Since around the end of the sixties, the Anglosphere has been the sick man of Western nationalism. In the last decade, the Continent has given us the steady rise in nationalist political parties such as the Front National, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Lega Nord, and even more radical groups such as Jobbik, Golden Dawn, and the Slovak National Party.
By contrast, the Anglosphere has given the Australian Greens and the quintessential SJW Justin Trudeau, someone so delusionally leftist that he defies satire.
There are several reasons for this delayed reaction. One reason is the standard of living. When governments are able to guarantee a comfortable life, nationalist sentiments can often be quelled, at least for some time.
Another reason is that these countries don’t really have a fixed idea of nationhood anymore. While all of these countries were founded by Anglo-Celtic peoples and maintained strict immigration policies, they have since allowed a degree of immigration that has significantly diluted the original Anglo spirit which characterized these countries before the gates were opened. A man who is a quarter Italian, a quarter Irish, and half Dutch will have a difficult time identifying with any of those nations, especially if he is more than a generation removed from his ancestors’ departure from the homeland. And as for his identity as a white man, well, that is something that is far too abstract, at least for now.
The third reason has to do with suffering. Countries such as Australia or Canada don’t understand national suffering on the same scale as countries such as Poland or Ukraine. While the latter two have been tossed around between nations and empires throughout their history, the former have had uninterrupted independence since their separation from Britain. While the former were more than decimated during the Second World War, the latter have never known war on their soil in living memory.
And finally, there is the colonial aspect. Nothing tugs at the heartstrings of an Australian liberal more than hearing about the so-called stolen generations and other tales of atrocities against congenitally innocent people of color. Likewise, an Englishman’s criticism of migration is stifled by his (unjustified) guilt over the British empire.
So things have looked pretty grim. However, there is reason for hope. The Anglosphere has been subject to some of the highest displacement-level migration in the white world. While areas of Britain have become Islamic strongholds and havens for Pakistani child rapists, parts of the United States have gradually become unofficial extensions of Mexico. Meanwhile, Australia is gradually being bought out and colonized by China, with our elite’s blessing. But too much is too much, and eventually, something’s gotta give.
And give it has. While the American political elite is frothing at the mouth at the possibility of a Trump presidency after his hostile takeover of the Republican Party from the neocons, Britain has made the unexpected move to leave the bureaucratic cultural Marxist nightmare known as the European Union. Similar patriotism is also rising on the other side of the equator, in the land of kangaroos and crocodiles: a familiar face has returned to Australian politics. In fact, not just a familiar face, but the most hated one among the elite, too. I speak, of course, of Pauline Hanson.
Pauline Hanson is by far the most controversial and maligned politician in Australia. While her rhetoric is certainly far tamer than that of “real” nationalists, she walks a fine line between speaking the unspeakable and yet being just within the Overton window so as not to be completely shut out of the mainstream media. It is this balance that has kept her in the cross hairs of an Establishment which refuses to tolerate any deviation from egalitarian multiculturalist orthodoxy.
Hanson’s origins are humble enough. As a precocious mother of four, she had never been part of any elite circles. Rather, she worked a number of menial jobs before taking over a fish and chips shop in Ipswich, a region in Queensland. She started her political career in 1994 as a councilor in this city before campaigning for and entering Parliament in 1996 as a member of the Australian Liberal Party (mainstream Right-wing cucks akin to the American Republicans). It was here that Pauline Hanson became who she is.
The issue that Hanson made her own was that of Aboriginal entitlement. That is, that it was unfair for Aboriginal Australians to receive certain economic and social privileges that were unavailable to other Australians. While this issue was essentially anti-racist at its very core, this battle unsurprisingly led to Hanson being labeled a racist.
Hanson would become a household name in Australia with her now famous maiden speech delivered before the Australian Federal Parliament in 1996. Hanson further denounced Aboriginal privilege, even going so far as to quote Arthur Caldwell, a proponent of the White Australia policy, and state that she wished there were more “men of his stature” sitting on the benches today.
Hanson went on to denounce multiculturalism, stating that Australia was in danger of “being swamped by Asians.” Furthermore, she demanded that multiculturalism be “abolished” and immigration policy be radically reviewed. These were the mid-nineties, and the demographics weren’t so skewed against White Australians back then. It is difficult to imagine, or at least was up until recently, such rhetoric being used by a “mainstream” politician today. Due to her humble origins and somewhat unpolished manner, Hanson was correctly viewed as an ordinary person rather than a career politician. She was seen as someone who stood up for Australia’s identity against the forces of political correctness.
The reaction was predictable enough, and Hanson was denounced as a racist and a bigot by the mainstream political establishment as well as the media. She was disendorsed by her political party and entered Parliament as an independent. Shortly thereafter, she formed One Nation, Australia’s first nationalist party in several decades. One Nation pushed to radically reduce immigration, revive Australia’s Anglo-Celtic traditions, and abolish economic privileges given to Aborigines. It also adopted a platform of protectionism, lobbying against the privatization of certain Australian companies, and for increased restrictions on foreign capital and the flow of capital overseas. The government sometimes paid lip-service to these goals, and Prime Minister John Howard refused to denounce Hanson, which enraged the far-Left.
One Nation had a great deal of success, winning 8.4 percent of the vote in 1998 (most of which would have otherwise gone to the Liberal-National ruling coalition) and managed to get its members into Parliament as well as into local councils. Indeed, it was a time of general Right-wing nationalist resurgence in Australia, with other groups such as Australia First and the Confederate Action Party coming into being.
However, One Nation had influence beyond its seats in parliament, for the ruling coalition, sensing the growing power of nationalist groups in Australia, decided that to totally ignore the sentiment of the people would have been politically unwise. Thus the government adopted some of One Nation’s positions, implementing stricter immigration policies and even denying some of the Aborigines’ more brazen privileges.
Unfortunately, this lucky streak did not last. As is too often the case, infighting broke out in the party, and in 2000 Hanson expelled David Oldfield, one of the co-founders of the party. Oldfield then went on to establish One Nation (NSW), which would of course only serve to split the nationalist vote. Overall, One Nation’s support decreased dramatically from 22 percent to just 5 percent, due largely to media vilification, political intrigues against the party, and the fact that the government had implemented some of Hanson’s policies so as to quell the nationalist resurgence.
Also accelerating the downfall of One Nation was the dubious “Australians of Honest Politics” fund, essentially a slush fund that was used to assist in lawsuits against the party. It is difficult to imagine such tactics being used against a non-nationalist party.
Eventually Hanson was expelled from her own party, and she and David Ettridge, another co-founder of One Nation, were convicted of electoral fraud. The conviction was eventually overturned, Hanson having essentially been one of the few political prisoners in Australian history.
What followed then was a series of long, painstaking, and fruitless attempts to get back into politics, sometimes as an independent, other times under a different party. Whenever this happened the media would always play their part, throw her a bone, and put her in the spotlight for her 30 minutes of humiliation, while politicians from the other parties would engage in cynical moral signaling and affirm their belief in multiculturalism.
In the end, the story was always the same: Hanson would gather a large portion of the vote, but never enough. This had happened so many times that by the time of the recent election I could only roll my eyes as I saw One Nation putting forward its candidates for the Senate, including the recently returned Pauline Hanson. Actually, I didn’t even think much of it; I assumed they would score dead last, and that would be the end of it. I remember some years ago going with a few other younger nationalists to a One Nation meeting only to find that we were the youngest bunch there by about five decades (no, this is not an exaggeration). It honestly seemed likely that One Nation’s members and supporters would simply die out before they had a chance to win any further political power.
How wrong I was. Maybe I just hadn’t paid enough attention, but in this last federal election, Hanson and at least two other Hansonites entered the Senate, making this the first time an explicitly anti-immigration party has held any kind of political power in nearly two decades. The significance of this cannot be understated. A country that has been feasting on blue-pills for nearly my entire lifetime has finally grown a pair and said “no more.”
What does One Nation stand for?
Make no mistake, One Nation is not a White Nationalist or Identitarian party. They are civic nationalists, even if more racially aware nationalists such as myself get giddy at the prospect of their bounce back from oblivion.
One Nation today, like most civic nationalist groups, takes a strong stance against Islam. It considers Islam a “political ideology” as opposed to a religion, and a totalitarian one at that. One nation would like to see a ban on mosques and burqas, as well as on things which are already illegal anyway, such as female genital mutilation and polygamous marriages. Hanson also supports the idea of ceasing all Islamic immigration, which I trust no one would find to be a bad idea.
However, their immigration policy as a whole could at least be described as a common-sense policy, if not an explicitly racial or ethnic one. One Nation promote what they refer to as zero net migration, that is, migrants will only be accepted to compensate for Australians who either leave the country or, presumably, die. The reasons given for this policy are environmental, economic, and . . . ethnic. “Economically, immigration is unsustainable and socially, if continued as is, will lead to a further ethnically divided Australia.” Sigh. No doubt, all of us wish we could just say we want to keep Australia White. But alas, it is still the current year.
One Nation also proposes deporting criminally-inclined immigrants and restricting welfare only to those who have been in the country for a period of five years or more. The issue of welfare dependency aside, deporting legally challenged immigrants would probably solve a large part of the problem.
In short, One Nation is a civic nationalist group whose members probably wish Australia were whiter, even if they refuse to admit it publicly or even to themselves. Even Hanson herself lamented all those years ago that Australia was at risk of being swamped by Asians, a concern that was clearly racial in nature. In order to survive politically they assert that it is not a matter of race, but a matter of culture. I don’t doubt their sincerity in this. But I’m also sure that they are aware that if immigration levels continue as they are, any “Australian culture” will disappear along with the white majority.
The Street Movement
Nationalists are not just making gains in the political arena, but also on the streets. In response to the 2014 Sydney hostage crisis, a protest movement known as Reclaim Australia was born. Reclaim Australia was a rather typical anti-Islamic protest group, with no other ideological principles and an essentially negative identity.
Reclaim Australia however eventually gave birth to another movement, the United Patriots Front (UPF). Led by gym junkie Blair Cottrell, UPF seems to be essentially the more militant and ideologically coherent faction of Reclaim Australia. Despite being a break-away, the UPF is strong on its own and has essentially become a leading force in Australian nationalism, drawing hundreds and sometimes even thousands to their rallies. Cottrell has proven himself to be a relatively charismatic leader (at least in comparison to anything the Australian movement has had in the past) and his followers don’t shy from confronting the state’s shock troops on the streets, whom they are even able to outnumber twelve-fold.
At first I thought they were little more than a group of rowdy blue-collar Average Joes who like a bit of a scuffle. I was mistaken. Cottrell and other leading members regularly post videos on Facebook talking about various subjects related to national identity and nationalism. Instead of finding a bunch of videos about how cruel halal slaughter is and why sharia law is bad, one is pleasantly surprised to find that the UPF regularly touch on subjects that Whites face as a race and as a civilization. Cornell and the UPF have posted videos discussing the teaching of sexual deviance in schools, racial hate crimes in the United States, Sweden’s rape epidemic, and the concept of cultural Marxism. Any nationalist scrolling through their statements and videos will easily be able to read between the lines and understand their message.
Lately, though, it seems the UPF has been stooping to the lowest common denominator and focusing its energy on Islam. This isn’t surprising, as Islam acts much like a steam valve for ethno-nationalists to vent their frustration at a safe target, all while making it possible to avoid the smear of “racist.” Whether this is just a temporary strategic maneuver for the sake of the greater cause or will lead them down the path of becoming zio-cucks, only time will tell. But for now the UPF is galvanizing the Australian nationalist movement like never before.
Even two years ago the Australian nationalist groups combined could barely draw more than 20 people to a protest. A hundred or even thousand would be considered a wild fantasy. Australian nationalism had more or less laid dormant since the brief resurgence during the Cronulla riots, an event sparked by the beating of an Australian lifesaver by Lebanese men. Today there is a legitimate street movement as well as a political force in the Senate that aims to halt immigration and, though perhaps backing off from the more difficult issues, is a step in the right direction. While White Nationalists, especially of the ideologically purist type, may not be satisfied with the way things are progressing, it is difficult to imagine them unfolding otherwise.
A common Australian culture probably could have been formed if mass non-white immigration had not occurred. This would have given the various European peoples in Australia time to amalgamate with the dominant Anglo-Celtic people to create a culture that was similar to that of Britain, though with its own distinctiveness. The abolition of the White Australia Policy destroyed that possibility of building a genuine nation, possibly forever.
There is unlikely to be any kind of large scale genuinely ethno-natonalistic movement in Australia any time soon. However, the increased amount of crime coming out of the various third-world imported populations as well as China’s imperialistic ambitions may give White Australians no other option. The White Australian of English descent will have to realize that under nearly all situations, he will have more in common with the Italian or the Pole than he does with the Chinaman or the Somali.
By the way, as you might expect, a certain (((Jenna Price))) has felt an especially strong need to confront One Nation’s immigration policies because The Holocaust. The mainstream journalist Malcolm Farr sees One Nation’s successes as “the products of seething, marginalized men, often middle-aged, who are seeking explanations for life not being optimal.” Such disconnected and condescending explanations only serve to further separate the MSM from the realities of everyday life, and will eventually lead to our victory.
Leftists are unable to understand that the people aren’t voting Nationalist because they are somehow defective. They are doing it because they are seeing the logical results of multiculturalism, and they don’t like it. The Sydney hostage crisis splashed some cold water on the collective consciousness of White Australians. The criminality of the Sudanese-dominated Apex gang has further awoken people to the realities of race differences. It is inevitable that as Australia’s Third World population grows, so will the problems that come with it.
Herman Husband, Eighteenth Century White Nationalist Pioneer
Remembering Savitri Devi (September 30, 1905–October 22, 1982)
In Defense of Superstition
The Ayatollah Answers
Talent: A Review
Southern Nationalism: An Interview with Padraig Martin of Identity Dixie
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 482 It Was a Very Good Year on The Writers’ Bloc
Safeguarding Our Tribal Discourse