See also : From Meta-Politics To Mass Murder – A New Right-Wing Extremism, anarkisterna.com, August 25, 2011.
Open Letter to Friends and Comrades on the Struggle against Racism amongst the Class
After a few years of relative hiatus right-wing populist politics has re-emerged again on the streets of Australian cities. The largest mobilisations of this new born right-wing populism has been seen in protests against the so-called ‘Carbon Tax’ yet there has been considerably smaller but controversy hungry protest calling for a ban on the burqa and expressing a larger opposition to immigration and refugees under the rhetoric of opposition to Islam and Sharia law. The forms that this right-wing populism takes are pretty sloppy and open ended. Unlike the Joh for PM campaign or Pauline Hanson’s One Nation there is no central figure with electoral ambitions that hold them together. In the case of the opposition to the Carbon Tax the Liberal National Coalition has certainly supported to some extent these demonstrations thus perhaps explaining their relative popularity, whilst the opposition to Islam is being organised by much smaller groups and are gathering only handfuls of people. One of the organisations behind these protests the Australian Protectionist Party is a project lead by the old neo-Nazi milieu. The Australian Defence League is a pretty piss poor imitation of the English Defence League; but without similar football casuals in Australia they have not been able to find a similar success. In Brisbane there has been a similar phenomenon in the shape of the Australian Patriots Defence Movement. Unsurprisingly there has been a mobilisation of Left and progressive opposition to these groups and rallies, but are the tactics and the thinking behind them actually usefully to produce a free and just society? What is the nature of this new right-wing populism and what is the best way to oppose it?
The opposition to the ADL and the APDM often sees them as being forms of fascism, comparable to the National Front or National Action. Undoubtedly there are white supremacists and possible ex-members of fascist groups that hang around these milieus (though notable overt neo-Nazis oppose them due to their pro-Israel stance and their use of opposition to anti-Semitism to frame their anti-Islamic politics). The classic strategy used against fascisms is one of direct confrontation. The NF and NA were militant and violent formations and opposition had to confront them on the streets often physically to deny them space to organise. They had clearly fascist and racist politics and were making serious inroads (the NF at least, NA was always a bit shit) in various white working class communities hit by the collapse of social democracy and Fordism. However the Left opposition thought of the fascists of the ’70s (and I heard this analysis during the opposition to Pauline Hanson) as being sociologically similar to the fascism of the ’30s – largely a middle class movement. Caught between big labour and big capital they were supposedly the little shop owner with dreams of being Fuehrer. This had a political effect – as being seen as exterior to the working class there was no point talking to them. They were an enemy to be smashed. However those who spent the most time confronting fascists in England from the ’70s on often argued that fascism was developing a working class base and need to be confronted politically (hence the formation of organisations such as the Independent Working Class Association).
The ADL and the APDM are not fascists and should not be thought of as such. The APDM has not produced much in the way of public statements of their politics beyond this. It is pretty classic right-wing populism with some weirdness about taxation and currency, demands to try “traitors” and an understanding of the separation of powers which actually doesn’t fit well with the Australian version of the Westminster system in which legislative and executive power overlap – as the cabinet is composed of people from parliament. But over half the document is focused on banning the burqa, and this is certainly what is the main point. So what is this all about?
The spokesman of the APDM Darren “Beatle Bailey” Morris is almost a Basil Faulty like character. His speeches and writings are a stream of self-aggrandisement and paranoia. Almost obsessed with talking about gays and lesbian and paedophilia he struggles to stay on script but rather veers off on numerous tangents, makes wild claims as “FACT!”, and veers between claiming he is being silenced and threatening violence through his connections with outlaw bikie gangs and ex-army personnel. His speeches are a stream of right-wing nuttery where he often states that for reasons of tactics the APDM need to shed the racist image and then stating he is happy to be labelled one. But it is not clear that many, if any, of the other APDM leadership nor the handfuls of people they mobilise shares such views. In my conversations with them at the rally and reading what many write on Facebook most have various oppositions to what they perceive as elements of the Islamic faith and various cultural practices. Most perceived themselves as being anti-racists and pro-immigration ‘if they assimilate’ and seem otherwise politically pretty reasonable: they display a mixture of social democratic and liberal ideas that make up the common sense ideology of contemporary Australia. A quick Facebook stalk shows that most have friends and family of many ethnicities and interests in culture and music that would enrage your standard neo-Nazi. Even Scott Neale, one of the other key organisers, was pretty reasonable in person.
Now of course the views expressed by the APDM can be and should be seen as forms of bigotry. They are based on a wild series of claims that essentialise Muslims as some unified global conspiracy theory. It is important to challenge these ideas. But the tactics that the Left used during the counter-demo in Brisbane, tactics of shouty confrontation premised on silencing the APDM (based on seeing them as fascists) were not very effective or productive.
Racism is structural in society and the globe. The history of capitalism has been a history of producing global populations and resistance to this process. This has created complex hierarchies of power amongst the global population and multiple complex lines of identity and belonging. Global capitalism relies on a global workforce and this workforce (and those who were discarded yesterday or might be used tomorrow) is organised through these divisions. Capitalism commonly malfunctions and is riven with crisis. This throws millions of people into movement. Tensions in society around immigration and cultural clashes are often produced by these dynamics and are used by both the system as a whole and by crafty politicians and media personalities to create their careers.
Many people understand the problems of capitalist society as not originating from within it but a problem that comes from without. Thus if you look at the rhetoric that appears on the Facebook pages of those who support this reactionary populism you find an understanding of the collapse of social democracy where immigrants are seen as the cause: there isn’t enough money for hospitals because refugees get all the money etc.
Equally the positive vision of this rhetoric speaks to people’s desire for community – but expressed through a lens of identity. In this sense this reactionary politics shares something with progressive identity politics – a positive vision of community is only imaginable through uniting those who share some common denominator (in this case being “Aussies”) and excluding those who don’t share this denominator to a sufficient degree.
Thus what animates the appeal of at least some of the rhetoric of the ADL/APDM is an understanding that society is deeply unfair and a desire for community. My essential point is to say we should support these intuitions whilst arguing that the forms of their expression and the world view they are crafted in is wrong.
Obviously all this is very complex. I suspect that the APDM expresses a particularly Australian series of paranoias. This is a fear of the world. It is obvious to anyone that things are difficult and challenging in the world we live in. Ten years of a supposed “war on terror”, three years of economic crisis, ecological problems and an impression of general global violence, dislocation and decay. Australia’s social democratic inheritance and the mining boom have shielded the Australian economy somewhat, and the high work, higher credit, high consumption deal capital has offered has allowed a high material standard of living – yet a stressful and insecure seeming life. Immigration and refugees in particular become symbols of the chaos of the rest of the world imposing onto the relative tranquillity in Australia. There is a form of social-psychological transference where worries about the condition of the world, conscious or not, become associated with migration. The mobilisations of the ADL and APDM are a kind of ineffectual acting out of these paranoias. (That said much of the behaviour of the Left is also an ineffectual acting out which compensates for the Left’s actual inability to transform society at the root – 20 APDM protestors become substitutes for an unequal society.)
Racisms and bigotries are objectionable on a purely intellectual basis- they stand in contradiction to any concept of human equality. They also work to mystify and obscure an understanding of the actual sources of the problems we face. Racisms and bigotries (as well as a host of other ideologies) displace the blame for the crises and exploitation of capitalism onto others in the social hierarchy who also suffer from it. Thus these ideologies need to be challenged as part of the struggle to transform society.
Revolutionaries want to contribute to the development of a real movement to transform society. This involves challenging the ideas that dominate society and mystify it. We want to do this and do it well. The tactics that the Left displayed in opposing the APDM in Brisbane aren’t helpful. The shouting and confrontational tactics only confirm the Left’s own illusions – it neither unsettles the reactionary ideas nor convinces passers-by.
A far more effective strategy would be an attempt to create debate and spread ideas in a manner that is humourous, good-natured and endearing. Part of this should be aimed at those who have come along for the rally but don’t form the ADL/APDM hard-core. It is important to remember no one has ever had their ideas changed by being yelled at. Rather it is important to be straightforward and fair. Listen to what they are saying, take their ideas seriously, and present yours in an open and calm manner. On the Saturday rally I found that most of the APDM people wanted to talk, wanted to argue about the world. As revolutionaries we should support debate within the class even when the ideas expressed are wrong. Too many people have a life of being told constantly that they are wrong, that they are idiots, to shut up. Part of what revolutionaries should be doing is creating spaces within the class where debates happen, and seriously listen to what people are saying. If we have confidence in our own ideas why should we be afraid of arguing out in the open?
What ideas should we argue, what points should we try to make? Since this right-wing populism is based on strange and weird clichés about Muslims the first response seems to just disprove these claims. That is important work and should be done. I am unsure how effective this argument is. What might be a better strategy is to make an argument – both through conversations, through openly debating their spokespeople, and through leaflets distributed at the rally – that whatever one thinks of any religion the demand to ban the burqa is a demand for the state to have the power to tell people how to dress and thus undermines everyone’s freedom. Many of the people I talked to felt that there was an injustice that hoodies couldn’t be worn in shops in Wynnum so it is unfair that people can wear burqas. The appropriate response seems to be to argue that people should be free to wear whatever they want. A defence of religious freedom and the secular nature of society undercuts much of their argument and seemed to be listened to.
The more serious argument is to say that this is a non-issue and a distraction from the real problems in the world. The insecurity these people feel is real, the causes they attribute it to are wrong. The real problems come from a world organised on the endless accumulation of value. Finding a way to say this in a clear yet thorough way is a necessary challenge.
Ultimately the best way to challenge racism is to build collective struggles that challenge capitalism on the terrain of our daily lives, that build common bonds of solidarity that unite people. Racism will be made irrelevant rather than ‘smashed’. The most effective way to defeat racism is to build a real class movement, to build a common project and an open community as we transform daily conditions. Many people are trying different ways to do this yet none of us can claim to have found ‘the answer’ with any real confidence. However the dominant form of Left intervention – shrill moralism – seems unlikely to be a useful as a way to talk with, to listen to and work together with those around us. I was very lucky to spend many years in Wollongong and witness excellent long term communist militants organise in their communities. What was so remarkable about these comrades was how much they cared for people as real humans. Political debates they had carried weight because they have weight in their communities. The dominant ideas of our society, its ideological common-sense, are some mix of social democracy and liberalism with a heavy nationalist and racialised content. How are we going to argue these ideas with people that we want to work with, that express elements of these views? Will we just yell racist at them? How will we contribute to a mass, popular, social movement to change our society if we can’t win the debate?
At the moment the ADL/APDM remain minuscule manifestations of ideas that are common through the society – and the above strategy is premised on this. If a genuine fascist street movement arose then of course other tactics would be necessary.
Colonialism, like anything else the European Elites and their Talmudic partners do is multi tiered, some of the commercial stuff they publicise but there’s always a “Secret Mission” afoot.
Notice that when it comes to Indigenous Britons (including the Irish, Scots and Welsh), Indigenous Australians, Meso Americans and North Americans there’s a distinct focus on destroying the religious, scientific, intellectual and linguistic traditions before much other “colonial” business is undertaken?
Apart from the 300,000 Irish sold into slavery in the late 17th century nobody has ever tried to enslave the above groups under the same conditions as they did Africans. The Irish slaves were a slightly different case in that they were expressly purchased for a “crossbreeding” program with Africans, forced “mating” of African Men and White Women being another obsession of these elites.
They don’t seem to care much if White women and Black men get together of their own accord (my theory is that there’s no such thing as “interracial” marriage, that if someone wants brown babies then they’re not White) but they are fanatical about promoting rape as well as the use of force and sexual violence by Black men upon White women. While every permutation of sexual behaviour is sold as pornography the dominant meme is gang rape of White women by Black men and it’s very much portrayed as, “Black Stud, White bitch”….in other words agricultural lingo, the terminology of animal husbandry.
It’s as if they want to instill some primal violent “energy” into hybrid children, anyway that’s another story but to point out anything at all about colonialism requires of us more clarification than your above post. The Elites colonisation of Europe, Australia and the Americas seem to exist on another level in comparison to their incursions into Africa.
I’m trying to point out that this “Saxon” or “Aryan” Elite and their Talmudic partners are not part of my Race and they’re certainly no part of my ethnic group the White Australians. They look like us but they have no loyalty to us and there’s undeniable evidence that they have been trying to wipe us out, especially post 1945.
They see themselves as, quite literally descended from Gods and their right to rule over us as part of their heritage, their “right” if you will.
There’s a clear pattern or modus operandi in their operations, if you care to spend the time learning about the subject of colonialism.
A few things:
Colonialism is an ideology, yes, but also an historical process engaged in by diverse parties. The colonisation of Australia — examined in Lindqvist’s Terra Nullius — was driven by British commercial and political interests. It had 3/4 of 2/3 of fuck-all to do with the Talmud.
The history of the British Empire — and its effects upon the lives of its many diverse subjects — is long and complicated, subject to many interpretations with diverging foci. Generally speaking, racial oppression occurs as a form of social control. That “European Elites and their Talmudic partners” expressly purchased 300,000 Irish slaves ‘for a “crossbreeding” program with Africans’ sounds like bullshit to me, tho’ the idea does occur across the freakier edges of White Nationalist ideology.
In general, Theodore W Allen’s The Invention of the White Race is neat; so too Nell Irvin Painter’s The History of White People.
“I don’t bother arguing with white exceptionalists because they are tendentious bores.”
And not bothering to argue with people after reading an article urging you to do just that is *not* being a bore?
I’m a white existentialist myself. We just are what we are.
“while I can annoy you here, you are distracted from annoying others elsewhere.”
“There is an identifiable “Australian” ethnic group or to be more accurate, several/many if you base ethnicity on culture and language.”
And do you give a shit whether any of them survive, since they’re not “species”?
“They are our Indigenous people.”
Thanks, I’m aware of them. And their survival is being *enhanced* by mass multicultural immigration, eh?
“Europeans were relatively late arrivals on the ethnographic stage.”
So what? They created the society you see around you. The one people call “Australia”.
Today’s Jews are late arrivals in the modern state of Israel. Any opinions you’d like to share on that one?
“The Chinese still have the longest surviving literate civilisation. The Indians are not far behind.”
Fantabulous! And irrelevant.
(BTW I practice the 36 strategies on a daily basis.)
“We ain’t anything special.”
We don’t have to be.
What, only wonderful, amazing, superduperfantasmagorical people deserve to exist?
Even if “Australians” were the *worst* people in the world, they would have as much right to perpetuate their genetic and memetic reality as any other people.
“Our ancestors just had the weapons, the climate, the bloodlust and the geography at a fortuitous time. That’s all.”
Yeah right, Mongols, Turks, Arabs and Indic people were just so peaceful and only killed half the known world because the rude natives didn’t like the way they offered them flowers and candy.
History’s already happened, Charlie. Here we are. This is now.
Can we discuss now?
@ndy (Captain Copy-Paste) says:
“EXTERMINATE ALL THE BRUTES”
“the author argues that Enlightenment ideals of social evolution and human perfectibility, carried to their logical extreme, resulted in genocide.”
And yet, oddly, you people still believe this bullshit.
You think you can actually “reform” Man and create a perfect society!
3/4 of 2/3 of fuck all to do with, oh say the Montefiores, the Rothschilds agents in the colonies, do some research… honestly you people.
The majority of intelligent people in the world accept that these secret societies, “Royal families”, Peers, Lords, Trustees and patent holders run global finance and Imperialist operations be they of a financial or “other” character. We all agree that they’re “A breed apart”, mainly because they explicitly say they are… Anti Racists just want to prove that White people don’t exist while simultaneously blaming them for everything these elites do, what you guys are is anti White and you use anti Racism as a cover story.
I don’t know if you really understand how the system of licencing and stockbroking worked in the Colonial era, again do your own research, it’s a matter of great pride to these people and the information is widely available.
If Genetic research is proving one thing it’s that these elites who organise themselves around the Y Chromosome are pretty much telling the truth about their lineage, be they Saxe Coburg and Gotha or Cohen… as for the rest of us there’s little that’s come to light that proves one thing or another on “Race”.
Which brings me to my next point…
Who said anything about a “White Race?”
I don’t use that expression, I only refer to my ethnic group, White Australians, their ancestors and descendants or more broadly “White people”.
“The White Race” is a Straw Man, you can write a billion words on the subject but again, it’s all just code for “Anti White”, the “White Race” is your construct, it’s not coming from my ethnic group, White Australians.
I’ve never once heard a White Australian talk about a “White Race”, outside Anti White or “Nazi” circles the term has no currency.
I’m not a White Nationalist and if the so called WN sites represent that tendency then I can’t see that I’d be tolerated in that milieu, pretty much everything I’m saying kicks the legs out from under their ideology since they stick to the story of “White Colonialism” as it satisfies the Soil side of “Blood and Soil” Nationalism.
I don’t regard this as “My country” but as an ethnic White Australian I’m of this Land.
I’d say you guys and the Nazis are just two sides of the same coin, but I’m of the opinion that it’s “All Good”, as long as progress is the outcome.
Hey Shockadelic, I look in the mirror and see some skin that is pink and blotchy and has some freckles – it only means white because of certain historical developments. For my Germanic ancestors this would have been a meaningless category that neither determined friend or foe…
…because skin colour is not necessarily a factor in Race.
I have a friend who is as fair skinned as I am, she even gets all the Keratosis and sun damage that I do, she has blue eyes and light brown hair but she’s Aboriginal.
She carries herself like an Aboriginal woman, same posture, same walk, same body shape and she sounds like an Aboriginal, her voice is accented.
See I’ve never asked “Are you REALLY Aboriginal?” because it’s obvious that she is.
She’s never asked me “Are you REALLY White?”, even though she also uses the term White to describe my ethnic group why would she need to ask?
Racially conscious people know as soon as they meet someone where they they fit in, beyond that it’s just degrees of tolerance and trust built up at a personal level.
So let’s put this “White Race” and skin colour foolishness to bed.
Race is clearly linked to consciousness, so in spite of any materialist arguments it is real and it does matter.
If Genetics plays some part in consciousness then the people who study genes either can’t prove it yet, are not studying that theory or are covering up their findings.
Enough tomfoolery for the time being.
As I was saying:
This thread has departed a good deal from the subject of the post, viz, recent manifestations of ‘right-wing populism’ and how they might best be opposed; the anonymous author arguing that the tactics ‘the Left’ displayed in opposing the APDM (and ADL) in Brisbane being unhelpful to developing this opposition. Leaving aside a number of other matters, in calling for a debate “that is humourous, good-natured and endearing”, I think the author may be over-estimating the capacity of those motivated to join such protests to engage in such activity. El Toony provided a link to a screenshot of ‘ADL Street Movement’/APDM leader Scott Neale asking (on the ‘ADL Street Movement’ page) ‘How do [you] make a Muslim girl pregnant? Cum on her feet and let … the flies do the rest’. In other words, it’s important to remember that: a) Facebook frequently constitutes a vast toilet wall on which bigots of one sort or another are encouraged to express such sentiments, and; b) its from these ranks that many join rallies such as that organised in Brisbane.
Secondly, I think that, while there is a good deal of sense to this proposition (generating a good-natured discussion with right-wing populists), much depends on context, and it may be that a public rally is not the best place to enter into such a discussion. (Of course, it may also be entirely appropriate.) In considering which course of action is best, there are matters of both utility and principle to consider.
Finally, while the letter invites consideration as to tactical and strategic approaches — which is useful — I think it’s also appropriate to consider the means by which any consensus is achieved — or not. That is, to recognise that it’s likely that different groups and individuals will adopt different approaches, often for quite different reasons, and that appeals to ‘the Left’ in general are often problematic.
Moar later, perhaps.
Otherwise, in response to Shockadelic:
Humanity is subject to near-constant reformation; I am not a God but merely a human, all too human blogger; I don’t believe in a perfect society, I merely want to introduce a li’l moar anarchy.
You’ve written almost 4,000 words now outlining your views.
First, you claim to belong to a group you call ‘White Australians’.
‘White Australia’ is not a nationality or a race, you assert, but an ethnic group. Further, White Australians like yourself are basically ‘decent’ people, unfortunately ones subject to cultural and social conditioning by elements you describe as ‘The Man’ (or ‘The Elites’). The aim of this conditioning is to keep White Australians divided, and incapable of successfully resisting The Man. Crushing this resistance is crucial as The Man wants to destroy White Australians.
To commit genocide, in other words.
Secondly, you make a distinction between a ‘closed’ and an ‘open’ society.
You do not define these terms, but compare an open society to the Internet, a mechanism which you imagine operates “by consensus among individuals”. ‘The Man’ can only exist in a closed society, and thus seeks to perpetuate its features (whatever they may be). You argue that an open society may be achieved by removing the state. The abolition of the state may, in turn, be accomplished by force of moral authority; “a proven case of White Genocide gives us exactly that”.
There’s a number of problems with your account, both in terms of empirical evidence but also internal logic.
Here’s a few:
To begin with, you don’t identify The Man. As such — like God, perhaps — He is both everywhere and nowhere. Later you come to identify The Man as being synonymous with ‘The Elites’; a slightly more focused attempt at definition, and one which at least has the virtue of providing a contrary vision (ie, ‘The Masses’). Later still, you claim that “European Elites” — distinguishable, presumably, from African or Asian or Middle Eastern or Central or North or South American Elites — have something called “Talmudic partners”.
By ‘Talmudic’ I take it you mean ‘Jewish’.
So ‘The Man’ is European — and has Jewish partners.
You then go on to claim the existence of a “Saxon” or “Aryan” Elite — ‘Saxon’ and ‘Aryan’ presumably being synonymous, but not reducible to ‘European’ (which fact also implies the existence of a ‘non-Saxon’, ‘non-Aryan’ European Elite). This Saxon/Aryan Elite also, funnily enough, has “Talmudic partners”.
By which I take it you mean Jewish partners.
Despite being ‘European’, however, these Elites are not racial, and certainly “no part of [your] ethnic group the White Australians”. Curiously, despite looking just like us, they do not share the same political commitments. Indeed, “there’s undeniable evidence that they have been trying to wipe us out, especially post 1945. They see themselves as, quite literally[,] descended from Gods[,] and their right to rule over us as part of their heritage, their “right” if you will.”
In summary, there exists a genocidal European elite which: in appearance is indistinguishable from the ethnic group known as White Australians; operates in tandem with The Jews in pursuit of the elimination of White Australians; claims God-like authority over the rest of humanity; attributes this authority to its ‘heritage’.
It’s a highly fanciful account of the world and its operations.
Convicts were not actually ‘the worst of the worst’, and prison conditions in England in the 1700s were appalling in general. For some, transportation offered relief from an otherwise poor, nasty, brutish, and short existence. Otherwise:
The lawful status of the crime of genocide in Australia has an interesting history. In 1999, despite the fact that Australia was a signatory to the ‘International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide’, “the Full Bench of the Federal Court… found that genocide is not a crime under Australian law”. Later tinkering produced the ‘International Criminal Court Act 2002’.
The act of genocide has been successfully carried out on numerous occasions throughout history.
White Australians are not subject to genocide.
While to your mind the film Inglourious Basterds is propaganda intended to advance the notion that ‘it’s OK to kill Whites’, I suggest to you that for most others it’s something else. Something like, say, a film about how “In Nazi-occupied France during World War II, a group of Jewish-American soldiers known as “The Basterds” are chosen specifically to spread fear throughout the Third Reich by scalping and brutally killing Nazis.” In which case, you’re confusing ‘Nazis’ with ‘Whites’. Given that you read the media treatment of the “sickening dog attack in St Albans” (see above) as being another, impressive example of ‘anti-White’ propaganda, it may be that this is the prism through which you view all cultural productions.
‘Anti-racists’, like ‘racists’, come in all shapes and sizes.
You claim that members of The Elite look just like White Australians. (Again: …what I’m saying is that these genocidal maniacs who have been clustered around the top of the country for so long only look like my ethnic group…) What distinguishes ‘Them’ from ‘Us’, then, is not appearance but status and motivation. On the other hand, you write that [p]eople say things like “There’s no such thing as White”… but everyone knows what a White person looks like.
On Whiteness: it appears that you believe that use of terms such as ‘Anglo’, ‘Anglo-Celt’ and ‘Caucasians’ is problematic. I agree, but the history of racialist thinking — and by racialist I include your insistence on the concept of White Australian ethnicity — is plagued by such issues. In any case, to argue that ‘race’ is a social construct implies both more and less than what you maintain. That is, there’s a broad understanding that ‘race’ is one concept or idea among many the meaning of which varies over time. This does not make it any less than ‘real’ than any other concept.
Dr. Nell Irvin Painter: The History of White People from DANGEROUS MINDS on Vimeo.
Echh, I’m not reading all that…you know what, I actually can’t be bothered since, fundamentally yours is a materialistic argument and mine is based on esoteric and occulted sources, and alternative theories on psychology, spirituality and consciousness.
Race is not a subject that can be discussed “rationally” and I’m not of a rational temperament anyway, if we start trying to rationalise consciousness then we’ll be here until the elder of us dies.
This is wide eyed “New Age” vs baked on “Hard Left” and it’s clear that the discussion is never going to bear much fruit since we’re simply at different stages of psychological and personal development.
Serves me right.
@Shockadelic+ anyone else,
I wasn’t having a go, I was more just using your point to make my point. I didn’t make my point very clear sorry, so I will do so now.
We established that white (colours) is a concept, you said, “can’t we just deal with the reality we experience?” Sounds like a pretty logical point you made, and who really cares, right? My point or my idea is, does it work if we just deal with this reality? Dealing with this reality we experience is fine, but becomes a little righteous when people don’t understand this reality is a conceptual one. Most people’s entire life is conceptual, it explains why all we ever get on threads like this is completely pointless viewpoints and opinions, that most certainly achieve nothing. The only thing worth while talking about is facts, rock solid facts.
I noticed you having a dig at Andy and how he achieves nothing etc, did you stop to ask yourself, what am I achieving here? Am I doing the exact same thing I am complaining about? You are obviously not stupid, but you are useless when you just have a go at everyone.
@ndy I don’t know what anarchy is, clearly, but either way, the thread is a good one. I’m not trying to stray off the subject. I’m trying to point people in a direction that I know works firsthand, say what you want but this thread is deeper than any concept called anarchy.
Doug, is there a less complicated way of saying what you are saying?
Fine then, let’s keep going.
Let’s just assume that ancient patriarchal Elites and secret societies based around long standing philosophies actually do exist and that their goal is global hegemony, everyone else on the “Alternative” scene seems to be comfortable with using the idea as a fulcrum for debate.
The political tendency broadly defined as “Nationalism”, in which I include such “patriot” groups as the ADL is indeed based on a false premise but to rebut it with allegations of “Racism” won’t work.
Forget Genocide as a wedge for a second and look at it from another point of view, instead of reinforcing their claims let’s look at ways to de-couple “Whiteness” from Colonialism and nullify any claims of “National Identity”.
British Colonialism of this land was a commercial enterprise carried out in the interests of a very small group of Elite families, their creditors, the creditor’s underwriters most of whom were indeed as you put it “Jewish” and sundry licensees, patent holders and Royal “Favorites” (Peers).
Now did they see themselves as “the same” as my ancestors? Like fuck they did.
By the mid 19th century the colonies were firmly under the grip of “privilege” as Henry Lawson lamented in “Freedom On The Wallaby” resulting in one of the highest concentrations of land ownership in the so called “christian” world. One figure I’ve often heard quoted was that a mere 15 entities, mostly families controlled 80% of the productive land on the continent.
Everyone who arrived here as immigrants and who was born outside the ruling castes came as subjects and became debtors to the elites, “Squatters”, settlers, prospectors etc all had to borrow and pay exorbitant interest rates as well as taxes, rates and licences to the elites.
“We”, meaning White Australians didn’t steal anyone’s land, we paid through the nose for it and the profits, “Blood Money” if you will went to line the pockets of a very few, what’s more the country is still owned by the Crown, we’re little more than tenants.
To get to the point, the “Nationalists” don’t have a leg to stand on no matter which way you look at it, it’s not legitimately anyone’s country besides two possible claimants, the Indigenous Nations and the British Crown.
I refuse to indulge Nationalists in their Blood and Soil musings, it’s ridiculous but by the same token I reject the idea that the White Australian ethnicity should bear collective responsibility for the actions of a privileged Elite whose actions could be easily exposed to the mainstream and the money trail followed to extract compensation for Indigenous Australians.
I don’t believe that groups such as the ADL are either credible or genuine, the whole thing looks fishy to me but that’s not to say that down the track the real thing won’t come along.
Face facts, the term “White Australian” covers around 85% of the population, it is what it is, think of Whiteness as a resource rather than a liability or something that “shall not speak its name”.
Calling a White person a Racist backs them into a corner, it’s offensive, demeaning and needlessly provocative, Nationalists need to be shown a dignified way out that leaves their pride intact.
Ethnocentrism for White people is an alternative to the dead end of Nationalism, I’d even go so far as to let go of the term “White Australian” in favour of “Diaspora White” as a more accurate reflection of our ethnicity.
The people whose views I admire all admit that in order to progress to higher states of being we have to assimilate all our previous states and it’s permissible to regress into previous states if the outcome is progress.
I can’t see why we as Diaspora Whites can’t work toward ethnocentric consolidation with a view to re defining “White Pride” whilst creating something that sits comfortably within a multiracial society and strives for advancement into a higher, egalitarian form of society.
I’m passionate but inept, I’m pretty good at spinning a stream of consciousness into type but I find the internet a handicap, face to face conversations allow me to develop a position on the fly via instantaneous input from others.
The obtuse fashion in which I present things is an effect of the way I’ve been trained to think, it’s a constant revision and assimilation of previously held positions…”a hot mind is a chaotic mind” as one sage puts it.
How dare you address me, and allow others to address comments to me, then refuse me a right of reply.
How many comments of mine have not been published so far, Andy? At least six?
And the preposterous hypocrisy of censoring comments in response to an article specificly *urging* you to engage in debate with your political “opponents”!
If you were dumb, I could understand it. But you’re not.
How do you live with yourself?
Steady on old chap.
1. Qui audet adipiscitur.
2. I never promised you, or any other troll, anything.
I owe you nothing.
An ungrateful man, rather than thank me for providing you with another opportunity to engage in some non-hysterical discourse, you choose instead to carry like on a pork chop — just as you seemingly do everywhere you make any kind of public statement.
You are obviously incapable of understanding — or simply refuse to understand — some very simple and straightforward requests. Therefore, you’ve made your last comment on this thread.
Let’s just assume that ancient patriarchal Elites and secret societies based around long standing philosophies actually do exist and that their goal is global hegemony…
You can assume whatever you want. I think it more productive to proceed on another basis, which is that if you make claims such as ‘colonialism is a project of European and Jewish elites’ or ‘the primary motivation for this colonial expansion was the desire of these elites to destroy White identity’ — which extended to the purchase by Them of 300,000 Irish slaves for the express purpose of forcible ‘inter-breeding’ with enslaved Africans — they should be subject to critical scrutiny. That is, ORLLY? Further, assuming a conspiratorial worldview to explain ‘colonialism’ is unnecessary, especially when there are many other, far more convincing accounts of historical development available, ones which rely not on such simple-minded assertions but rather on careful examination of the available facts, selected on the basis of a clear explanatory framework, and which build upon previous scholarship (of which there is literally mountains). So for example, when considering the origins of the British penal colony that later became the Australia nation-state, it’s worthwhile examining the public record and in particular the planning and policy documents produced by the British Government in the 1700s regarding this proposal.
The political tendency broadly defined as “Nationalism”, in which I include such “patriot” groups as the ADL is indeed based on a false premise but to rebut it with allegations of “Racism” won’t work.
I’m not convinced nationalism, of whatever stripe, is based on a false premise so much as a political perspective regarding the essential utility of something called ‘the nation’. Which is not to suggest that particular perspectives — or arguments, rather — do not include false premises, often of an historical nature. In any case, a critique of ‘nationalism’, broadly understood, is distinct from one of ‘racism’. I think Fredy Perlman’s essay ‘The Continuing Appeal of Nationalism’ is neat while Mister Anderson’s account is seminal.
…let’s look at ways to de-couple “Whiteness” from Colonialism and nullify any claims of “National Identity”.
Which begs the question: why would I want to salvage such a notion in the first place? Secondly, issues of ‘whiteness’ and colonialism, especially but not only in the Australian context, are intimately linked; virtually inseparable, in fact.
British Colonialism of this land was a commercial enterprise carried out in the interests of a very small group of Elite families, their creditors, the creditor’s underwriters most of whom were indeed as you put it “Jewish” and sundry licensees, patent holders and Royal “Favorites” (Peers). Now did they see themselves as “the same” as my ancestors? Like fuck they did.
The British Empire was ‘carried out’ for various reasons; or rather, its historical trajectory may be explained by way of various factors, including but obviously not limited to competition with various other European (French, Spanish, Dutch, German, Portuguese et al) imperialisms. Many consider its first adventure to be the conquest of Ireland. But as I’ve already suggested and as you’ve ignored, the proposal to establish a colony Down Under was not hatched by greedy Jews but London bureaucrats. As for notions of togetherness, what brought the upper class and the lower classes together was, during the period of the evolution of the modern state, precisely the notion of the nation. In which some are, like almost political formations and ideological dreams, more equal than others.
By the mid 19th century the colonies were firmly under the grip of “privilege” as Henry Lawson lamented in “Freedom On The Wallaby” resulting in one of the highest concentrations of land ownership in the so called “christian” world…
Kinda. But not really. The colonies were initially under the control of a neglectful state half-way around the world; the institutions which were transplanted on to Australian soil a reflection of existing privilege, as was the expansion of the colonies into a settler-state and the development of an agricultural economy. Lawson’s song was actually written in 1891 and inspired by the shearer’s strike. In other words, it expresses not only nationalist sentiment but a distinct class orientation.
Beyond this: Australian history is a good deal more complex than you portray it as being. For example, during earlier periods there was a good deal of (upward) economic and social mobility in the colonies — certainly more than there was ‘back home’. Otherwise, the list of mechanisms of indebtedness you provide (interest, tax, licensing) were local variants on near-universal themes under industrial capitalist regimes, their evolution also a complex creature and the subject of multiple causes. ‘White Australians’ — to begin with, British soldiers and convicts and later ‘free’ settlers — did in fact steal land from indigenous peoples. Colonisation was in fact a collective project of domination and control of lands and peoples. The fact that, much like the profits which accrued from it, the labour performed in so doing was not distributed equally is simply a reflection of the economic inequality and social hierarchy (or in other words class class structure) which characterised and continues to characterise Australian society.
Calling a White person a Racist backs them into a corner, it’s offensive, demeaning and needlessly provocative, Nationalists need to be shown a dignified way out that leaves their pride intact.
Calling a (White) person a Racist is appropriate if the (White) person in question says or does something that can reasonably be construed as such. (As racism is not reducible to nationalism, I assume here ‘Nationalist’ refers to ‘White nationalist’–again, not something a (White) person needs be in order to reasonably be called a racist.)
Pingback: ASIO, fascism and anti-fascism (cont.) | slackbastard