other Australians, howsoever multi-generational, mixed or loyal, because of the non-Britishness of their surnames or of some of their genetic material.
Australians have never grouped themselves into “Anglos”, “British” or “Anglo-Celtic”. We were always Australian as far back as I can remember. It’s only in the last couple of decades that this categorisation of “Anglos” has arisen, and then it’s only in certain sections of the MSM (leftwing but now in the neoconservative Quadrant magazine).
The first time I’d ever heard someone be called an Anglo was by an asian at work who called me one. I informed him I was Australian, but if he wanted clarification I am Celtic. Irish descended from convicts.
This isn’t America, Irish here are colonial and indistinguishable – at the folk level since at least the First World War – from Anglo-Scotch descended Australians. In truth, the three are completely intermixed and blended. Only a fantasy-inhabiting resentment-peddler mired in the interminable American (and Canadian) ethnic grievance industry would transplant these irrelevancies to our shores.
Spot. On. I wonder if our Ozzie Titus is another expatriate “Anglo-Celt”.
Btw, the Irish have been here since the birth of the nation and have been part of the national consciousness and cultural influence since that time. I believe at one stage, after the massive transportation of “political prisoners” post 1798 uprising, the percentage of the population was so rapidly increasing that the British ramped up transportation of the “Anglo-Celt” “British” to the bootstraps convicts, just in case the nascent nation got ahead of itself and declared itself independent after its own uprising.
I also wonder if Fraser and Titus share our love for the game of cricket. I don’t believe it has a large following in Canada, outside Indian and Pakistani quarters that is. But, being British “Anglo-Celts” I’m sure it’s in their blood and will feel the same rage I do when they read my citations from their Pom co-ethnics (do they take offense at the term “Pom”?)
By far the best post – in fact, the only one that needs to be read.
The gravamen of the dispute (Prof. Fraser is not alone in boasting of a legal education) in my judgment is twofold; what is properly (or exclusively) the contents of Australian national identity, and the relationship of this Australian nationhood to a hypothesized and ardently wished-for (on the part of some persons) to a multi-state global pan-WASP movement.
The original, animating and preponderant (demographically) foundation to Australia and her customs and ideas is Anglo-Saxon or pan-British generally. This is so obvious and ubiquitous as to be really a trite and boring observation, yet a wholly true one. This foundation, while supplying the substructure and the ornamentation, does not prohibit the selective and discriminating (what should have been such) inclusion of non-British practices, doctrines or persons (raw genetic material) for us to mould and use to our advantage.
European ethnics have not at any period, least of all now, constituted a sufficiently large, organized or hostile and unassimilable colony within the country to genetically dispossess, politically usurp or mongrelise the nation. “Ethnic leaders” have no cohesive and single-willed ethnic “community” to lead. Paul Keating spoke only for himself and other deracinated and treasonous politicians and academics.
The addition of foreigners en masse, or even singly, is unwise on principle I would argue. This deprecation of foreign settlement I’m advancing rests on an organic philosophy. The choices for growing a community are development (i.e. what is there being tended to and nourished) or importation (i.e. bringing in and introducing extraneous material because, on the spur of the moment and shortsightedly, this is adjudged expedient or superior to the native). Those are the choices; development and outgrowth, or importation and engraftment. The organic, German-devised conception prefers the former of the two alternatives. This is the ontological basis (so I see it) for enlarged thinking on how to expand and improve a race, viz, to grow it (better) or to engraft alien stems.
The post-WWII continental European government-executed immigration into Australia was too hasty and excessive numerically. It was a mistake. But it has nothing to do with who controls the media, the currency-printing international banks and who, as the governing crypto-elite of America (Australia and Europe’s imperial overlord) mandate the policy and conditions of race-replacement, de-industrialisation and state-sponsored degeneracy and dysgenics.
I know both our controversialists to be Sydneysiders (i.e. residents of that gargantuan and rootless sinkhole of a megalopolis on the east coast called Sydney, formerly an Australian city but now merely a South Pacific economic free-trade hub whose multi-national denizens pay taxes to the Commonwealth of Australia government). This location, with its inherent and peculiar phenomena, troubles and depravities (comparable to Melbourne and perhaps Brisbane and Perth only) has warped their perspectives about local community and the concerns of the masses, to say nothing of the geopolitical dangers and needs of Australia.
In our “flyover country”, out in the bush around the Murray River (our own life-giving and agriculturally essential Mississippi) in the regions of the Riverland (in South Australia) and the Riverina (in neighbouring Victoria) are citrus growers and farmers of Italian and Greek origin from World War II or earlier, completely established and assimilated (along with harmless oddities like the Greek Church or hard-to-pronounce surnames with that ‘-ng-‘ infix). I don’t know if our metropolitan residents, or immigrants, care to explore or read about these obscure and faraway hick districts so as to find an absence of non-assimilation or anti-Anglo mores and sentiment. I know of subversive ethnics (mostly Labor politicians or sinecure-holding eggheads) who appear on the television, but not in suburbs and country towns and farms where Australia is to be found.
Prof. Fraser, in his response to the essay and previously elsewhere, has provided us with the Canadian opinion of Italians in Australia. He doesn’t like them, and he neither considers them white or desirable in the Australian community. Good, I’m pleased that we have received the wisdom of a Canadian’s unsolicited opinion. Anglo-Australians are evidently too stupid or insignificant to bother asking about who they consider kinsmen, friends and fellow-countrymen, so it’s wonderful that we have big-city Canadian immigrants of the jet-setting crowd to tell us what to do and what to think. Organic communities are splendid, save when they contradict or displease the preconceptions and tastes of metropolitan drawing-room public intellectuals. If you don’t like Italians, campaign to expel them. From Canada. It does not belong to you to airily and remotely dictate our relations with those who have been here for years, may be united with us (to mutual profit) by blood and common interest and duty, and are our business not yours.
I’ll break off now as this response is oversized already. My appreciation to Dr Johnson for tolerating this and the previous riposte.
I found your thesis (lol) to be spot on Hesper. Especially this:
“This isn’t America, Irish here are colonial and indistinguishable – at the folk level since at least the First World War – from Anglo-Scotch descended Australians. In truth, the three are completely intermixed and blended. Only a fantasy-inhabiting resentment-peddler mired in the interminable American (and Canadian) ethnic grievance industry would transplant these irrelevancies to our shores. ”
I hope you are well old chum.
It would be helpful if Titus and Fraser et al could cite of recent times Australians of Irish descent slagging off “Anglos” and demanding their disapearance from the national consciousness. As it is, Titus in particular merely vomits a stream of the usual old world Rule Britannia elitism and sheer downright viciousness that one thought was a long dead anachronism of the “WASP”.
Here’s some examples of recent “Australian”, “Anglo-Celtic” cricket journalists going about the subject:
AUSTRALIA must not be waylaid by nauseating nationalists convinced that the defeat in Perth was caused not by a combination of absent friends and wayward bowling but by a sudden bout of politeness. …
That is to confuse joy with rage. Likewise, the umpiring was acceptable and even-handed. Only lamingtons imagine otherwise. The game is up for that lot. It is time to move on. It is debatable whether people born in this country should be allowed to vote. It is no achievement to emerge from a womb. They could just as well be in Winnipeg. Australia is best loved by its settlers.
“Recalls, retirements to add extra spark”
Over the years, Australian cricket has been dominated by players of Anglo-Saxon extraction.
Apart from these pacemen and sporadic appearances from dusky batsmen, the national team has remained tanned, leathery but resolutely lilywhite.
It has been a limitation. Australia likes to think of itself as a knockabout, egalitarian country yet the national game represented only a narrow section of society. But cricket remained insular. Players of Jewish and subcontinental extraction were shamelessly and routinely sledged. One opponent was scorned because he was married to a woman of Indian extraction. It was not pleasant and it showed Australia and Australian cricket in a poor light. Some of the worst offenders subsequently purchased soapboxes.
“Lily-livered lilywhites have held cricket back”
RICKY PONTING must be sacked as captain of the Australian cricket team. If Cricket Australia cares a fig for the tattered reputation of our national team in our national sport, it will not for a moment longer tolerate the sort of arrogant and abrasive conduct seen from the captain and his senior players over the past few days. …The only surprising part of it is that the Indians have not packed their bags and gone home. There is no justice for them in this country, nor any manners.
Make no mistake, it is not only the reputation of these cricketers that has suffered. Australia itself has been embarrassed.
Harbhajan Singh can be an irritating young man but he is head of a family and responsible for raising nine people. And all the Australian elders want to do is to hunt him from the game. Australian fieldsmen fire insults from the corners of their mouths, an intemperate Sikh warrior overreacts and his rudeness is seized upon. It might impress barrack room lawyers.
In the past few days Ponting has presided over a performance that dragged the game into the pits. He turned a group of professional cricketers into a pack of wild dogs.
[Note the Indian is “an intemperate Sikh warrior” and the Australian, scratch that, Anglo-Celtic British team is “a pack of wild dogs”.]
Arrogant Ponting must be fired
To be Australia’s first Muslim cricketer is not nothing. Australian cricket is Anglo, Anglo, Anglo. Cricket Australia has seen the cultural homogeneity in the game and is desperate to change it. It should be encouraged.
Uzzy, Uzzy Uzzy: cricket finds something to cheer
Rather than this bizarre screed from Titus asserting what is actually non-existent Irish descended hatred of “Anglo” Australians, or “British” Australians, Titus may like to explain away the above visceral hatred of his own kind, by his own kind.
With regard the destruction of the White Australia Policy, please note that the dissmantlers were Anglo-Celts:
Malcolm Fraser (long time friend of Mugabe, anti-apartheid campaigner, avowed anti-racist):
But the impact of the Fraser government can best be seen in its revitalised immigration program. From 1975 to 1982, some 200,000 migrants arrived from Asian countries, including nearly 56,000 Vietnamese people who applied as refugees. In addition, policies were put in place to grant entry to 2059 ‘boat people’ – refugees from Vietnam who arrived without documents or official permission after hazardous sea voyages to the northern coast of Australia. The immigration program focused on resettlement and multiculturalism. In 1978 the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs was created.Petro Georgiou, the Prime Minister’s immigration adviser, suggested in retrospect that:
Viewed in the longer run it was the entry of Vietnamese refugees that made Australia’s migrant intake multiracial . . . it was under [Fraser’s] management that Australia first confronted the real consequences of abolishing the White Australia Policy.
Crock argues the courage of Fraser on this issue has been overlooked. “This is a program that literally changed the face of Australia,” she says. Her point is that it was the first real test of the abolition of the White Australia policy.
Liberals often argue it was abandoned in the 60s under Menzies. “Absolute, arrant nonsense,” says Crock, who says there was a colour bar until the election of Whitlam. “Up until 1972, we had the White Australia Policy for everybody except a narrow band of close family members.”
It was Fraser who gave practical effect to the implementation by the Whitlam government of this latter policy by initiating the largest influx of people from Asia into Australia since the gold rush, people who in most cases have made model citizens. He did so in the face of hostile public opinion (according to a Morgan Gallup poll 61 per cent wanted to limit the refugee intake and 28 per cent wanted to stop it) and initial Labor Party opposition. Gough Whitlam told colleagues following the fall of Saigon in 1975, that “I’m not having hundreds of f . . king Vietnamese Balts coming into this country with their political and religious hatreds.”
Bob Hawke (floater of the dollar and opener of the Oz economy to free trade with Asia):
“An Australian is someone who chooses to live here, obey the law and pays taxes”
Donald Horne (“Anglo-Celtic”), on the Lucky Country (a term he coined in the book of that name) and British Australia, :
When I invented the phrase in 1964 to describe Australia, I said: ‘Australia is a lucky country run by second rate people who share its luck.’ I didn’t mean that it had a lot of material resources … I had in mind the idea of Australia as a [British] derived society whose prosperity in the great age of manufacturing came from the luck of its historical origins … In the lucky style we have never ‘earned’ our democracy. We simply went along with some British habits.
“One of the really important ways in which people distinguished themselves from each other at Muswellbrook when I was a child was through their religion. They didn’t necessarily go to church but to be a Catholic to the non-Catholics was to be almost sub human and to be a Methodist was to be pretty low class, it was only us Anglicans and Presbyterians who felt assured in the world and the Presbyterians were really only assured because they were kind of honorary Anglicans.”
I do not blindly endorse the mass intermarriage of white ethnic groups and destruction of identity that has occurred in the United States. For one thing, nobody is even willing to define who’s white, because that would offend some by excluding them. You can’t avoid such problems now. They have to be dealt with, and the answers will to some extent be arbitrary. We have to stabilize our precipitously declining population.
In the US, the wanton destruction of ethnicity through intermarriage and loss of historical consciousness was celebrated by anti-white Leftists such as the late Robert Christopher and Italian American academic Richard Alba.
A couple of decades ago Alba was noticing and cheering the destruction of white ethnic groups through intermarriage and loss of historical identity. Today he happily examines and writes about the interracial destruction of whites—their biological destruction—occurring just as easily and quickly through the same processes.
Irish Catholics are a distinct group with many unique characteristics that can’t be ignored. They have been as detrimental to the white cause as any other people. For example, I agree with Ian Stuart when he sang “Smash the IRA.” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Y1mBmkLaII
As for accusing Andrew Fraser of being “Canadian,” it fails on two counts. Those who invoke it are resorting to the petty nationalism (not even ethnicity, which has a genetic basis) of yore that they claim to have eschewed. Clearly they are not in a position to lecture anyone else on the topic.
Secondly, it is invalid when applied to Fraser, who is an advocate of pan-WASP ethnicity not restricted to a specific country.
Finally, anti-white WASP leaders were not uniquely evil. The leaders of every white ethnic group have behaved the same way, unconscionably destroying their own people while serving Jews and non-whites. That includes the Irish. In the US, Irish Catholics allied themselves with Jews in the Democratic Party to undermine and destroy the native leadership. Ted Kennedy co-sponsored the 1965 Immigration Act with Jews. It is not an admirable record.
Australia is not America, and though our experience may have some similarities it is different.
I am not suggesting “the Irish” don’t have negative traits, and find it exceedingly annoying that “Anglos” keep on insisting on a) ownership of countries they do not own and b) blaming the Irish for their own failures.
Someone mentioned above that the Irish don’t consider American “Irish” Irish. The same goes for Australian “Irish”. Though Irish is my ethnicity, and certainly an influence on my family character, it’s absurd that I should consider myself an Irish Australian, or insist on some sort of Irish homeland here.
Why you Anglos have the attitude that you can still insist that you are British and formerly British colonies forever remain “British to the bootstraps” is beyond me. Your world is as dead. Yours killed it.
There is an Australian national character and type though it is rapidly diminishing with massive immigration. Our character is not Canadian and it is insulting to have people like yourself, Titus and Fraser boss yourselves about as if we are the upstarts who must assimilate to you. If you come here, *you* must assimilate to us.
While you are asserting the glories of the old Empire and your pride in it perhaps you could take time out and accept that its disappearance wasn’t due to unthankful non-Brits not accepting your deserved place at the head of the table but your own over-reaching hubris that sank you. Do people like you ever reflect on what your own people have done to you or do you forever blame the stereotypically incompetent Irish, like the Kennedy’s, for such cunning as to have brought your own house down around your head?
Do you ever reflect on what that madman Churchill did to your people, your nation and your empire or do you blame it all on Hitler?
What is it about that Britain who destroyed Ireland, brought war on the Boers and started the White fratricide that was the Second World War that we should admire? Why must we return to the Britain that sent her own children to die in factory mills or out on convict ships to be slaves in the New World? Why should we desire that Britain who sold herself down the river for Churchill’s ego which they still ululate today over at soccer games and cricket matches?
But, I’ve said too much. How dare I say anything negative about the British Empire, that eternal avatar of goodness, justice and mercy to all White men.
Back to “lecturing” Andrew Fraser, who is a Protestant Canadian with some bizarre new reading of the New Testament on which he bases his New Britannia, he is not Australian, simple as that. No Ozzie goes into someone else’s house and bosses himself about. That sort of boorish behaviour is what we’ve learned to expect from Poms who come here thinking they still own the furniture, and why there is a decided antipathy, along with our amity, for the Poms.
Furthermore, if ever there was a false construct of “petty nationalism” in the service of the banking and merchant class it is what Britain was. Britain was not in service to her people, the people were in service to British wealthy elites. How many of yours must they massacre for their wallets, or allow to immivade the British nations before you get the message?
Your own people destroyed England. And no, we don’t want to ever be like Britain.
Anti-white WASP elites might not have been uniquely evil. But they far surpass other white elites in the sheer magnitude of damage they inflicted on white civilization.
If the “White ethnics” don’t assimilate, then they get attacked by some on the Right. They’re “unassimilable minorities” and we’ll make racial analogies to the White/Black divide in South Africa. On the other hand, if they do assimilate, that’s not good either, they’re participating in the destruction of White groups, the slippery slope to inter-racialism, and maybe they’re not even White to begin with. They’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t, which I guess is the whole point.
My view on this subject, which have been evolving over the years, is informed by the table in Salter’s “On Genetic Interests” outlining the four possibilities for ethnies living in a nation state:
1. Majority that follows multiculturalism
2. Majority that follows ethnic activism, pursue their genetic interests
3. Diaspora minorities that are not assimilated
4. Minorities that assimilate
I (and I believe Salter as well), see 1 and 3 as being unstable. 1 is obviously unstable for the majority and leads to race replacement. While Jews seem successful and are a long-lasting ethny, option 3 is unstable for both the majority and minority – the majority suffers from having groups like Jews or Gypsies around, and the history of Diaspora groups are not pleasant. More to the point, European-derived ethnies are not evolved for a Diaspora group strategy. They are not Jews and wouldn’t survive for millenia like Jews – Alba’s data make that quite clear. Of course, if there’s a wide racial divide, option 4 is not really possible and/or the cost of group genetic interests etc would be just too high. If a group sees themselves as a defined historical entity, like Jews, they resist assimilation.
But for groups deriving from the same ‘continental population group’ and the same civilization, if the numbers are reasonable, the combination of options 2 and 4 are best: the minority assimilates into the majority, which defends itself from options 1 and 3. I think for America (others can speak for Australia) European ethnies from both the Western and Orthodox civilizations (for those that believe, say, Russia and Greece as civilizationally different from Catholic/Protestant Western Europe) can follow option 4 and assimilate into the White majority. Jews and others are outside the civilization and follow option 3. Despite their alleged “high rates of intermarriage” (critiqued by MacDonald in “Separation and Its Discontents”), Jews are still very much with us as a distinct strategizing group and they’re not going anywhere.
Quite true. And Irish illegals march with Mexican illegals in Amnesty demonstrations.
I reason that the political Anglos have one serious problem about what it is that they are defending.
If it was the case that they were pointing to a folk-stream, our language and definitely the valuable political and cultural inputs of the Tolpuddle Martyrs (men deported from England for founding a trade union) or the Chartists (who inspired radical democracy in the colonies and the Eureka Rebellion of 1854), I would applaud them. If they meant the suffering working class Scots, the lineal descendants of the victims of the Enclosure Acts, who finally searched for a new life here, or the masses of English and Welsh poor trying to escape the class system from the 1850’s on and pioneering this land, even better.
But I think they are stuck on the imperial patriotism angle. As an Australian nationalist, I can accept and cherish the former – but repudiate the latter.
The political Anglos may quietly acknowledge, but hardly too openly that:
1. The South Australian colonial government with the connivance of the Empire’s Colonial Office sought the mass settlement of Japanese in the north of Australia in 1877. This plan was only averted by a social upheaval in Japan.
2. The Colonial Office and Foreign Office of the Empire subverted the ‘White Australia Policy’ from being part of our Constitution in 1901.
3. The Japanese alliance threatened Australia after 1902 which encouraged nationalism here something Britain began to uncomfortably struggle with; it was not known till 1945 that Japan planned to invade Australia in 1915 when our soldiers were winning ‘glory’ for the ‘Motherland’ in the trenches.
4. In 1917, Sir Herbert Brooles founded the Australian Protective Association, a quasi militia to defend imperial interests against some Australians of Catholic and Irish background who thought well of the Easter Rebellion. Brooks incited Ulstermen against those he called ‘disloyal’. He founded his group at the Loyal Orange Lodge in Melbourne. The Protectives became the model for the secret armies of the 1920’s and 1930’s, forces that would defend the Empire against the ordinary Australian (whom they called ‘communists) – a class based movement favourable to the imperial model of capitalism. Although some of our Catholic and Irish citizens were stirred up over the Irish Rebellion and directed that passion in a non Australian way, so the establishment incited sectarianism for decades and traduced Australian Nationalism as some sort of Fenian construction.
5. The imperial lobby favoured conscription and the issue became mixed with the Irish question during the First World War (as my article mentioned). I am slightly dismayed how in some cities, the loyalists (sic) waving Union Jacks would assault the labour patriots (including John Curtin) for flying the Australian Flag – which they considered ‘disloyal’.
6. Ultimately, during the Second World War, these imperial patriots planned to allow the Japanese to occupy half of Australia, whilst they would set up a collaborationist government in the South.
What am I saying? Simply, that the British imperial patriotism tradition is less than suitable as a basis to rest any sort of Anglo-Celtic ideology of the present. Yet, this establishment of the past seem to be an inspiration for the political Anglos today. After all, they are the “Australian Britons” of their narrative.
My friends here should also note, it was Lord Casey, a secret army man of the 1930’s and a Governor General , who advocated the abandonment of White Australia in a 1964 book. It was ‘British to the bootstraps’ Prime Minister Menzies – who scrapped it.
The political Anglos need to look again. We have a Home and we are standing in it. We have a unique identity. As our national poet Henry Lawson said “call in white men from all the world.” We did.. We have an urgent task to rescue the country – and go onwards. I think that almost all of the contemporary political Anglos have a good motive, but they are just mistaken over what should be defended. If they really are Australian patriots – it’s time to act like it.
I don’t intend to get engaged in this dispute — I’ve too much work to do right now — but I will say that I’m closer to the White republicanism of the Sydney Bulletin than the throne and altar position of Andrew Fraser.
In its editorial of July 2, 1887, “Australia for the Australians!,” the Bulletin remarked of British imperialism:
“What similarity of race or aspirations exists between Australians, Burmese, Hindoos, Chinese, Maltese, and the hundred or so distinct peopls which combine to make up that heterogeneous Empire known as the British? If England cannot convince Ireland that the two countries have an identity of interests, how much less can she convince us that the centre of political gravity is London? The fact is, and it is a fact accentuated by all history, that amalgamation of nations into empires always precedes immediate and fatal dismemberment. Once the known world was Phoenician, Assyrian, Scythian, Grecian, Roman, Tartar, Ottoman, Gothic, Frankish, Austrian, French, German. Each in turn and nothing long. It is the mode and not the principle that differs. The teachings of history are as pertinent to the problems of to-day, as they were when the Turk sat down before the gates of Byzantium. Great Empires are founded in war. They are the product of great battles and of great lies. They are conceived in diplomacy and begotten in blood. Their aim is the consolidation of vast military power beneath an individual head. They are erected to conserve vested interests and to embastion a dynasty. The great military empire is a foe to human progress. The rights of the small state are lost sight of in the interests of the overgrown dominion. The policy of freedom is a policy which gives to a people — say, for instance, the brave and happy people of the Swiss Republic — the direct government of its own land. Poland for the Poles, Egypt for the Egyptians, Ireland for the Irish, and Australia for the Australians!”
The editorial went on to say:
“By the term Australian we mean not those who have been merely born in Australia. All white men who come to these shores — with a clean record — and who leave behind them the memory of the class distinctions and the religious differences of the old world; all men who place the advancement of their adopted country before the interests of Imperialism, are Australian. In this regard all men who leave the tyrant-ridden lands of Europe for freedom of speech and right of personal liberty are Australians before they set foot on the ship which brings them hither. Those who fly from an odious military conscription; those who leave their fatherland because they cannot swallow the worm-eaten lie of the divine right of kings to murder peasants, are Australians by instinct — Australian and Republican are synonymous. No nigger, no Chinaman, no lascar, no kanaka, no purveyor of cheap coloured labour, is an Australian.”
I particularly like the last line.
Incidentally, the same editorial refers to “the veiled threats of Tory lawyers and Semitic place-hunters.” (It has been noted that the Bulletin “used the euphemism ‘Cohen’ for international finance, and ‘John Bull Cohen’ for British-Jewish monetary power.” “Cohen” was an appropriate euphemism for international finance given that “Cohen” is a name that was originally restricted to a priestly caste of the Jews and money is the god of the Jews.)
John Bull Cohen – I love it. The English have been in bed with them for centuries now. They came back in force with William of Orange. In this thread, we’ve been focusing on our roles in all this – which is good. But since the thread is going on, we shouldn’t neglect to at least mention the Jews. Here’s a superb five part series about the Jewish role in the destruction of White Australia.
Saleam’s argument rests on the proposition that white Europeans had carved out a singular nativist nationalist identity but, post WWII, lost it. His charge is that ‘political Anglos’ are misdirecting and dividing the ‘real’ Australia which can be revivified if we whites all pull together and slay the dragons that stand between the white working man and Paradise: colour-blind corporations and a political and cultural elite ceaselessly promoting “multiracial-multicultural ideology”.
So I’d say that Jim is some kind of socialist, albeit one who believes that (1) mainstream politics offers the path to seizing the commanding heights of power and (2) effective native nationalist white solidarity in Australia has been undermined not only by corporate and elite advocacy in favour of non-white immigration and multiculturalism but also the pernicious, solidarity-destroying arguments made by ‘political Anglos’.
But who and where are the nativist nationalist ‘we’ that Saleam assumes?
Surely, the gist of the disagreement between the ‘political Anglos’ and the ‘solidarists’ is about how an effective warrior ‘we’ can be built, because it is surely not in evidence now. Can/should the foundation be race consciousness or, rather, ethnic consciousness?
Can ‘whiteness’ motivate people to engage in long-term struggle? Isn’t Hamilton right that ‘white’ is divisive? Are Jews ‘white’? Are Syrians?
For me, white nationalist objections to the let’s-build-ethnic-consciousness approach (Salter and Fraser) reflect belief in a kind of primeval survivalism, generated by the presence of other races, mobilisable to build white solidarity in the face of decline and eventual extinction. Isn’t this reminiscent of socialist arguments – did the prospect of permanent immiseration and exploitation sufficiently motivate the working class to resist and overcome capitalist relations of production?
True enough, these ‘political Anglos’ are NOT white socialists. Fraser, in particular, is highly critical of the capacity of ‘whiteness’ to create the warrior mentality and motivation necessary for strategic and tactical opposition over the long haul. But PAs are engaged in the kind of conscious-raising among their Anglo kith and kin that all ethnic groups should be engaged in. Fraser is not ‘defending’; nor is Salter. They offer strategies for engagement and opposition, not for the creation of ‘identity’.
When I see Greeks and Italians and Germans and Slavs in Australia – or, for that matter, Hesper’s ‘unique’ bush Australians in Wangaratta or other towns lauded for welcoming third world immigrants – produce the no-holds-barred criticism of their sell-out elites that Fraser levels at generations of Anglo elites, then I will believe that they have recognised what may be lost in terms of heritage and culture, and are capable of resistance.
In those circumstances, the solidarity that is built on mutual respect for tradition and political and cultural achievement – not the solidarity based on a common plight – will be possible.
One can’t wish solidarity into existence simply because it is necessary. Saleam’s vision of ‘[white] Australianity’ is little more than a more or less sectarian exercise in wishful thinking, not a practical program of political action and comprehensive cultural renewal.
PS Saleam’s most recent post – Greg Johnson, what have you unleashed? Doesn’t raking up the spectre of British imperialism reveal a deep-seated resentment against ‘Anglos’ , despite his pious protestations to the contrary. And talk about self-contradiction! I thought his argument was that ‘Australianity’ had overcome all that nasty British imperialist heritage? But it appears to be alive and well, fodder for bashing ‘divisive’ Anglos again…and again… in the name of ‘solidarity’. Give me a break.
The South Australian colonial government with the connivance of the Empire’s Colonial Office sought the mass settlement of Japanese in the north of Australia in 1877. This plan was only averted by a social upheaval in Japan.
That’s not too surprising for those of us following these sorts of debates for years. White ethnics bad, East Asians good. The real fetish is Asiaphilia.
And, as Saleam’s historical works on Australian nationalism tell us, there were some “Empire” groups that looked down their noses at the White ethnics, while championing the immigration of ‘anti-communist’ Vietnamese (‘anti-communist’ Slavs apparently not being Asian enough for taste).
My humble take about this whole topic is that the problem it wasn’t just Anglosaxon elites but the Anglosaxon masses and their Whiggish ideology who got the West in the mess we’re living now. I’d written an important post about how the USA and the British Empire had made up their mind they’d frustrate the German quest for continental domination, since the end of the XIX century and they refused to accept her as an equal partner in the Anglosaxon club. And how all these tirades about democracy and free markets is just a cover-up for the greedy financial elite. England has always been the reincarnation of Carthage: Louis XIV, Napoleon, the Kaiser were correct in their assessment that the taste of the Perfidious Albion and of her offspring was evil.
“My humble take about this whole topic is that the problem it wasn’t just Anglosaxon elites but the Anglosaxon masses and their Whiggish ideology who got the West in the mess we’re living now. I’d written an important post about how the USA and the British Empire had made up their mind they’d frustrate the German quest for continental domination, since the end of the XIX century and they refused to accept her as an equal partner in the Anglosaxon club. And how all these tirades about democracy and free markets is just a cover-up for the greedy financial elite. England has always been the reincarnation of Carthage: Louis XIV, Napoleon, the Kaiser were correct in their assessment that the taste of the Perfidious Albion and of her offspring was evil.”
Thank you for your very honest, spirited post above. My family roots go back to the Black Prince (not the most popular namesake); therefore, as a humble student of Politics, I thought I should honestly respond.
Perhaps you are right in suggesting or hinting that Hobbes and Locke have a lot to answer for regarding the political and philosophical crisis Britain, Australia and the West now faces, but to be just to those Founders, much of the prudence in their doctrines and teachings has been forgotten or discarded or deemed historically irrelevant.
You make an excellent point that the British tried to frustrate the German quest for empire. Perhaps a thoughtful, spirited, honest and decent Brit might argue that “economics” was not the whole story. One of my Professors once said that it is more just and wiser to understand the low motivations of mankind in terms of the high, as the low become immediately obvious, whereas, by understanding all motivation in terms of the low, results in only seeing the low.
Germany was unified by Prussia and as everyone knows/knew – the Prussian way of life was essentially militarist, whereas Locke had turned the Brits into Hobbits. The British had the greatest, most powerful navy, which protected their trading interest and Hobbit adventures. There seemed to be a sort of balance of power among the Great Powers until the Kaiser (“Caesar”) turned to militarism as the best way of life or more specifically to building a navy that would challenge or be as great as the British navy. This combined with the great German army whose very soul was Prussian upset the balance of power among the civilised States.
Perhaps it was the Battle of Jena that truly sealed Europe’s fate forever, but WW1 seemed to be the battle that culminated in a predominantly French victory: Descartes/Enlightenment or Republican atheism over German Monarchy, Militarism and the German dream of a return to the Holy Roman Empire ruled by a German Emperor. It seems that the Great War was fought over the question of the best way of life, which might explain the often irrational strategy and great carnage.
Not all the Lockean Brits were greedy, barbarous and cruel. Even the great Economist Keynes was very critical of the Peace Treaty and its obvious injustice to say nothing of its complete lack of political and economic prudence. Naturally, Matthew Arnold, in his poem ‘Dover Beach’ saw it all coming way back in 1867, prior to the unification of Germany in 1871. Dover is/was a well-known connecting point between England and the Continent.
I think for America (others can speak for Australia) European ethnies from both the Western and Orthodox civilizations (for those that believe, say, Russia and Greece as civilizationally different from Catholic/Protestant Western Europe) can follow option 4 and assimilate into the White majority
I think I’m qualified to speak for Australia, so hear me out.
For once, let’s stop beating around the bush. This is the crux of the issue: who and how many? The answer makes all the difference.
It’d be one thing if the hardest version of racial determinism were correct: that members of (so understood) racial groups, in the absence of malevolent interference, act at all times to advance their particular racial interests. Then one might rightly argue that WASPs or, er, in general, other n-words have been had. (I hesitate because that particular term seems to be second only to “Aryan” as the scariest word in the English language.)
But everything in my very own experience of having lived through the ongoing Australian racial transition (or if, to follow the pace set by this thread, we let the gloves come off, transmogrification) leads me to believe that that version, for all its putative merits (most of which I’d sign off on), is off base.
For the vast majority of people, what truly matters is numbers of racial others: to repeat, who and how many. The purists have long claimed “anyone” and “any number” but the masses have never been exercised by such suggestions. I don’t live in a capital city (as that’s understood here) but I need only walk through town on a Friday night to witness the reckless abandon with which people mix across racial lines.
Every incidence of mixing affects not only the individual involved; rather both family and friends have a tendency to become inured to the racial losses thereby suffered. This is baseline racial reality, and it matters not the physical territory, be it America, Australia, or even Britain itself. This is what any racial program must contend with, be it New Right or, disturbingly (what with Saleams dredging up of laughably irrelevant historical minutiae), old right. The political offerings I have so far sampled – with the lone exception of Richard McCulloch’s* necessarily preliminary efforts – leave an enormous amount to be desired.
*McCulloch, to the extent he’s even taken seriously (and woe to the racialist movement for having failed to pay him due heed), seems to me to have acquired a reputation as more of a racial lover than a racial fighter, but as someone very familiar with his entire corpus I can confidently assert the man is far from a racial or cultural shrinking violet.
We apparently differ in our opinions of the worth of specific racialist authors, although that’s not relevant to the case at hand and I have little interest in bringing all of that up again.
That aside, in case I wasn’t clear, I’ve never advocated, for example, mass migration of ethnics to Australia or anywhere else. In retrospect the founding stock could have, and should have, kept the continent for themselves (and resettled the aborigines to Tasmania or someplace for another).
Having not done so, and now on track to align Australia both politically and demographically to Asia, I think what can be a reasonable response is a White Australia objective that retains the demographic and cultural primacy/dominance of the founding stock, but which accepts assimilated White ethnics (which are a decided minority of the White population). Future immigration to Australia should primarily focus on those of British stock to reinforce the founding population.
It seems to me though the major problem is with the Asianization. I realize that goes against the grain of those who idolize the Oriental, but that’s the fact.
Ted: “It seems to me though the major problem is with the Asianization.”
“We will not allow to become a political issue in this country the question of Asianisation.”
– Bob Hawke, former Prime Minister of Australia
This is the knife at our neck. When our anti-white elites say something has to be above politics, that means it is political, and it’s death for whites unless we “politicize” that issue and win, and what the elite is doing is indefensible so they don’t want to talk about it.
In other words I am on the same page with you in your comment posted December 31, 2013 at 4:10 pm.
There’s a fundamental problem here, which goes beyond the scope of Saleam’s post. I don’t see that the White masses – apart from a major societal collapse (which we cannot depend on, regardless of what the apocalyptic crowd asserts) – are going to support any racialist/nationalist program – especially not in any proportion required to offset non-White votes and political power. We are political light years away from anything approaching that. So, yes, people – especially the young who seem eager in this regard – will casually cross racial lines in their friendships and in their bedrooms. Such people are hardly those who are going to vote en masse for a racialist President or Prime Minister.
The situation in America is particularly grotesque. The current major racial political issue is whether to grant amnesty to many millions of (mostly non-White) illegal aliens. The choice presented is to grant amnesty and let the illegals stay legally, or not grant amnesty – and still let the illegals stay (albeit illegally, although immigration law goes intentionally unenforced).
There’s no will whatsoever to deport the illegals, no will to take any serious action to prevent a further illegal influx, and the idea of curtailing legal immigration is considered akin to the second coming of Hitler. The idea that these White people, who would sign off on another amnesty to “win Latino votes,” would currently actually consider a racialist alternative is nonsense.
There are no easy answers or quick fixes. Our “leadership” has failed us for decades. The only things I would definitively counsel now is to put out an attractive message and recruit as many high-quality Whites as possible, build alternative infrastructures and communities (to the extent possible), create inspiring memes and ideologies, socially and politically undermine the multiculturalist system (there’s some value in political campaigns for this purpose), and try to guide events, and take advantage of events, to the extent possible. I would also support nationalist parties that exist in Europe – to the extent that they are compatible with our ideology, and leverage whatever successes occur, wherever they occur to enhance our position.
In the last analysis, the Saleam vs. Salter vs. Fraser debate is currently only of interest to folks like us reading the blog. The average Australian, or American, is more concerned with sports and mainstream politics than anything that “smells” of “hate.” We should not delude ourselves in thinking that a shift in our message or ideology is going to lead to mass success in any foreseeable future. That’s not counsel to despair, the suggestions of the preceding paragraph represent a starting point of action.
That’s a concise summary of the matter, Ted, and one I completely agree with.
In the last analysis, the Saleam vs. Salter vs. Fraser debate is currently only of interest to folks like us reading the blog.
Never truer words spoken. Which is not to be defeatist but pointing out the reality.
Fraser has done great work in the past, and I take my hat off to him, sincerely, despite my “lecturing”. I still remember hearing him, or about him, on the radio many years ago when I worked at Macquarie Park as he warned of the dangers of the influx of Africans into Sydney. It was astonishing to hear a fellow Australian speak openly for us. What’s more, he articulated well and with obvious intelligence what was on everyone’s minds.
All my family agreed with him. But, as is the way, his was just a small moment that quickly disappeared into other news of the day.
I wish Fraser the best of luck convincing Anglos to take back their heritage, but he’ll need more than luck, he’d need to take back the education curriculum at least, for starters.
All White kids are indoctrinated at school with the conflicted message of anti-racism and White inter-generational guilt. British or Australian history is not part of the curriculum, excepting where it can be blamed for all the world’s evils.
A small anecdote to demonstrate was my eldest daughter asking on a drive past Mascot airport what the beach was. When I replied “Botany” she wanted to know if it was associated with Botany Bay. When I said yes, she remarked with surprise that she thought Botany Bay was in Victoria.
Now I know some may think, “Well, there go the stupid Irish again”, but she’s not stupid and is doing quite well in her final year to the HSC, studying Ancient History and other subjects. A few years ago I explained to all my children the meaning of the Union Jack, again, something that is not taught at school. These are two very basic historical facts that all Australians need to know, and did know, a few decades ago. The education system is entirely cultural-marxist. It churns out idiot consumers but fanatical anti-racists/anti-Whites. The education system is designed to fill White children with self-loathing.
Pretty much your average young White Australian today is a walking talking cultural-marxist zombie. As much as you might loathe them, and pity them, at the same time you can’t blame them.
I’m with Saleam on his Australian race nationalism but it just won’t float. Not as a political platform. We’ve been through all that and the closest we got in recent times was Hanson and Ettridge’s One Nation which was destroyed by the “conservative” party.
I think what will work is what Alex Linder promotes, the Golden Dawn style of party. We have to get out in our own communities, the White Flight areas and promote White Ozzies. We need to form communities where we only spend our money with Whites, employ Whites, and assist Whites. Take a leaf from the traditional Christian approach and where you see a suffering White, there is the White future. We need charitable works programmes for Whites.
Sure the government will interfere if there is success but if we act like the Hibernian Society of the past and keep these things secret and amongst ourselves we’ll ensure our survival, if not success. Just as the non-GST paying community flies under the radar so can ours.
The last thing we want to do is start cherry-picking who is and isn’t in the club based on ethnicity or religion. If Protestant Brits are with us, we are with them. The fact is, mainstream religion is dead so I don’t see that as any encumbrance to our goals.
Thanks to Greg Johnson for putting up with me, and thanks to Fraser and Saleam for their past efforts, and all power to them in their future efforts.
Happy New Year, everyone.
The question must be: what do we do with all this history?”
Perhaps the truly fundamental question could be: “What is the Philosophy behind Britishness?”
I think we all agree that we Australians were settled and nurtured by the British. Perhaps what fundamentally threatens Australia and the very core of Britisness today is not “history”, but “History” masked as Philosophy. Here I mean Philosophy as classically defined: “the search for the Truth as a way of life or the virtuous life”.
One cannot efficiently – meaning rationally and justly – defend the core “Values” or idea of a thing without asking: “What is it?”, or in our particular case: “What is Britishness?”. Philosophically, this leads to the question regarding what the various intellectual and spiritual British Founders/poets or gifted Statesmen looked up to, admired and then taught to those who set the tone for British society. It goes without saying that their works should not be read “historically” or better than the writers understood themselves.
When we read the greatest books written by the most gifted British thinkers and poets, for example: Hobbes, Locke, Bacon, Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton and Jane Austen – there seems to be a common thread of two ideas: Jerusalem (or Faith/Christianity) and Athens or (Philosophy/Reason) the latter as Socrates and the pre-Socratics defined it – “the pursuit of wisdom as a way of life or the virtuous life”. Philosophy always seems to have defended itself by appealing to leisured ladies and gentlemen.
It seems that never before in the history of the West have we seen the Foundation Pillars of not just the British, but Western Civilisation attacked by a Universal Tyranny posing as Philosophy itself and claiming to be persecuting “false philosophies”.
Perhaps by reflecting on the fundamental problems will make us better able to understand what is at stake. Perhaps it will also make us more just, more moderate, more civil, wiser, more virtuous and more unified.
Xenophon of Athens: “Perhaps the truly fundamental question could be: “What is the Philosophy behind Britishness?””
I think Britishness is the characteristics of a confederation of tribes and not an “ism”. That’s good. The white race is good. Different parts of the white race – Slavic, Latin, Celtic, Nordic, Teutonic – are all good. The map is not the territory, and you can subdivide things in other ways, but it’s all good.
Different strengths and weaknesses come more to the fore in different groups at different times, and particular practical criticisms, if offered in a friendly way and if not persisted in when they are not wanted can be helpful in particular times and circumstances.
I think the English have an odd, useful and dangerous, trait: they shift their identity more than most white peoples do, in order to include other people they think will be useful allies. Hence the “British” label as opposed to straight, undiluted English identity.
“Englishness” is back now only because the national system is in crisis; it’s not something that the English needed to emphasize at the peak of their power, which is a different mentality from the French, for instance.
In this sharing of identity, the usual rules of power, aggression, domination and so on still apply. I’m not implying that United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (from 1801 to 1927) was truly united in the opinion of everyone, or that the Dual monarchy of England and France that Joan of Arc did so much to wreck was consensual from the point of view of the French, or that the Rough Wooing was true love from the point of view of the Scots. It was all quite aggressive. (As is normal for mankind.) But nevertheless the English went at it in a particular way. You can see the difference in their colonies, which were differently from the more straightforwardly national French colonies, and in men such Glubb Pasha and Lawrence of Arabia often “going native” or something close to it.
From the point of view of those included in the shared identities of the English, this might all have been phony and merely a cover for aggression, but in the psychology of the English it was not. It was real and it could go right or it could go terribly wrong.
I think with the Scots, it went right, eventually. With the Irish, it went wrong. With Australians, who predominantly are British though of a distinct sort, it went very right. And so on. It’s a mixed bag, but mostly good. Except…
The greatest possible danger in the English mentality is the potential for a one-sided false alliance between the Anglosphere’s political elite and the elite of organized Jewry. I think that has come to pass, and it’s a catastrophe.
As long as Anglo-Celtic politicians, elite Anglosphere and especially English-descended politicians, continue in this state of identity-sharing with what they think are peers and useful allies but with what is actually one implacably hostile Middle Eastern, Semitic people, they are enemies. They have accepted “Judeo-Christian” religion and “Judeo-Christian” values. They accept the wisdom of the “elite” herd on the great issues of the age, and if that wisdom is mostly defined by organized Jewry moving as a bloc, the Anglo elite sees that not as a threat but just part of how “our side” does things. They’re gone.
This is worse than selling out but being able to buy back in without much psychological cost. It’s worse than being bribed or pushed around by a powerful lobby or a powerful media machine. Psychologically they are playing for what they think of as their team, not the “other” team, and they are playing willingly and actively. Tony Blair arranging stealth mass immigration into the UK, which is the most consequential act of treachery by any British politician ever, was doing what he wanted. Bob Hawke, ratifying Andrew Frazer’s multiculturalism and doing what was in his power to see that Australians could apply no democratic check to the greatest threat to our existence, was doing what he wanted.
This “alliance” isn’t public like the previous ones, but that’s just in line with the stealthy characteristics of the Anglo elite’s latest “allies”. It’s still real.
I don’t know what to do about it, except that they all have to go, obviously. We’d be better off if Blair, Hawke and all the younger editions of them were given one-way plane tickets to Israel.
A few points, two of which I’ve already stated and a third, newer one.
First, I see Salter’s position as in between that of Saleam and Fraser, and not identical to Fraser, as some believe. Salter does assert the primacy of an Anglo (“Anglo-Celt”) identity in Australia, but does not do so from a position of hostility or exclusion towards non-Anglo Whites. Further, while noting the likes of Jerry Zubrzycki, Salter has no problem also focusing on the ethnic and racial treason of Malcolm Fraser.
Second, what might be the optimal approach for England may not be so for Australia, which in turn may not be the optimal approach for America. I’ve been restrained in my comments on Australia, due to a lack of direct knowledge, and I believe the same restraint and discretion should hold when people consider the internal dynamics of nations they are not directly familiar with.
Third, having said all of that, I would advise caution, particularly to those who promote the more narrow particularisms, in distinguishing means and ends. By analogy, I critique the “gateway hypothesis” of WN. The idea there is that first we gently stress HBD, talk about IQ and Black crime, and say nothing negative about Jews or Asians – nay, we praise them! Over time, people will graduate from the “Dark Enlightenment” and become wise to the “JQ” while stressing racial preservation.
Well, that may work in isolated cases, but more often than not, the original approach is too successful for its own good. The means become the ends, and we end up with the types of folks who post at Amren comments threads, considering Jews and East Asians as the master races, and who believe that racial preservation for its own sake is silly and irrational.
Likewise, using ethnic identity politics as a gateway to racial politics (in places like Europe and Australia where ethnic politics still has a real bite) may be useful in the short term. But with all the effort to promote it, you run the very real risk of being too successful, and creating inter-ethnic attitudes which are what led us to the very real apocalypse of August 1914. If we haven’t learned our lessons from two World Wars, and the consequent destruction of the White World, then we really are hopeless.
And if some are actually intentionally trying to create such attitudes, then they are a very real danger not only to the broader race, but to the ethnicity to which they claim allegiance.
Ted, I had not heard of Jerzy Zubrzycki until your mention of him here. According to an extremely brief entry in Wikipedia, he was a Polish immigrant to Australia “widely regarded as the ‘Father of Australian Multiculturalism.’” He claimed to have fought in the Polish Underground during WWII, but it is unclear what his real story was. Google has masked searches that formerly identified virtually anyone who was Jewish or part Jewish, so now Jews, except for the flaming ones, can’t readily be pulled from the shadows using the monopoly search engine.
As for the intensely anti-white former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, who practiced racist bigotry both at home and in international affairs (he was also a Zionist), he was called half-Jewish (through his mother, nee Una Woolf) by Wilmot Robertson in The Dispossessed Majority and Instauration magazine.
Online sources suggest that he was one-quarter Jewish (maternal grandfather). Like Madeline Albright, he claims not to have known this, but nevertheless trots out the hoary urban legend retailed by virtually every wealthy and powerful Jew in the world, that white kids “bullied” and “picked on” Jewish children in school—even though “There weren’t very many Jews at Melbourne Grammar.”
He discussed his Jewishness, among other things, here: http://www.australianbiography.gov.au/subjects/fraser/interview10.html
Can’t say I’m surprised by the information on Fraser’s ancestry. They really do hate us, don’t they.
Bob Hawke cried three times in his political career: once over the Tiananmen Square Massacre, which is understandable if unusual; once after learning that his daughter and son-in-law had become heroin addicts, which is natural for any parent; and once early in his parliamentary career, when he was accused of betraying Israel. I can’t find a link for that online, but it was openly mentioned though not discussed in depth when he was Prime Minister, as was his being strongly influenced by a rabbi when he was younger. On that topic too, there seems to be nothing online.
I don’t know why odd and interesting information on the Jewish and Zionist connections of important politicians “goes away”, but that seems to be a trend.
Anyway it means that normally you can’t raise these issues because without something to quote you can’t back them up. That pushes discussions back to the “white suicide meme”.
In order to properly comprehend the social and historical landscape I’ve found it essential to always separate the sheep from the goats, no matter how well hidden the latter may be. It’s not that sheep are invariably good, but one must know who’s who in order to understand both the Jews and our own people. Jane Elliott, who is certainly bad, is not Jewish, and one wants to know that. Similarly, one wants to know that Tim Wise and Noel Ignatiev are Jewish.
Even part-Jewishness—Jewish ancestry—matters. It has a pronounced effect. At the turn of the 20th century Jews wrote, I think in the Jewish Encyclopedia, that they were “prepotent” in racial crosses—their traits dominated in offspring. This seems to be the case.
That is why the Germans correctly excluded not only full Jews but part Jews from the body of the Aryan people. And why the elite SS had far more stringent requirements even than the state, demanding genealogical proof of Aryan ancestry with no Jewish admixture quite far back.
As for Bob Hawke, Instauration reported Jewish connections for him, as well, although I do not have independent verification in his case. Still, Instauration was not careless in such matters, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there is something to what the magazine reported.
In August 1990 it said that his wife “is the granddaughter of a Czech Jewess.” Based upon the date of publication, this would have meant his first wife, the mother of his children.
In October 1990 the magazine added that “Hawke’s chief hangup [may well be] the Jewish branches in one part of his family tree.”
“I would be interested in the thoughts of my readers.”
Ban everyone who doesn’t agree with you. That way one’s point of view always prevails. Because the true “virus” is allowing free speech among dissenting whites, and that simply foments hostility. Every pro-white forum and blog follows this philosophy: Stormfront, VNN, etc, etc, and etc. But always make sure, just before the ban-hammer comes crashing down, that you fire a last salvo of insulting and demeaning remarks, knowing courageously that the banned cannot fire back to defend himself. That’s the hero’s way. That’s the way to insure a smooth-running blog where everybody (more or less) agrees, while sipping their tea in peace and harmony. But God forbid that real disagreement take place, lest blood flow. No, banning is the way.
All right. You’re outta here.
The fact that Malcolm Fraser’s maternal grandfather was a Jew is neither here nor there to Fraser, as he himself says in the cited interview. He didn’t know his grandfather, his grandfather’s religion was not handed down to him and, as Fraser says, “Well obviously there’d be some blood or genes or whatever through from grandfathers, but I don’t know how you can physically be influenced by people that you’ve never really met or known or been able to talk to.”
Fraser’s anti-racism and “colour-blindness” which fused with a staunch anti-White attitude with ensuent policies was the emerged facet of his religion, that being Presbyterianism.
Donald Horne’s summation of the social strata of Australia 1927 to 1934 is, in my opinion, a close and correct characterisation. I repeat it here:
“One of the really important ways in which people distinguished themselves from each other at Muswellbrook when I was a child was through their religion. They didn’t necessarily go to church but to be a Catholic to the non-Catholics was to be almost sub human and to be a Methodist was to be pretty low class, it was only us Anglicans and Presbyterians who felt assured in the world and the Presbyterians were really only assured because they were kind of honorary Anglicans.”
Fraser has no attachment to Australia and, if anything, despises ordinary Australians. He is not a firm believer, or at least that can be derived from what we know of him. But what does hold even though his actual faith has gone, is a fervent belief in his higher moral status to others, especially White Australians. That is the core Presbyterian belief that he maintains.
An example of this attitude can be found in the story of The Kimberley Plan.
“The Kimberley Plan, or Kimberley Scheme, was a failed plan by the Freeland League to resettle Jewish refugees from Europe before and during the Holocaust.
The League, led by Isaac Nachman Steinberg, selected the Kimberley region in Australia in hope to buy an area of 7 million acres (28,000 km²) of agricultural land for 75,000 Jews fleeing Europe.”
This plan had support from Australia’s then elite class in politics, business and religion.
But there was also a huge number of supporters from all over Australia. Labor politicians, like John Cain Sr, Conservatives like Frederick Eccleston, there were leading businessmen, scientists, judges, media representatives, including the then Chairman of the ABC, William Cleary. There was a former New South Wales Premier and Supreme Court Judge, Sir Thomas Bavin, there was a Commonwealth Minister for Repatriation, Eric Harrison, there was a designer of the Sydney Harbour Bridge, Dr John Bradfield. It was huge.”
You had Archbishop Mannix saying this scheme would “wipe out the stain upon our common humanity”. You had his Anglican counterpart, Dr Howard Mowll, in Sydney, urging the government to sanction the project. You know there were calls of support also from the Primate of Australia, the Moderator-General of the Presbyterian Church, Reverend Robert Wilson Macaulay; and the President-General of the Methodist Church, Reverend Weller.
The most vocal ally was the Anglican Bishop Coadjutor of Sydney, Charles Venn Pilcher, and he was getting involved in a whole lot of organisations promoting Jewish causes, including the New South Wales Council of Christians and Jews, the Australian Council for Jewish Rights, the Inter-Church Committee for non-Aryan Christian Refugees, and the New South Wales Australia-Palestine Committee. And during the war, Pilcher was campaigning vigorously against the prejudice that was confronting migrants arriving in Australia, and he was saying Australians were playing Hitler’s game by refusing to help refugees.
The Kimberley Plan: Melbourne journalist Leon Gettler takes us to the 1930s when the Kimberley region in Western Australia was proposed as a place of refuge for Europe’s Jews.
As can be seen, only some 30 or so years post Federation and implementation of The White Australia Policy there was an Australian elite class more than willing to hand large tracts of our land to foreigners not of our race, granting them an independent state within our nation. And you’ll note the dominant contingent of Protestants urging on the plan (as well as Archbishop Mannix).
This elite Protestant attitude is one that characterised our country from the days of the First Fleet (which I won’t argue now).
Another example is given by the Jew Graeme Samuel AO (Officer of the Order of Australia):
“My father went to Wesley College, and I suspect that at the time that he was looking at a school for my mothers and myself, he said, Well this seems to be the logical place to go. I have to say to you that I found Wesley was one of the most liberal private schools you could find, liberal in the sense of having liberal social values, and an attitude of equality, or non-discrimination, of total acceptance of people of all faiths, of all races, of all backgrounds. I know when my children went to Wesley College, that the Chaplain used to stand up at the beginning of each year, the Most Reverend Frank Webber, and he used to stand up each year and he would say at Wesley, ‘This school is colour-blind. It is a village of 49 different ethnic and racial groups’, and it seemed to me that that has epitomised Wesley for years, and if not decades and indeed since its inception. And so I was very fortunate to be able to go there.”
As can be seen, even in that staunch Methodist school, Wesley College, the faith was not at all Methodism, as such, but rather Liberalism. Liberalism with a capital L. The antecedent to the modern anti-White race hatred from our own White leaders. This hatred does not stem from the Jews, as such, but is the mutated strain of the Enlightenment fused with Protestantism giving birth to racial self-negation.
More recently we have the Jew Mark Leibler AC (Companion of the Order of Australia) who opposes any changes to the Federal Racial Discrimination Act.
That Act itself came into being as the direct result of the various Jewish groups in Australia lobbying for it. And they are fighting tooth and nail to ensure that the Abbott government does not water it down, as it has promised to do.
Mark Leibler, not only Companion of the Order of Australia, is also on the “World Executive” of Keren Hayesod, being a former chairman.
“Keren Hayesod – UIA, in partnership with the global Jewish community, works to further the national priorities of the State of Israel and Israeli society, with special emphasis on advancing weaker communities; nurturing disadvantaged and marginalized youth; encouraging aliyah; implementing rescue operations; and connecting young Diaspora Jews to Israel and Jewish life.”
No doubt because of this work on behalf of the Jews Mark Leibler received his Companion of the Order of Australia in 2005 during the Prime Ministership of John Howard. Not only is this the highest recognition one can be awarded in Australia, he received the highest classification in that Order. (*Note: The Jew Graeme Samuel AO, above, received the second highest classification.)
John Howard, being known as a staunch patriot, is a former Methodist now Anglican, and said of his faith:
“The fundamentals of Christian belief and practice which I learned at the Earlwood Methodist Church have stayed with me to this day, though I would not pretend to be other than an imperfect adherent to them. I now attend a local Anglican church, denominational differences within Christianity meaning nothing to me” (John Howard,LR, 15)
Howard, after years in Parliament, said that Methodism had instilled in him ‘a sensitivity to social justice.. a sort of social justice streak’.
The religious beliefs of Australia’s prime ministers
For Howard’s tireless efforts on behalf of the Jews and their state Israel he received “the inaugural “AIJAC Award Recognising Distinguished Leadership”. The AIJC (Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council) award was presented by, the then National Chairman, Mark Leibler.
In accepting the award, John Howard said:
“…that the contribution made to Austarlia (sic) by the Jewish community is one of “stirling citizenship – all through our history of our country has contributed so much to the building of a better Australia. Your community has very properly and very proudly maintained its identification with the State of Israel. That to me has always been both understandable and deeply impressive.”
During John Howard’s tenure immigration to Australia hit a record high.
In conclusion, it’s not some minor strain of a Jewish gene in Malcolm Fraser that causes him to act in a treasonous way, it stems from his religion. I do not, of course, mean traditional strains of Protestantism (though there is a lengthy history of philosemitism particularly with the Anglicans) but rather the mutant form that developed in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment