Sunday’s March for Australia was a massive success, the crowds were huge, the people were good-spirited and passionate, and most importantly of all, they were united on the most important issue: Stopping immigration to Australia and wanting the damage already caused to be reversed. If those marching for Australia uniformly agreed on anything, it was this.
The affirmation of the moral core behind the March for Australia
While I was marching alongside my fellow Australians, a funny, if not really a tragic, thought occurred to me: The march was probably the only day out of the entire year where Australians weren’t outnumbered by foreigners in our major cities.
Instead of playing spot the Aussie – a popular game for any Australian visiting his own CBD – I found myself actually playing spot the foreigner. I wonder how many other Australians did the same?
I say this not to demonise foreigners for their foreignness, which they cannot help, but to emphasise the general lack of nativeness that generally overwhelms our cities and is a microcosm of what the entire country is facing if immigration continues – which is what this march was all about opposing.
The overwhelming Whiteness of the march indicates to me that there’s no appetite for civic nationalism except among misguided Whites; and from what I saw, this mental affliction predominantly influences Whites over the ages of 45 to 50.
If there was such a thing as a multi-racial “patriotic” Australia, it did not show itself yesterday.
It seems to me that this vision of Australia as “for everyone” who loves some abstract sense of “Australian values” – AKA universalistic enlightenment liberalism – and performative materialism, is nothing but a chimera which exists in the minds of White people who don’t realise they stand as a distinct people (who are under attack from the system) whether they like or want it or not; there aren’t swathes of non-Whites who stand shoulder to shoulder with them when it comes to opposing mass migration from which they uniquely benefit.
The only crowds with significant numbers of non-White people I saw, were in the crowds of the leftist counter-protestors who expressly showed their disdain for Australia and White people by extension.
The march for Australia was a manifestation of identity that strongly vindicated that Australians are White people who want an end to mass non-White immigration. Whether everyone who attended marches accepts this as the apparent truth – certainly the counter-protestors and antiwhite racists understand this – is irrelevant, because it was born out by the demographic composition of the display.
And of course the response by all the usual politicians from “both sides” of the political “spectrum” – which is also a myth, all parties, except a few debatably centre-right minor parties, are left-wing – called the marchers “racist” and condemned us for “division”. They too clearly showed their disdain for mainstream White Australia which is why they offer no words of conciliation to Whites, not even acknowledging that we are a group and force in this country which deserves to be heard – their tactic is to deny we exist, and certainly not to allow us a seat at the table in our own country. It’s a disgrace.
The politics of protest and dynamics of opposition has not been fully understood by some.
The lesson from the marches must be the following: Mainstream Australia is White, and it has always been White since 1788.
White people are at the core of what made Australia’s population and forged our national identity: We’re Europeans and the culture of Australia has always been normatively European. Our institutions are European, our law is European, our liberalism is European, our democracy is European, our values are European; and so, we have every right to remain European. This is the same right as everyone recognises a Chinaman has in China, an Indian in India, or a Palestinian in Palestine. We must reserve the same basic moral right in Australia. This does not mean hatred for foreigners, but it does mean self-assertion for our cultural predominance in a country that is ours and has always been ours.
If you think otherwise then the only conclusion is that you think Australia should become non-European. This is the flipside of the coin, it is not a more “moral” view to accept the cultural erasure of Australia’s European heritage, it is a position divorced from history and right. It is actually steeped in wrong because it opposes the history and heritage of established Australia.
As I stated in my previous opinion piece, the maintenance of a White Australia does no harm or wrong to anyone who isn’t White, the same way we’re told – though it’s contextually untrue when it is in our own country – that non-European cultures do no harm to White people so long as they mind their own business and don’t strain society at large.
However, foreign cultures do unfortunately harm us existentially in the same way they claim Australian nationalism “harms” multiculturalism (phrasing it in this way might help those politicians and anti-Australian elements understand where we’re coming from), because it replaces us in our countries where we have the right to predominate and where all we have is this country; members of these foreign cultures, as much as we can appreciate them from afar, have their own countries and stand to lose nothing by being asked to stand aside so we may flourish as a nation and as a people.
Unfortunately, the whole moral angle is backward; foreigners are told that their culture deserves representation by virtue of its inherent worth, so what does that say about how the government views the worth of the foundational Anglo-European culture – which, for some reason must constantly defend its right to exist – when we’re ordered to be suppressed by the state for the sake of “multiculturalism”? This is unjust on the face of it, because, as I said, it ignores history and the firmly established core of what Australia has been for 237 years.
Misunderstanding the politics of protest
After the march, we’ve seen footage emerge of skirmishes in the fight for political representation on the street. This has come mainly from Melbourne, so far as I’ve seen.
When viewing the comments on social media, I’ve been dismayed at the overall lack of understanding when it comes to the politics of protest and dynamics of opposition which obviously find expression in political protests when tensions are high on both sides, and there’s an effort to establish a view of the moral right for the representation symbolised by standing one’s ground.
For instance, if one looks at the footage in Melbourne of the National Socialist Network (NSN) activists, as re-posted from the ABC by Joel Davis on Telegram with the caption: “The national broadcaster showing NSN staunching through commies in Melbourne so the patriots could march through”, or the footage posted by The Noticer, it is clear that the counter-protestors were not simply docile peaceful protestors beset by ravingly vicious Nazis, but they were intentionally trying to disrupt the momentum of movement of pro-Australian marchers.
In the logic of protest and marching, the side which has the momentum is obviously not incentivised to stop simply because their opponents stand in their way. This is truth regardless of who is marching.
The moral battle on the street isn’t decided by the side posing as an immovable object putting themselves in the way of a moving force. You’re just in the way. And it’s clear that those counter-protestors were themselves eagerly pushing for a fight by their actions. If the NSN had been trying to prevent an Anti-fascist, pro-Palestinian march, the moral obligation from mainstream pundits and cowardly twitter commentators, would find a different moral standard from which to pass judgement on those whom they ideologically dislike.
Make no mistake about it, no objective standard is being applied to the politics and dynamism of protest by such people, no matter how they morally signal and whose supposedly “in the wrong”. Conveniently it’s those on the Australian side being condemned for fighting back against those people who think it’s okay to “punch a Nazi” and who seemed to have tried to do just that but failed miserably.
In any case: Taking a step back and trying to view the situation objectively, in this instance, the Australian march spearheaded by the fighters of the NSN, were really just ensuring the march could continue.
From the perspective of the opposing side, all they could do was try to prevent the march of the Australian protestors, which would symbolise a victory, in their view, of their ideology if they had succeeded.
That’s the basic perspectives of both sides, and it has its own logic which everyone should be able to recognise. The only thing those marching could do is march, and the only thing those who wanted to prevent the march could do was try to oppose it. Both sides were trying to symbolically secure victory on the street thereby. Under these circumstances it’s practically impossible for there not to have been some confrontation.
What I reject is the idea that just because there was some confrontation, that it somehow reflects on the validity of the “ideologies” behind those fighting for their respective side. Because let’s face it, depending on what view you’re disposed to, you will see the moral right asserted by whatever your side is doing.
One could make the argument that if one is so against confrontation on the street, then you should not be confronting people who would otherwise just march on through with no reason to get handsy unless you try and provoke them by getting in the way.
In my view, it is not less aggressive to forcibly stop people from marching than it is to use counter-force to oppose the people trying to stop you from marching. It is completely arbitrary to claim that the group in motion is automatically on the moral backfoot. The fact is that both sides are going to feel morally inflamed, and both sides want to assert themselves; this is the result of an immovable force meeting an immovable object. Rather than trying to spin a moral yarn, people should just accept it as a feature of protest and the risk one takes in participating.
This isn’t an endorsement of street violence; it is simply an observation of what seems to be the inevitable dynamic of street protests.
Header image: Protesters in Sydney (supplied).
