Immigration/ Multiculturalism · Nationalist/ Tribalist themes

Why I Prefer Asian-Asians Over Asian-Australians

The burgeoning number of Asian-Australians overall harms our national good: by damaging ethnic interests; and social cohesion that was historically upheld along racial, religious as well as cultural sources of unity.

And as Asians increasingly move into my local area, they alter the texture of life and bring alien languages.

There are exceptions to every rule; but from an Anglo-identitarian and individual standpoint, the Asian colonisation of Australia has yielded net negative consequences.

Which is what makes the following revelation notable: I thoroughly enjoyed visiting Japan earlier in January. From my perspective (albeit constrained by the limitations of anecdote), I admired Japanese people, their culture, and their enduring affinities to one another.

True, there aren’t many Japanese in Australia–Chinese and Indians are far more overwhelming in quantity–so something exclusive to Japanese people might’ve contributed to why I preference them abroad over Asian-Australians. But many Australian travellers have fond memories of China and India, despite many feeling on a deeply subconscious level, that Chinese and Indian populations in Australia are inducing a national loss. Thus, more than specifically Japanese attributes were at play when making my conclusion.

This finding directed me towards an inner monologue that ambitioned to answer: what are the overarching reasons I prefer Asians in Asia (Asian-Asians) over Asians in Australia?

First, Asian-Asians are more rooted to what truly matters: their homes, people and culture. While Japanese can never be my people, there is something profound to be said about these characteristics: they ensure one carries a higher commitment to their environment around them, and appropriately works for a greater purpose that extends beyond themselves.

On the other hand, normative Asian-Australians are necessarily more selfish. They come to the largely foreign country of Australia (for now, at least) essentially not because of any grand purpose– they seek to extract what they can from a wealthy, prosperous country. They aren’t fundamentally concerned with improving the environment around them or furthering our national interest– they want cleaner air, better economic fortunes, a moderate climate, and a safer place to live. And given our political and cultural leaders have abrogated virtually all sense of national solidiarity, this Asian-Australian tendency to act greedily is additionally exacerbated.

Second, in a way that departs from the Asian-Australian footprint described at this post’s outset, Asians living in Asia pose no threat to our national good. One shouldn’t be an ideological fanatic concerning ‘nationalism for all nations’. But when peoples are kept separate–whilst allowing for controlled flows of tourism–we can legitimately appreciate human biodiversity in a way that: 1) doesn’t imperil our own existence or social harmony; 2) doesn’t threaten this biodiversity’s very survival; and 3) is temporary, voluntary and beneficial to both parties involved.

In this regard, Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s words especially ring true:

The disappearance of all nations would impoverish us not less than if all men would become alike, with one personality and one face. Nations are the wealth of mankind, it’s generalised personalities; the least among them
has its own unique coloration and harbors within itself a unique facet of God’s design.

Leave a Reply