The fundamental divide in politics today, the defining factor that makes you side with the left or the right, is whether you believe it’s okay to politically agree with racists as long as you have nominally non-racist reasons for doing so.
There is nothing right-wingers love more than non-racist ways of justifying what left-wingers consider racist. This is what right-wing politics fundamentally is now.
The apex value of the left today is anti-racism. And in response, the essence of today’s right has become anti-anti-racism.
In a time when religion and class are becoming increasingly irrelevant to political identity, the question of race looms large over the contemporary political debates that define the respective camps.
However, apart from its vanguard, the right does not embrace this directly. Our culture beats into us the notion that explicit racism is morally reprehensible (as long as it’s emanating from White people of course), but this notion remains only surface-level for most.
Only a minority of Whites have fully internalised this anti-racist moral conditioning to the point of being afflicted with the “White guilt” that inverts racial self-interest. The rest of us are merely shamed into repressing our racial sensibilities, only for them to resurface in more tacit manifestations.
This fundamental dynamic is misunderstood by most political analysts and commentators, because they take right-leaning Whites at face value when they frame their racial anxieties implicitly in the terms of economics or crime. Making “racism” a moral taboo for Whites doesn’t eliminate it, it just sublimates it into plausibly deniable forms.
White people don’t harbour ill will towards other races just for being different. Our racial anxieties are not irrational “hate”. What scares White people is the prospect of being reduced to a minority in our own country, and therefore losing cultural hegemony over our own society, and political control over our national destiny.
Tapping into these racial anxieties is the key to basically every recent major right-wing electoral success, whereas forsaking them has prefigured almost every recent major right-wing electoral failure.
This explains why Boris Johnson roared into office in 2019 off the back of pro-Brexit sentiment, with his voters under the impression that Brexit meant the border would finally be shut, only for the Tories to be decimated at the next election after betraying them with the infamous Boriswave of record migration. Reform UK has now supplanted them, and roared ahead in the polls precisely because they speak to these anxieties, which the Tories overlooked.
We saw a similar dynamic play out in 2020 for Trump, who lost a significant portion of his White male base by walking back his anti-migrant focus of 2016 to instead focus on winning the black vote with his Platinum Plan and “opportunity zones” – this clearly didn’t work. His 2024 campaign focus on mass deportations, however, clearly did work.
Here in Australia we saw the massive electoral advantage opened up in Tony Abbott’s 2013 Stop the Boats landslide whittled down election cycle by election cycle as the Liberals kept unsuccessfully trying to pivot to the centre to win over moderates.
Mainstream commentators still all diagnosed their worst-ever result at the last election as somehow being the result of not pivoting to “the centre” (translation: the left) enough. Yet all listening to these people achieved was rupturing the Liberals’ hold over their own base and precipitating the rise of One Nation, which is now winning over White working class voters from Labor in droves, with some polls showing Pauline Hanson winning out of every five voters who went with Labor at the last election.
Dog-whistling White racial anxieties is how you win elections from the right now. Not dog-whistling White racial anxieties is how you lose.
Forget these sideshow debates about climate change or trannies in women’s sports, a plausibly deniable racial defence of the White majority has to be One Nation’s modus operandi.
A recent IPA study showed 78% of One Nation voters believe Labor is importing migrants to bolster their vote in upcoming elections. Meanwhile, only 2% of One Nation voters disagree with the notion that we should prioritise immigrants from “places with shared values, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand”. 2%.
The issue with immigration isn’t fundamentally economic, its racial. The primary concern with immigration, therefore, isn’t how many are coming in, but who is coming in.
Whilst it is true that high levels of immigration are exacerbating the housing crisis and driving up rental demand in major cities, this isn’t why people are voting for One Nation. Polling consistently shows renters are more likely to vote Labor or Greens than average, whereas homeowners by contrast are more likely to vote One Nation or Liberal.
Polling also shows Australians have wildly different attitudes towards immigrants depending upon their country of origin. 61% of Australians have a positive attitude towards migrants from Britain. Whereas only 31% have a positive attitude towards migrants from India, and only 18% report a positive attitude towards migrants from Sudan.
The rise in support for lowering the number of migrants is due to the fact that most of them seem to be non-White these days, more than anything else. Which is why most people still say that immigration has been historically good for Australia, even if they want it reduced now, because Australia was built on immigration – White immigration.
All of this clamouring for migrants who “share our values” and “assimilate” is a veiled preference for migrants from other Western countries, for an implicit, plausibly deniable return to the White Australia Policy, for racism without racism.
And the reality is, White immigrants do share “our values”, which is why Labor doesn’t want them. Polling has consistently shown that voters born in Europe are more right-wing in their voting patterns than native-born Australians, unlike those born in Asia.
An immigration policy which prioritises migrants from Western countries who “share our values” and have a track record of “assimilating” (just don’t call them “White” out loud) would, therefore, not simply be popular, it is existential for the right in this country – if we start importing One Nation voters rather than Labor voters, we’ll probably keep winning elections rather than losing them.
One Nation wants to reduce our immigration intake to 130,000 a year, and there’s way more than 130,000 people who want to migrate to Australia in Britain alone, let alone Europe. We currently make it harder for our British cousins to move here than for Indians, imagine if we reversed that – bring back the “ten pound poms”.
If it was made as easy as it used to be, there are literally millions of young Brits who would want to migrate here, yet no one in Australian politics talks about this. This is a massive oversight, as there is no form of immigration more popular in Australia or foundational to our national story than British immigration.
Everything that makes Australia Australian was imported from Britain.
I’m glad to hear Pauline Hanson talk about wanting to ban Muslims from migrating here, which she can get away with within the paradigm of crypto-racism because it can be framed as taking issue with the most despised religion in Australia rather than hating brown people.
However, this doesn’t work with Hinduism or Buddhism or Confucianism, which don’t offend Australians. Calls for banning Indians or Asians from Australia would therefore be harder to sell within the crypto-racist veneer, despite being just as necessary as banning Muslims is to stop Labor stacking the electorate and ensuring Whites maintain our demographic supermajority.
The best way to sell this then, is not by talking so much about who we want to keep out, but who we want to bring in, who we want to prioritise.
If we prioritise our Anglosphere and European friends first, we make it easy for them to get visas, and we cap it at 130,000 or whatever other number we feel best serves our economic needs – then the visas will all get snapped up by Whites ..ugh, I mean “Westerners who share our values”. We won’t need to “ban” anyone, we simply will run out of visas before we even get up to processing the Indian and Chinese applicants.
An immigration policy like this will make Australia Whiter, whereas simply closing the border would condemn us to slowly drifting into minority status as all the boomer Whites die off. And maybe we could solve the birth rate crisis by importing the babes of Europe while we’re at it (I heard Ukraine has a quite a few female refugees they could send our way at the moment).
Immigration built Australia, and it could rebuild Australia, with a little imagination.
Talking about who we want to bring in, rather than who we want to keep out, completely reverses this whole debate. It puts us on the side of positivity and them on the side of negativity. It would force Labor to justify why we don’t want migrants from places like Britain and Ukraine – good luck.
All the arguments about how we need immigration to meet skills shortages and deal with our aging population and so on would fall apart, and instead Labor would have to explain why immigrants who don’t assimilate, nor share our values and civilisational identity, are preferable to those who do. They will lose this argument. All the success stories they tell about European migrants coming here after WW2 will become ours.
I recently wrote about how the best way One Nation can sell their anti-multiculturalism policy is by making it about going after ethnic lobby groups that push hate speech laws and antiwhite DEI policies. I stand by this. But if they want to keep talking about “assimilation”, something which in a free society people can only do voluntarily, the best way to sell that is by prioritising migrants from countries that are already the most similar to us, with a track record of assimilating into Australian culture. Namely, people from other Western countries.
63% of voters already like this idea, and only 13% oppose it. If One Nation embrace it, they will win the next election and win it handsomely. And if they implement it after they win, they might just save Australia.
