Salter on Australian nationalism and what to do.
I would urge the reader to study Salter’s original essays either before or after reading my comments on them.
Salter has a two part essay about identitarian politics and nationalism from an Australian perspective, but what he writes is broadly applicable throughout the White world. I’ll examine in part in turn, commenting on particular excerpts of relevance. Again, these are only excerpts. You should follow the link and read the whole thing.
The heights of Australian politics and culture have been hijacked by the leftist multicultural establishment. Anglo identitarians – those who think of themselves as part of Australia’s historic identity originating in British settlement or more broadly as part of European civilization – have been marginalized by the anti-Western left. The trend has been apparent for decades in politics and the culture industries. The process began in the universities and mass media. As a result Australia’s Western identity is ever more obscured by hostile news, commentary and curricula. It is being drowned by indiscriminate immigration and oppressed by globalist elites. The historic Australian nation is assailed from all sides at a time when it is leaderless, not protected by the sinews of government but tied up and gagged by them.
And the same applies to the entire Western world.
To fight back, people need a vision of the Australia they want. For what should they fight? The second half of this chapter compares types of nationalism that have been pursued through Australia’s history. For present purposes, nationalists and conservatives will know the fight is won or at least going in a winning direction when assimilation is once again winning over ethno-cultural diversity as a guiding principle for choosing immigrants; in particular when the refugee intake is ended and the migrant intake is greatly reduced and limited mainly to people of European descent; when the Chinese and Indian nations are no longer colonizing Australia and relations with these rising powers are stabilized…
Salter’s wisdom contrasts to Silker lunatics and Asian imperialists, who, under the guise of “White nationalism,” propose Asian colonization of Euro ethnostates and the “borders of the West” guarded by Chinese girls with guns. Indeed, Silk Road White nationalism would consider “Asian Australians” as more authentic representatives of that nation than the Anglo founding stock.
…when schools desist from radical indoctrination and teach children the truth about their nation’s and civilisation’s glorious history; when our sons and daughters are not pitted against each other in a fabricated gender war; when civil liberties are secured largely by keeping the state out of the private realm; when UN mandates are lifted to restore freedom of association, allowing citizens to choose among whom they live and do business; when core institutions are reformed to become more compatible with human nature instead of socially engineering and herding citizens; when the multicultural apparatus is dismantled as a system designed to oppress the nation and is replaced with a democratic multiculturalism that includes fair representation for Anglo Australians; when foreign ownership is once again regulated to protect Australian industry and home owners; in short when the historic nation throws off its shackles and reasserts its prerogatives.
These policies will be enacted only when Anglo-Australians become sufficiently mobilised and organised to vote for their ethnic interests and build lobby, media, and educational organizations so powerful that wise politicians avoid offending national sensibilities or appearing less than eager to preserve national identity.
What Salter is talking about is building an infrastructure to leverage against the System in order to pursue ethnic interests. Note to the Alt Right: Salter does not mention rallies in which “activists” come dressed up like Captain America and Batman, while at the same time denouncing the use of “uniforms.”
Because information is usually incomplete, especially concerning complex matters of policy, it is prudent in choosing goals to start with the most securely known interests. The most certain interests are biological, including personal health and a family that is safe and prosperous. That is why it is vital to have a robust diversified economy, secure borders and safe neighbourhoods. At the next layer of biological interests, one should invest in social cohesion and the secure identities upon which it relies. School curricula should induct children into their culture and history. Without such knowledge it is impossible for young adults to know themselves and Australia’s place in world history.
How to achieve those goals? I propose a dual strategy of political and cultural activism, with the two linked so as to mutually reinforce. I also discuss how individuals can contribute.
The successes of the Brexit and Trump campaigns point to the feasibility of advancing Western identitarian goals through electoral politics.
Unfortunately, while Brexit and Trump represented a populist, if not nationalist, resistance, both campaigns (predictably for those who understand sociopolitical realities) have failed to accomplish what their supporters really wanted. Brexit basically eschews Polish plumbers while welcoming Pakistani sex groomers and child rapists and Jamaican gang-bangers. Trump’s Presidency has devolved into endless scandals, including sex scandals, and pardons for physically abusive race-mixing Negro boxers.
In Australia the same indication is provided by the success of parties that, together, are breaking the political duopoly that has dominated government since the Second World War…The electoral base of these minor parties consisted mainly of Anglo-Australians, defined broadly to mean individuals who have assimilated and identify with the British-derived nation…The European share of One Nation voters was greater than their 80% of the population.
In a subsequent analysis, Black observed that the Turnbull government was attempting to win back One Nation voters by tough talk about citizenship and refugees.2 He argued that Turnbull was mindful of Senator Hanson’s wide support from “English-speaking Anzacs”, “English-speakers”, “Kiwis”, “disaffected and angry, white, Australian-born English speakers”, and “Poms”, the great majority being immigration conservatives.
The same old trick: mainstream conservatives shift right to poach ethnic patriotic voters, only to shill for more immigration and more anti-White policies once elected. And the voters fall for the trick every time. This also shows why “mainstreaming” is a recipe for failure. When “Far Right” parties “mainstream” and move toward the center, they get politically close enough to mainstream conservatism so as to allow the mainstream conservatives to plausibly position themselves as the “more acceptable and electable version of the same basic policies.” Time and time again, mainstream conservatives outcompete mainstreaming patriots and time and time again, mainstreaming fails. In Hungary, we instead see the success of what I call “farstreaming” – Orban, originally a more mainstream conservative, has gone from success to success the farther to the right he has moved; while his rightist competitors at Jobbik, originally on Orban’s right and a credible threat, have experienced political disappointment after they have mainstreamed so far they are now on Orban’s left. Orban and Jobbik have essentially exchanged places on the Hungarian political spectrum, with greater success being observed with more radical rightist positions. Even Trump’s election can be viewed as a form of farstreaming success, as Trump’s campaign (as opposed to the man himself and how he has governed) was the most “far right,” politically speaking of any since Reagan, and in some ways even more so. Mainstreaming is a fraud. Even if staying true to “extremist” principles results in electoral defeat, that’s better than ditching your principles and still being defeated. At least in the first case, you stake out a position and gradually normalize it through participation in the political process; in the second case, you lose you vacate your ideological high ground and become just another vaguely “conservative” politician, albeit one unelectable compared to your more tame conservative colleagues because of your past “extremist” positions. Mainstreaming gives you the worst of both electability and ideological promotion: you are still unelectable while weakening your ability to promote an ideology and educate the public.
One Nation’s appeal to Anglo Australians has profound implications. A party could dominate Australian politics if it became identified in the public mind as representing mainstream Australia. At the same time, the census reveals the nation is splitting into ethnic zones, accelerating the rise of identity politics, including among Anglo Australians. The makeup of One Nation’s supporters shows that the nation is not as far gone as its enemies hope, that survival is possible. For many journalists and commentators it is a bitter fact that the original Australian nation is not dead.
One Nation is showing the honesty and courage necessary to represent mainstream Australians and thus the national interest, especially on the issues of Islamic immigration, foreign ownership, and leftist bias in public broadcasting. The party would be allocating resources efficiently if it invested in appealing to its Anglo base, because Anglos are most likely to respond positively and because they are a majority of the population.
As a nationalist party that represents the majority population, One Nation or its successors could become a major political force. However there are obstacles to achieving this, the greatest being that the party’s ethnic appeal is due to the intuitions of the leadership. Party leaders care about Australia and are courageous but like the mainstream parties are not versed in the sociology or history of ethnicity and nationalism. Their ethnic vision of society is implicit. Beyond Pauline Hanson’s wish that Australia return to a relatively united culture, her party has not described the Australia they want in realistic demographic terms. This places One Nation among conventional political parties, not at the cutting edge of reform and renewal.
This is a key, important, fundamental observation, and it is good that Salter objectively identifies weaknesses in One Nation here. This is particularly important since the same weaknesses are inherent in much of right-wing populist and “mild” nationalist parties and even in some “movement” groups, such as the Alt Right and certainly the Alt Lite. No doubt Trump goes by “intuition” and “feeling” rather than by thoughtful analysis, ideology, and an explicit ethnoracial focus. We need cutting edge parties and leaders.
Pauline Hanson’s biographer, Anna Broinowski, summarises her nationalism as a deep nostalgia for the monocultural Anglo society of her childhood.7 The left and minority chauvinists disparage nostalgia for any European society. In reality it is noble to be nostalgic for the sense of belonging and community that Australia is losing. There is nothing wrong with such emotion as part of a social vision. But nostalgia can only serve that function if it is attached to analysis. That requires cultural expertise and vision. Politicians cannot be expected to cover all bases. They rely on intellectuals in the humanities and social sciences. The anti-national left’s domination of the universities helps explain why nationalist social analysis is weak.
That last sentence is important. The suggestion, the implication is that the Right is weak intellectually, analytically, and academically. The Left’s domination of academia is, as Salter asserts, one key reason for this. But the Right itself is to blame, for its anti-intellectual tendencies, its reliance on irrational impulses to the exclusion of rational analysis, its eager grasping onto bizarre memes, fossilized dogmas, and crackpot conspiracy theories as well as crackpot pseudoscience. What passes for “rightist academic analysis” these days is HBD nonsense and “traditionalist” rambling about “the pyramids of Atlantis” being built by “psychokinesis.” The Right is an unfriendly place for rational, empirical academics, and until that changes, don’t expect the problems identified by Salter to be soon rectified.
Political leaders could exploit cultural capital by the following:
1. Talking about how cultural and racial diversity undermines social cohesion;
2. Introducing the public to the meaning and benefits of nationhood and its reliance on a dominant and confident core ethnic identity;
3. Explaining that multiculturalism is an ethnic hierarchy that subordinates Anglo Australians;
4. Linking indigenous identity to Australia’s historic Anglo identity;
5. Maintaining a rational rage against the corruption of the universities and proposing remedial policies;
6. Working with responsible protest groups to defend the right to public assembly;
7. Explaining how the ANZACs have been betrayed by abrogating the social contract between generations. They did not fight and die for open borders or multiculturalism or foreign ownership;
8. Formulating and transmitting these messages would be made possible by working with nationalist think tanks to obtain analysis and personnel. The identitarian political front cannot advance far without drawing on advances in the culture war.
Who is actually doing this?
Identitarian goals can also be advanced by cultural and social work. This overlaps the idea of metapolitics, though that term has obscure post-modernist meanings. Raising ethnic and national consciousness is the prime goal of identitarian cultural activism, a necessary condition for national liberation.
At present patriotic ideas are marginal in academe but have the huge advantage of being largely true or at least open to scientific findings on history and ethnicity. Cosmopolitans, whether motivated by corporate or leftist or minority-chauvinist values, have become anti-scientific in order to construct an ideology that justifies attacking natural parochialisms, from families to nations. Long ago they expelled biological theories of human nature from the social sciences.8 The result has been intellectual chaos. Radical academics have maintained dominance only by non-intellectual means. Research by psychologist Jonathan Haidt9 confirm what many academics have experienced for decades, that conservatives and nationalist are driven out of university careers by hostile work environments and career-limiting bias.
This is all true. But it is also true that the “movement” is all a “hostile work environment” for activists with an academic/intellectual bent. The overall disinterest in EGI and, in general all of Salter’s work, is troubling. In Salter and his work, activists have a rich resource that can be mined for ideas and for guidance, and most of them would rather dress up like Captain America at rallies, make drunken podcasts, or sniff about “spectral psychokinesis,” “orcs,” or “Kali Yuga.”
Cultural warfare is more fundamental than electoral politics and has objectives broader than those of any political party, even one with a cultural string to its bow. A full cultural strategy cannot be managed by the political leadership; it must be conducted by cultural warriors. That is why the political and cultural strategies will often be separate specialisations, which nevertheless depend upon one another. Just as smart parties invest in culture, wise cultural warriors reach out to help political campaigns. Though neither side can be well managed by the other, both depend on the other; simultaneously self-managing and interdependent.
This is important, and I concur that such cooperation is crucial. Unfortunately, it rarely occurs. Politicians, who pride themselves on their “pragmatism” and attention to “the real word,” often look with disdain on culture warriors, viewed as “pie in the sky theorists.” For their part, the culture warriors sniff disdainfully at “crude politics” and claim “the time is not right” and we should exclusively concentrate on “metapolitics” (ill-defined).
Those engaged in cultural advocacy for their people also need theory if they are to compete with opponents who for generations have been beating them hands down. The starting point is to understand how cosmopolitans and globalists have been winning. A key source is Canadian sociologist Eric Kaufmann’s 2004 text, The Rise and Fall of Anglo America. Kaufmann traces the rise of radical cosmopolitanism from its beginnings in the late nineteenth century to its victory over America’s traditional culture leaders in the 1950s and 1960s. Instrumental for that victory was the left’s capture of much of the centralised mass media and elite university culture by the post-Second World War years. This wrested the heights of culture production and distribution from the hands of traditionalist Anglo-Americans. Since then radicals have been mopping up Anglo resistance. They put down the Old South’s resistance to desegregation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1965 they opened the borders to Third World immigration despite lack of popular support.
A missing word here: Jews.
When America lost the cultural cold war so did Australia because we depend on U.S. military and economic power and are net importers of American culture. Academic disciplines and markets for culture are international, especially within language zones such as the Anglosphere. Now the U.S. and Australia are being mopped up through replacement-level immigration, the final irreversible cultural-genocidal stage of the conflict.
Kaufmann’s analysis provides lessons in cultural warfare. Cosmopolitans invested in mobilizing intellectuals and professionals, and through them winning the hearts and minds of up-and-coming leaders. They:
1. Maintained their objectives but used flexible methods. Kaufmann traces the cosmopolitan movement back to 1876. Through all the ideological and organisational changes they retained their hostility to Anglo-Christian America. The New York Intellectuals, who brought cosmopolitanism to victory in the U.S., began in the 1930s as Stalinists, converted to Trotskyism before dividing into nihilistic radicals and pseudo-conservatives (‘neo-conservatives’). Persistence paid off in the 1950s and 1960s, almost a century later, when radicals found places in the universities and the federal government.
2. Pursued objectives strategically. Cosmopolitans prioritised ethnic goals over other radical policies. This meant that the goal of liberal immigration trumped most other policies. For example, feminists and gay rights activists have not oppose the immigration of Muslims who hold them in contempt, and environmentalists did not oppose large scale immigration that increased the number of consumers and polluters.
Unlike Der Movement, which is incapable of thinking strategically, is always asserting an imminent System “collapse” and whose “long-term” planning is typically in the realm of weeks or months,
3. Funded their intellectuals with generous philanthropy.
Salter should be funded. The failed Tin Cup Fuhrers of Der Movement should not.
4. Established parallel institutions, social and educational, from which they sallied forth to participate in mainstream politics and culture.
Precisely the type of infrastructure building I’ve been promoting and that the “movement” ignores.
5. Developed tribe-like solidarity and hatreds. Kaufmann describes the pseudo ethnic character of the New York Intellectuals. One aspect of the tribal spirit of the radicals was their unwritten rule against public criticism of other leftists and their intolerance of those whose views they rejected. They showed a racist-like loathing and contempt for conservatives and small town Anglos.
6. Found psychological substitutes for religion in ideology and organisations. Their cohesion and ultimate triumph were achieved despite them rejecting traditional religion, not because of it. Put differently, their militant atheism was costly, driven not by cost-benefit logic but by some non-rational impulse to attack Christendom. One lesson for universal nationalists, those who want everyone to enjoy the benefits of identity and community, is that their fight back will be easier because they support religious freedom.
7. Prioritised gaining positions in universities, government departments and the media.
8. Showed disdain and intolerance for opponents, which marginalised conservatives and nationalists, yielding an effective radical monopoly in the universities. This intolerance continues as a hallmark of culture industries across the West.
Unfortunately, the Right is often also intolerant of their own intellectuals. “The future is in the forest,” don’t you know.
9. Strove to secure career paths for members. Junior recruits were mentored and defectors ostracised.
Compare that to Der Movement, where “leaders” have pontificated that such activities are useless since “the System will collapse within five years.” Head to the hills! Grab your musket and pemmican!
10. Put great effort into acquiring or starting journals of analysis and opinion, such as Ramparts and The New York Review of Books, mainstays of the New York Intellectuals. These magazines gave the network some aspects of an academy. They emphasised intellectual achievement, not electoral politics. They adopted the cultural warfare objective of influencing the culture industries, which construct and distribute information, including entertainment, news and commentary. By the 1950s the New York Intellectuals were being hired by the universities and government agencies, which accelerated the march of cultural Marxism.
A deeper unstated implication of Kaufmann’s analysis is that these radical cosmopolitans…
Religion has been a major front in the culture wars for at least a century. It should give pause that radicals and multiculturalists strive to separate the nation from Christianity and turn the secular state against that religion. Andrew Fraser has studied the role of Christianity in forging the English and Australian nations.12 Other theorists have studied religion as a “group evolutionary strategy” that forges cohesion and cooperation.13 Still other analysts observe that religions provide identity markers.14
According to evolutionary biologists D. S. Wilson and K. MacDonald, Christianity has underpinned European cultural group strategies, which release and direct intense altruism. These group strategies defend bio-cultures by clarifying identity and intensifying altruism. Andrew Fraser includes Australia in his observation that the Christian religion, through myth and ritual, has provided motivation essential for ethnic and national defence. England and Australia originated as Christian nations.
I’m no fan of Christianity and certainly no fan of Fraser, but I understand where the Anglo-Australian Salter is coming from here.
Both Christians and secular patriots need to understand the importance of religion in the culture wars. For Christianity has been a historic identity marker uniting European nations and Europe as a whole against existential and internal threats.
That’s fine as far as it goes. It goes too far when people make Christianity the litmus test for the West, put religion ahead of race, and start ranting that atheists and agnostics (and pagans too I suppose) should make a pretense of Christian belief so as to “fit in.” No, sorry, not going to do that. By the way, it is the responsibility of Christian racialists and nationalists to show us how their religion can be reformed and is currently compatible with EGI. It is not the responsibility, and certainly not the obligation, of non-Christian atheists to help Christians reform their cuck-religion.
These great deeds could not have been accomplished without a Church which saw its pastoral duty as extending to defence of the people, their nations and civilisation. De-Christianisation has been a successful strategy for breaking down ethnic and national solidarity of Western peoples.
The Christian churches themselves have been in the forefront of this. Can they be reformed? Christians need to show the way. Not me.
Countering this is an important part of an identitarian cultural strategy.
I really do not agree with that.
The concept of “political warfare” was adopted by Rich Higgins, a security analyst who worked for the National Security Council during the early Trump presidency. Higgins described the unprecedented institutional attacks on Trump and noted that:
Political warfare operates as one of the activities of the “counter-state” and is primarily focused on the resourcing and mobilization of the counter state or the exhaustion and demobilization of the targeted political movement. Political warfare methods can be implemented at strategic, operational, or tactical levels of operation.16
Higgins also described the larger goals of political warfare:
Attacks on President Trump are not just about destroying him, but also about destroying the vision of America that lead to his election. Those individuals and groups seeking the destruction of President Trump actually seek to suffocate the vision of America that made him president. Hence, the end state is not just a delegitimized, destabilized, immobilized and possibly destroyed presidency; but also a demoralized movement composed of a large enough bloc to elect a president that subsequently become[s] self-aware of its own disenfranchisement.17
Trump has been busy destroying himself and shunning his White base.
It is relevant that Higgins knew, as did every political analyst in the U.S., that Trump’s implicit constituency was white America. The deep state’s goal is not only to bring down the Trump presidency but to break the political will of the historic American nation. A similar situation exists in Australia, with the difference that the political leadership is still in the hands of the multicultural establishment.
The only reason to support Trump.
It is significant that Higgins, a staffer loyal to Trump’s original policies, was fired by a more senior staffer. Training competent and loyal staff is one obvious benefit of cultural activism, which will be discussed further.
Are we surprised that Higgins is gone? Trump has shifted left upon election, as do ALL Republican “conservatives.”
Feedback: the Virtuous Cycle
So far I have discussed political and cultural strategies for protecting national identity and thus cohesion. Also important is the relationship between them. Electoral and cultural successes need to feed on one another to produce positive feedback. That salutary process should be facilitated where possible because only exponential growth can allow national movements to acquire the numbers and commitment they need to stand against globalist forces.
Very true. But as I stated above, both sides of the rightist Political-Cultural divide disdain the other.
The cultural front can also help the political front by providing able and loyal staffers. Incompetent or subversive staff are a frequent reason minor parties fail. Patriotic parties must be able to draw on a pool of speech writers, policy analysts and media people who not only support conservative and nationalist values but are able to defend them with social and economic arguments. Promising politicians are too often hobbled, diverted, or hijacked by opportunists.
Or, in many cases, the opportunists are the politicians themselves. Hello Trump!
By constructing parallel institutions in education, media and welfare – all cultural projects – the movement would be better placed to retain its core values as it grows, resisting the temptation to compromise with “big tent” politics. The goal should be to roll back the subversive aspects of the cultural revolution that began in the 1960s while accepting change that is benign or harmless.
Parallel cultural institution should be of sufficiently high quality to be worthy of large investments and philanthropic bequests. Projects should be positive, not reactive. Wealthy individuals will only support groups whose operations are scalable, i.e. whose output rises with investment. Thus they will look for talented individuals and organisations whose performances can be broadcast on radio, television or internet. In the early phase the key ingredient is quality, not quantity.
Who will do this infrastructure building? The current “movement” has proven itself incapable of doing so.
Two obvious examples are a news service and, more importantly, an online academy. The latter would teach what the universities refuse to teach. Subjects would include social science that incorporates biosocial theories of human nature. Students would be introduced to research on ethnicity, nationality, social cohesion, political and cultural history, reproductive strategies, gender and race, and comparative civilisation.
The dual culture-politics strategy makes sense only if it includes a reformist critique of the universities’ anti-Western bias. The social sciences and humanities are the jewels in the globalist crown. They must be won back to serve truth. Only by fixing the corruption in higher education will political victories be sustainable.
How to fight social pricing? Theorists like Salter should tackle this problem. I have no ideas myself other than that of building a sufficient infrastructure so as to “defang” the power of social pricing. But this is a classic “chicken-and-egg” scenario since social pricing stands in the way of the initial steps of infrastructure building required to defang social pricing.
Political and cultural strategies should be aimed at carving out a constituency. In asymmetrical conflicts the little guy does not have many victories, and when he does, the resulting political and cultural capital is fleeting. So victories should be maximally exploited. The goal should be to complete the feedback loop. Political victories yield platforms, windows of publicity. These should be used to draw people’s attention to important values. Identity comes first, because interests so often depend on who we are.
No greater victory has been won by the enemies of the Australian nation and the West than the obscuring of traditional identities. Those the gods would destroy they first make mad, and loss of identity is madness. Nationalist advocates should expend their limited political capital on clarifying and reaffirming the nation’s core Anglo European identity. That is best achieved through two-way feedback between political and cultural activities.
Good sense, no doubt. How to actually go about doing it is another story. The “movement” as it exists today is a poor vehicle for getting us there.
An arena in which feedback should be effective is multiculturalism. This is an important doctrine used to legitimate mass non-European immigration and suppress majority resistance.
Identitarians need a Plan B in situations where (and while) nationalism has failed to produce a homogeneous nation state. They need a strategy that protects ethnic and civilisational interests in the face of hostile multicultural regimes. In particular, the strategy needs to be workable in a situation where the majority or original nation has been subordinated by the aggressive type of multiculturalism practised in the West. This type consists of an alliance between minority ethnics and big coercive governments, promoted by the left cultural establishment.
And that Plan B is democratic multiculturalism, which I endorse, and which actually can form a component of Plan A as well.
A promising strategy is to advocate “democratic multiculturalism”, in which the subaltern majority mobilises to demand group rights in the same way that minorities do. The majority is disadvantaged because, far from being treated as a client by the cosmopolitan elite, it is viewed as the main enemy. Nevertheless, agitating for democratic multiculturalism should yield positive results because the identity politics used to mobilise minorities will also work to some extent with Anglos, more so when their level of discomfort rises…Democratic multiculturalism promises to be a powerful strategy if feedback is successfully channeled between electoral and cultural activists. Electoral success can provide resources and growing legislative power. Cultural products can arouse identity and thus prime a growing constituency to vote for identitarian parties. By raising national identity and mobilisation the strategy stands to provide a rear-guard. New parties and activist groups are slowing and blunting multicultural policies such as open borders and the criminalisation of Anglo resistance.
“Movement” retards say all of that is “dishonoring our ancestors.” Instead we all need to “grab dem muskets” and head off into the woods.
The doctrine of democratic multiculturalism provides a Plan B that can grow alongside and support the Plan A of liberal and ethnic nationalist strategies while giving people a workable way of life in coping with the diversity inflicted by a hostile political class.
Exactly, do both at the same time; thus Plan B can be a part of Plan A, as well as being a fallback position in case Plan A fails.
Cultural activists should remain autonomous, speaking truth to power. To do so they should not be wedded to any politician or party. They should throw their support behind politicians who are good for Australia and punish those who are not.
In a word: Trump. The lickspittle worship of the “God Emperor” by factions of the Right is juvenile and pathetic. That’s America; as Salter suggests, the same principle applies to Australia (and throughout the Western world).
Likewise, politicians should support promising cultural projects. They need to gather constituents able to diffuse ideas into the community. There is no ironclad solution. The relationship between political and cultural activism will sometimes need to be explicitly managed. What is certain is that a national revival will be unattainable without positive feedback between them.
“Explicitly managed.” I agree, because as I suggested above, if left to their own devices, the political and cultural spheres will disdain each other and achieve nothing…for the Right. Of course, the more politically mature Left has had a seamless cooperation between Politics and Culture for many decades. Question: Who will be these explicit managers?
A fundamental challenge is weak leadership caused by political expediency.
In a word: Mainstreaming.
Finally, I want to discuss personal strategy. What can one isolated person do with few resources and an imperfect grasp of the situation? Those engaged in asymmetric conflict must think hard about this question. First and always, citizens should strive to learn more about society, human nature, and the political process, circumventing establishment censorship.
Individual activism can be political and cultural. On the political front, join or support a party or special interest group that represents our people directly or indirectly. Choose one that is capable of making a difference. That is usually not a single-issue or tiny party. Whichever party or group you do join, agitate to have it accept members who are open national activists.
Cultural activism is broader and more varied, including individual artistic expression. On the joining side, get involved with or if necessary establish a group performing useful or needed work. Examples include supporting patriotic events such as Australia Day and Anzac Day; celebrating cultural events, such as Anglo-Celtic and European ethnic festivals and local community events. Become involved in community associations such as historical societies and local suburban groups, such as those resisting high-rise property development. Look for ways to help old people and families trapped in hostile immigrant suburbs. Friendly contact can reduce the sense of isolation and threat. Do chores, help with shopping. Alert the local council and police about local crime and anti-social behaviour. Provide information about welfare rights.
These are exactly the sorts of things I have been advocating for a long time, even as far back as my interview for Robert Griffin’s book. The “movement” has not listened; the Type I activists have neither the desire nor the aptitude for these types of activities.
As already noted, religion is an important front in the culture war. There are things individuals can do. The religious should get involved in their local churches. Have a presence. Express yourself sincerely while listening to others. Urge ministers, priests and lay people to respect Anglo Australians’ multicultural rights and return the church to its pastoral duty of uniting all communities. Oppose those who seek to hijack religion to harm the nation. The latter point applies to those who are not religious, who can legitimately claim and defend Christianity’s cultural heritage. They can also defend their (and others) ancestral religions against vilification. They can teach children about the religion of their ancestors, the heroes of their faith, their music, art and literature. Cultural Christians can encourage clerics who speak up for the nation and for wholesome values.
For an atheist like me, this: “The latter point applies to those who are not religious, who can legitimately claim and defend Christianity’s cultural heritage. They can also defend their (and others) ancestral religions against vilification” seems like good sense.
Stand up for your beliefs at work and among colleagues and friends. Use common sense. There are often opportunities to express viewpoints in workplaces. That includes responses to workplace surveys and electing union representatives. Communicate your views in a non-aggressive manner that maintains social norms.
This is an extremely important paragraph of suggestions. The last sentence is the sort of it-should-be-obvious advice that escapes many “activists.” Crude Bunkerism is counter-productive. Set a good example, and, as Salter suggests “use common sense.” Make use of the opportunities that present themselves to get pro-White views aired, normalizing such views, engaging in “democratic multiculturalism,” and heightening the contradictions while promoting racial balkanization.
Elites have greater responsibility. Individuals influential in politics, economy or culture should examine their consciences. They have a duty of care, especially to their own nations.
Elites are traitors and at some time in the future need to be held accountable for their treason.
Choosing an Adaptive Nationalism
A big decision individuals need to make concerns political goals. What are the most adaptive policies relating to the national question?
Our starting position is nationalist, meaning that the nation is something worth preserving. But what is a nation and why is it valuable? At the start of this essay I described some nationalist policy objectives, without defining nationalism. For present purposes it can be defined as a form of social cohesion or solidarity derived from national identity. At its simplest and most cohesive a nation is an ethnic group living in its homeland, the latter being a named and demarcated territory. An ethnic group is a population with a proper name that believes itself to be descended from common ancestors.
Politicians refer to the nation while perpetuating mass indiscriminate immigration and approving a coercive multicultural apparatus that subordinates the founding historic nation. Are such politicians nationalists and can their policies produce social cohesion?
To decide that, we need to examine doctrines that have attracted the nationalist label.
I will next proceed to an analysis of Part II, when time allows.