Ethnonationalism · Immigration/ Multiculturalism

Where Deeper Loyalties Lie

Group patterns and statistics best justify policy that affect collective entities, such as the Australian people. For this reason, anecdotes have been largely absent from this blog. Yet a recent happening reflected broader truths that belie the national conversation about assimilation, and it thus seems purposeful to share.

At a recent friends’ drinks, I caught up with an Indian living in Australia that I’ve known for some time; who is somewhere between my acquaintance and friend. This person will be referred to as Amy.

First, a little background. Whilst born in India, Amy has lived across the world throughout her relatively short life. As a young adult, she attended an Australian university, and has been working in Perth since graduation. Recently, Amy was granted a skilled working visa, and would like to eventually become an Australian citizen.

It would be accurate to describe Amy as culturally assimilated into Australia. English is her first language; she celebrates Australia Day; has various white friends; has an Australian boyfriend; and doesn’t wish to live in any other country. While not overtly political, Amy has been critical of Chinese and Islamic infiltration, in a manner not dissimilar to my own critiques. Amy is a virtuous, hard-working, pleasant person–which is what made our talk so revealing–as her intentions are poles apart from easily identifiable, anti-white newcomers.

At the drinks, I approached Amy. In a half-jest, half-serious fashion, I declared: “Amy, I’ve got a bone to pick with you about Indians!”

I then criticised Indian fan behaviour at the recent Perth test match–shouting, dancing, and drum-beating for the entire luncheon break–which alienated myself and various other Australians. In espousing dismay at the Indian disregard for our norms; yet respect for their love of cricket, I thought this olive branch was sufficient to effectively assuage my assertion.

But after hearing my displeasure at those who openly defy Australian social mores, Amy was discomfited. Amy thought I was too harsh on Indian fans, and we proceeded to a brief, reasonably-energised debate.

When in Australia, Indian cricket fans should incorporate any support within our broader customs, I said. Amy thought this was an unnecessary and arbitrary standard to enforce. In arguing what the behavioural standard at cricket matches should be, I professed “this is my country,” which visibly perturbed Amy, before our debate thereafter fizzled out.

Since emerged a question I’ve profoundly pondered: what factors or motives caused Amy to reject my concerns of a foreign people blatantly disrespecting Australian customs?

On reflection, I believe Amy was acting to resist rhetoric critical of diversity—manifested specifically here, through my fault-finding in the behaviour of Indian cricketing fans. Comes the related follow-up: where does Amy’s aversion come from, and what sparked it?

I surmise that Amy’s overriding objection to my remarks, along with most other decent non-whites in Australia, emanates from a sub-conscious, rather than conscious impetus. This sub-conscious impetus instructs people like Amy that once widely accepted diversity is a source of disharmony, division and conflict, their place within a host nation becomes axiomatically threatened. And to be brutally honest, this instinct may be correct, for there is no basis to principally constrain non-violent efforts that minimise societal diversity and maximise homogeneity.

When considering the creation of a future ethnostate–either through existing political paradigms or new ones–we ought to remember this reality. To reverse or drastically subdue post-Whitlam waves of multiculturalism is a mighty task, that would necessarily cause human displacement. However, this transition would not be intrinsically different from displacement inflicted upon us for the past 40 years.

Likewise, any ethnonationalist order would comprise a self-interested act pursued ostensibly on White Australia’s behalf. Again, this would not be fundamentally distinct from the actions of individuals like Amy; whose needs ensure their deeper loyalties lie external to our nation.

Say what you like about our go at assimilation, integration, multiculturalism, of whatever one wishes to call it. The overriding identity of non-white immigrants (save for vanishingly rare exceptions), means they cannot endorse an Australian nationalism consistent with our civilisational pact and national health.

No one could blame power-directed migrants for acting this way; but as their interests compromise our ever-imperilled future, when will we say enough is enough?

Leave a Reply