The ageing New Left have long since traded their kaftans for three piece suits but they still cling to the equally decrepit views of their day. They do so whilst pulling the levers of power in government, business, and all other spheres of influence.
On the Soviet holiday International Women’s Day they made fools of the children of the revolution. Less crude than a FKH8 video but no less poisonous, ANZ ran their ad from last year about the mythical pay gap on this most august of days. Out of the mouths of babes come facts about earlier female development twisted to force a conspiratorial conclusion about the System being stacked against women that only adults are stupid enough to believe. In a moment of devotion to the secular church of progress a liturgical dance is featured with a young Asian girl issuing a barbaric yawp of “enough” that would make Genghis Khan blush. This must have been intended as a powerful statement but instead leaves normal Australians scratching their heads asking “why?”…
This is the much vaunted free market of ideas at work. Free, that is, for those with the full weight of leftist institutions and Weltanschauung behind them. For everyone else the cost is your standing in public or even your job. It has become something of a talking point in the Alt-Right about big government not being as censorious or controlling of the discourse as private institutions, and this is very much the case in Australia. Business, the media, and NGOs set the tone and the government bumbles along behind.
What passes for the right in Australia is yet to appreciate the concrete realities of the day. Only by engaging in the Culture Wars can this situation be changed, but instead the focus is still on the government. The Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance in their short time of existence has spent countless resources and precious man hours shilling as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry and Uber. Establishment libertarians prove themselves to be predictably eccentric choosing to fight these battles at a time when freedom of speech and association do not truly exist in this country. We won’t be getting much help from this quarter, that’s for sure.
At the same time this fiddling while Rome burns occurs there is a growing resistance among the actual grassroots. Just by checking the stats on the ANZ ad you can see the people voting with a mouse click; 2387 dislikes to 738 likes. The grassroots are not getting any representation from those in bed with big business like the LNP or their associated think tanks. Instead they are going against all political wisdom in Australia and exploring new parties. Since the last federal election in 2013 right-wing protest parties are a dime a dozen, and all old hands in the dissident right in Australia would caution those seeing them as the great white hope not to get their hopes up. We have seen this time and again and nothing ever changes.
Like the Trump phenomenon, where it doesn’t matter whether he is elected President or not, this portends something greater than itself. These parties will get a seat in the Senate with the elected member moving from the crossbenches to side with one wing of the duopoly but at least tribal voting patterns will have been weakened.
Things have gotten so much worse in the last few months that there is little chance of this grassroots being burned out like they were with the destruction of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party in the late 1990s. Apathy, that bane of the Australian right, will abate as the Australian learns to hate. The two parties and movements exciting the imagination of the grassroots the most are the Australian Liberty Alliance (ALA) and Fortitude/United Patriots Front (UPF).
The ALA is an offshoot of the anti-Islamic Q Society, and is modelled off of Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom in the Netherlands. They have a chance to become something of a force nationally, but for how long no one can say. They also have some serious talent after snapping up the ever-based Bernard Gaynor as a Senate candidate for Queensland. A minor caveat, they are nowhere near the intellectual danger-zone we inhabit. Instead they favour one rule for thee, a different one for me in advocating for a multi-racial propositional Australia and a Jewish ethnostate for Israel. Like the Q Society before it, the ALA echoes.
Fortitude is the political party coming out of the UPF street movement. They strike fear into the craven hearts of noodle armed, pencil necked antifa the country over. These are men and women who are becoming immune to the ideological conditioning of the not so free market of ideas, having assumed civic responsibility at an earlier age than us perpetual students. They are getting to grips with being lied to and having their interests sold out to the highest bidder; they’re mad as hell and aren’t going to take it anymore. The party is intended to be not just any other party, instead representing the street movement, and more broadly the Australian nation and people itself, in the halls of power. This approach is not without merit, it will ensure those elected remain true to principle and not become a law unto themselves enamoured by their own minor celebrity.
Their model is not without problems, however. Their leadership also intends to educate the grassroots from the barricades, which is the least conducive place for doctrinal formation. Only an independent social movement can educate and form cadres, not a street movement which already presupposes their presence. This much is admitted by their chairman Blair Cottrell who recently asked an audience if they knew what Cultural Marxism was but “was surprised to see that nobody could answer in the positive”. As a demonstration of their genuine determination to educate the grassroots, party representative Tom Sewell appeared on the Grassroots Nationalism YouTube channel to discuss Cultural Marxism.
The existence of this growing protest culture is most welcomed but it cannot do all the lifting by itself. A vast right wing conspiracy needs to come into being, instead of remaining a thought that keeps leftists awake at night. An intelligentsia must exist independent of those wanting to act, trickling down ideas inspiring our activists on to brave deeds with the full knowledge of why it is they do what they do.
Fortitude/UPF appear to be far more aware of Australians’ problem with apathy than the ALA. Unfortunately for those cognisant of the problem of apathy it is little understood by anyone how the “she’ll be right, mate” attitude became a part of the Australian national character. One instantiation goes back to early colonial times where according to legal scholar David Neal the powers of the Governor in New South Wales exceeded any English monarch since at least James I. This has come down the last two centuries to inform the paternalistic view of government most Australians have. Yet, this is still only a partial answer and far too broad for the particular problem.
Pinpointing our particular problem of apathy takes us to the time prior to and during Federation. When Imperial policies coming out of Whitehall didn’t neatly reflect native circumstances men like Sir Henry Parkes stepped up to bargain a more felicitous arrangement for the colonies, such as excluding the Chinese. Such efforts continued into the twentieth century, especially the early days of Federation. The regime that was established with Federation took the mixed regime of the British constitution, which is to say one that cancels out competition of the different strata of society, and had it err on the side of Commons rather than Lords. It couldn’t have been any other way as that most perceptive of writers D. H. Lawrence observed:
The instinct of the place was absolutely and flatly democratic, à terre democratic. Demos was here his own master, undisputed, and therefore quite calm about it. No need to get the wind up at all over it; it was a granted condition of Australia, that Demos was his own master.
Not only was class conflict solved with the mixed regime, racial conflict was solved by adding to this model the idea of a White ethnostate. In W. K. Hancock’s unrivalled political history of Australia from settlement to his time in 1929 he writes on the motivation for this policy:
The experience of Natal, of North America, of the Australian colonies themselves in pre-federation days, proves that labourers of different colours are seldom sufficiently meek to live side by side in human brotherhood. Always there is danger of a threefold demoralisation; demoralisation of the coolie over-driven by white capital, demoralisation of the poor white overwhelmed by coolie competition, demoralisation of the half-breed children of coolie and poor white who can find no firm place in either competing civilisations. Reasonable Australians are determined that their country shall not know these evils.
What is mistakenly called one of the world’s oldest democracies is more correctly labelled one of the few nation-states to approach Aristotle’s politeía. In a system where Australians at large governed with a view to the common good, there is little reason to wonder why they became so apathetic — all they had to do was select the gentlemen by birth or merit to secure the commonweal. The average Australian could kick off his boots after knock off and enjoy a tall cold one without worrying about a mendacious elite. All was right in the land. Then the 1960s came knocking on the door in the 1970s.
Those geriatric hippies running the ANZ and elsewhere got where they are today by taking advantage of the good nature of the Australian people. They counted on Australians being apathetic while they marched through the institutions not in reverence but belligerence. All is not lost and the silent majority are slowly becoming aware of their power. It would be remiss in our duty to our people if we did not step up to the plate and offer counsel to those from all walks of life, whether they are those taking to the streets or speaking in hushed voices around the water cooler in the office.
We need to awaken the Australian from apathy today so that tomorrow he can rest assure that “she’ll be right”.
David Neal, The Rule of Law in a Penal Colony: Law and Power in Early New South Wales, (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 32. ↩︎
D. H. Lawrence, 1923, Kangaroo, (Camberwell, Victoria: Penguin Books, 2009), p. 20. ↩︎
W. K. Hancock, 1930, Australia, (Brisbane: The Jacaranda Press, 1961), p. 61. ↩︎