What most people think “the right” is, is merely the persistence of older forms of leftism that oppose themselves to the institutionally hegemonic form of leftism contemporary to our basket case of a civilisation.
It is not a mere intellectual exercise in historical literacy to recall that populism and nationalism were themselves the advent of leftist revolutionaries. To recognise this, is to recognise the egalitarian ideals fundamental to these tendencies.
The rejection of human equality, descriptively and proscriptively, is, however, the essence of the right. It is precisely from the requisite affirmation of the supremacy of the exceptional in mankind, descriptively and proscriptively, that the right gains its meaning as a political tendency. Real rightism is racism, militarism, aristocracy and imperialism, not simply proclaiming that there’s only two genders.
Rightists may cynically use old forms of leftism, such as populism and nationalism, to subvert democracy in the pursuit of political power. But to believe in these things with sincerity, is to become (to at least a considerable extent) a leftist oneself. It is to confuse the means currently available to rightists to subvert and ideally ultimately destroy democracy with ends in themselves.
And this is not just some ideological purity test I’m arbitrarily imposing upon you. To truly take populist nationalism seriously as an end in itself (particularly in this day and age) is to submit to the ever-more insipid banality, puerile cowardice and small-minded stupidity of mass sentiments. Populist nationalism’s only valid purpose is to rip the state out of the hands of the leftist establishment and open it up to infiltration and ultimately seizure by rightists.
Yes, a hundred years ago the Australian electorate was based enough that staunch White nationalism was a bipartisan political value that was described by some commentators as a “national religion”. But that reflected a general virility which is sadly absent from the Australians of today. The militarism and race patriotism of the Anzac generation has been largely forgotten, not because of a conspiracy to obfuscate it – it is plain as day in the history books – but because the Australians of today have become so effete they cannot empathise.
The average voter today may want immigration cut, they may object to the very blatant damage being done to our country by the “woke agenda” of diversity and multiculturalism. But they also lack the stomach for what is explicitly necessary to reverse the damage. If Australia and other Western democracies are going to be salvaged, they will be salvaged in spite of their people, not because of them.
Much like how leftist ideologues have imposed these changes upon society over and beyond democratic mandates, socially engineering consensus after the fact, if the right can seize the state our program will need to be imposed upon a society that doesn’t need to consent so long as it doesn’t overwhelmingly resist.
However, if we limit ourselves to being honest democrats, we will be dragged down to the lowest common denominator and stripped of all ability to do what needs to be done. The average One Nation candidate sounds like an idiot (and in most cases, if not all cases, is an idiot), because the average One Nation voter is also an idiot. The key will be getting the idiots to vote non-idiots into power, even if this requires a little playing dumb along the way.
This realism is essential for the right to grasp. Firstly, so that we let go of the idea that our political objectives are limited by the Overton window and the sentiments of the masses – the formula for winning elections does not (and should not!) have to be the same as the formula for running the state. And secondly, so that we can focus on building a vision for rightist elites to embrace without regard for whether it resonates with the votetard masses, even if it needs to be occulted when seeking political power within the current system.
The area where this is of most vital importance on the Australian right today is on the question of imperialism.
It is simply a fact of history that the so-called fathers of Federation, the founders and early leaders of our Commonwealth, and indeed the 400,000 plus men who volunteered to fight in the First World War, were not “nationalists”. They were race patriots and imperialists. Fighting the Germans and Ottomans in the First World War had nothing to do with Australia conceived of as a distinct nation. But this didn’t matter, for in the eyes of these men Australia was not a distinct nation – but an extension of the British Empire.
This rarely acknowledged but blatantly true fact of history has extremely important implications for what Australia is. Indeed what the entire point of us being down here rather than back in Europe fundamentally is. And there is no historically valid answer to this question other than the recognition that Australia is an imperial outpost of the British race in our struggle for global domination – a struggle which has fused us now into the “White race”.
Leftists who actually read history books understand this, which is why they hate our history and are obsessed with aboriginating everything. Meanwhile on “the right” (if we can call it that), instead of owning our history and trying to envisage what doing it justice would mean in our time, there is instead this tedious and vapid myth of the fair dinkum true blue Aussie who practices the sacred values of “mateship” and “the fair go”.
Apparently, our entire national character boils down to being friendly and nice. The premise is extremely gay to say the least.
These days, however, it is becoming more fashionable again to talk about the “Anglo-Celtic” or “White” Australian from which these values arise, but generally only to portray ourselves as victims of discrimination or “replacement” through mass migration. But this of course begs the question, what grants us any special rights over this continent? Didn’t we steal it from the Aboriginals ourselves?
The reality is that no one group of people has any inherent “right” to any particular piece of land. The juvenile moral claim of “I was here first” is fundamentally meaningless, and besides basically every piece of land on the planet was conquered by one group from another at some point in history. The question is simply whether a particular piece of land is worth fighting for, and whether you’re strong enough to fight for it and win.
We took this continent because we could, and if we take it back it will be because we can. We are not “victims” of replacement migration, White people are letting it happen around the world out of nihilism and indifference.
A politics of White victimhood is a road to nowhere, precisely because we are not victims, and therefore the moral force of victimhood will not save us. White Australia cannot be defended within the moral paradigm of racial equality. White Australia was built by racist imperialism, any ideology that rejects the moral validity of this will be incapable of defending White Australia.
But why does White Australia even matter? Is it the splendours of our unique culture of eating meat pies and watching the footy? Is it having mates and being fair to people? Is it saying the c-word all the time? Don’t they have pastries and sport and friends and be nice and use swear words in other countries too? In which case what’s the point?
I don’t believe the answer to this question is found within Australia, or is even comprehensible to the average voter – even if they feel prejudiced against the hordes of Indians flooding in and get triggered by the “welcome to country” before every major event.
I believe, like our founders, that the true purpose of Australia can only be grasped in the wider context of the global balance of power and the struggle between races and civilisations for planetary supremacy. Australia is a forward deployment of the White race into the Pacific to check Asian imperial ambitions. If the White race was to sacrifice our intercontinental posture and retrench ourselves in Europe, we would be handing over the planet effectively to the Chinese communist superpower. And I find this to be an unacceptable destiny for our species.
Everything about Australia which truly matters, is a result of Australia being European, Western, Aryan. That we share in the greatest civilisational heritage there is.
Australia matters, not because it is Australian, but because it is White. If Australia continues to be flooded with non-White immigration and alienated from its history by the leftist establishment, it will drift out of alignment with the US and become neutral towards China – effectively rendering Chinese victory inevitable in World War Three before a single shot is fired. As without Australia, the Americans will have no fall back bases out of the reach of Chinese land-based missiles from which to conduct the naval blockade of South East Asian trade routes that would be critical for their hopes of victory.
The British Empire may have fallen, but the West as of yet has not. The national distinctions upon which we stupidly let our race be divided during the first two world wars (against the advice of the great rightist advocates of European imperium such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Oswald Spengler) no longer meaningfully divide us. The new era of global conflict will bifurcate on racial, not national, lines. Only with Russia and Japan as traitors of their respective races.
We see this new paradigm emerging quite clearly in the post-globalism of the second Trump administration, declaring in their National Security Strategy and repeatedly elsewhere the opposition of the US to the continuation of replacement migration into their Western allies in order to preserve their “civilisational identity”. Washington is beginning to realise it possesses no soft power greater than White identity.
It is this conflict which now runs through the centre of Australian politics. The conflict of White and non-White, America and China. And it will be this conflict that will enable rightists to infiltrate and subvert the state toward our ends, but only if they start thinking beyond the limitations of the parochial populism preferred by the puerile peons of the Australian nationalist “movement”.
Header image: Australian and American flags in Washington DC (White House).
