During the past few months Australia’s ruling class has been gradually whipping itself up into a hysterical frenzy over the emergence of a coherent mass nationalist movement.
Some of the most powerful political figures in the country have demanded measures that would effectively end Australian democracy, from vetting new parties for anti-establishment views before they are allowed to register, to threatening Australians exercising their constitutionally protected right to political speech with doxxing and criminal prosecution.
Yet why is this the case? On the surface it seems utterly bizarre that Australia’s most powerful people could be so terrified by rallies of flag-waving Australian patriots asking for policy change on immigration, or by a 20-minute-long protest questioning the power of the Jewish lobby. After all, on any given weekend in our capital cities one could find rallies that are larger, more violent and more inflammatory.
The answer to the question lies in the fact that the government views any open discussion of certain topics as an attack on its fundamental legitimacy. It is, in short, an existential issue for the state.
Over the years the ruling class in Australia has decided that more and more topics of debate are off limits, and that anyone who chooses to discuss them publicly is an enemy of the establishment.
The establishment consensus has been that the Australian public cannot be allowed to have any influence over these policy areas. This is presumably because if the topics were openly debated then the results would go against the interests of the coalition of powerful interest groups (both domestic and foreign) who make up the government’s ultimate backers.
The political duopoly has refused to make these into election issues, except via the most oblique dog whistles, while the media and security services have ruthlessly destroyed any individual or group who dares to make the issues public.
The most important issue that has been totally ringfenced from public debate is immigration.
It is well known that there exists an informal agreement between the Labor and the Liberal Parties not to make legal immigration levels an election issue. It is even more taboo to discuss the demographic impact of immigration, unless one is making the point that it’s a good thing that White Australians are becoming a minority. It goes without saying that anyone who even dares to bring up mass immigration itself as a problem is dehumanised as a “Nazi” and “racist”, who can be violently attacked with impunity.
The second-most important issue is the hijacking of the political system by interest groups, both ethnic and economic.
As seen this week, the power of the Israel lobby cannot be openly discussed in Australia. Yet it wields such power that it has allegedly threatened sitting Prime Ministers and can have journalists it dislikes fired on request. They are far from the only secretive lobby group distorting public policy in its favour, and a veritable rats nest has emerged in our centres of power that cannot even be talked about let alone challenged.
The third forbidden topic is neo-liberal economics and interest slavery.
The alleged benefits of free trade are viewed as akin to a scientific fact, and the loss of our manufacturing industry is held to be a very good thing because it violated the eternal law of comparative advantage. The mining industry is the source of all prosperity, and any attempt to tax it or to seriously diversify our economy commits the grave sin of government economic intervention. Anyone who disagrees is shouted down and labelled an economic illiterate by the constellation of free market think tanks, public servants and academics who monopolise discussion of economics in this country. The house price racket and the resultant interest slavery can only ever be discussed as the outcome of impersonal market forces, and not a conspiracy of the property lobby and the banks to turn housing into a commodity and make of Australians eternal debt slaves.
The fourth of these unspeakable areas is foreign affairs and defence policy.
The alliance with the Judeo-American empire is the foundation of our foreign policy, and no dissident is tolerated within the establishment. We must make the world safe for global finance capitalism, regardless of the loss of Australian lives, money and sovereignty. Anyone who disagrees is labelled a feeble-minded idealist or an agent of Russia and China, never to be graced with an official position again.
Dissenting on any of these issues publicly, or even merely debating them in some cases, results in the state’s disapproval making itself known very rapidly. At the very least you will be ridiculed by the press or deliberately shut out of the establishment. More likely you’ll lose your job, your bank account and maybe even your liberty. Anyone who has publicly dissented on these topics well knows that ideas like “human rights” and “civil liberties” evaporate like a morning fog the instant the state’s gaze blazes upon them.
This strategy of suppressing all discussion of key issues worked well in the short term, and they eventually allowed the establishment to present the Australian public with a fait accompli. Australia is indeed today a multicultural country built on debt slavery with a totally internationalised economy, hijacked by foreign interests and hosting an endlessly growing number of foreign military bases. It is less a sovereign state than plantation for international finance capitalism to squeeze rents and interest from a mongrel mass of debt slaves.
As the system has succeeded in making this is the current state of affairs, it can claim that infinity replacement immigration and million-dollar mortgages for the masses is the “sensible centre”.
Anyone who proposes doing something about it – whether opposing immigration, questioning the influence of foreign lobby groups or demanding an end to the parasitism of the banks – is an “extremist”. Probably a “violent extremist” too.
Discussing the topics that are making life intolerable for the average White working Australian might make people angry. And as ASIO chief Mike Burgess recently stated, getting angry at the government for destroying your future is “antithetical to social cohesion” and could “prompt spontaneous violence”!
Unfortunately for our rulers, suppressing all debate on these topics has also fundamentally deprived them of legitimacy. It never received a democratic mandate to make Australia’s suburbs resemble India. No one ever voted in favour of a million-dollar mortgage, and no party ever ran on a platform of destroying Australia’s manufacturing industry. You’d be hard pressed to find any Australian willing to trade their free speech for “social cohesion”.
Yet these are all the result of policy decisions made by the government that it refused to put before a public vote. As the Australian Government claims to be a liberal democracy, this is proving to be a very poor decision in the long term. Popular acceptance of the government’s mandate to rule rests on the idea that the government enacts the will of the Australian people, even if this goes against entrenched interest groups.
As there are now vast areas of policy where this basic rule no longer applies, the establishment has effectively delegitimised itself. Allowing debate would force it to admit that it alone is responsible, that these policies were forced on our nation, and that its self-stated reason for being (to translate the will of the Australian people into policy) is a lie. This is as good as admitting that it has no legitimate right to rule.
It knows this, and it understands that this is a potentially existential issue. The state is now trapped in a vicious cycle where it can only ever double down on its existing policies and suppress the symptoms, rather than dealing with the underlying problems that its policies are creating. Yet the more it suppresses debate, the less legitimate it seems, and the more pent up demand to discuss the topics grows.
The only solution to this problem is for nationalists to keep pushing the elite on these points as hard as possible, no matter what the cost.
The pent-up resentment and demand for change created by the government’s suppression of debate on immigration, political subversion, neo-liberal economics and foreign policy is the very force that will propel nationalists into power. Every weakness of the establishment is a strength for the nationalists. On every point where they delegitimise themselves we gain legitimacy as the only ones wiling to do something about the problems that their policies have created.
The Australian establishment will in time be destroyed by its own lies, and no fate could be more richly deserved.
