A federal election always directs additional media attention to Australian politics. Yet the mainstream media excludes all of us who don’t play the token, superficial ‘conservative’. Accordingly, I’ll expatiate my view–an Identitarian’s–on the May 14 federal election, and how we should approach it.
On the most vanilla issue, Bill Shorten and his Labor party look likely to win a majority in the House of Representatives and go on to form government.
To which major party is preferable, the Liberal party is tangibly better on issues of illegal immigration, free speech, Marxist gender politics, agriculture and energy. The Liberal party ostensibly practices a “lagging” conservatism, which is less hostile to our goals than Leftism. The Liberal party is thus preferable to Labor.
Political preferences are one thing; electoral support is another. Though it differs from Labor in delaying–not stopping–cultural change and pays lip service to conservative values; the Liberal party fundamentally advances the same multicultural agenda. Even if the Liberals pursue it less stridently than Labor, this open support for multiculturalism remains an intolerable state of affairs.
Whether a car is headed towards a cliff at 70 km/hr or 100 km/hr, it is nevertheless destined for destruction. Similarly, if the Liberal party’s present course continues unabated, the Australian nation will be utterly extirpated. For this reason, I cannot vote Liberal and will encourage my followers against doing so, until it better accommodates for our political interests. Sometimes, as is the case now, exercising this (albeit limited) political agency is better than taking the least-worst option.
From here emerges the ensuing question: what should identitarians do, until we get a real hearing in mainstream politics?
Upon deliberation, there appear two particularly important tasks that we should see to.
First, we should support Fraser Anning and his Conservative National party. I’m normally not inclined to endorse micro Right-wing parties: resources are already minimal, and such parties split the nationalist vote. But Anning, (his occasionally Boomeresque takes aside) is far and away the best option we have. Anning presents good ideas on firearm ownership, freedom of speech and infrastructure.
Most notably for our own concerns, Anning’s party advocates for “the vision of Sir Henry Parkes of Australia as an English speaking, predominantly European Christian Commonwealth.” Save for a younger Pauline Hanson, no Australian politician has spoken this way since 1972. In shifting the overton window to the Right, it is significant we have one of ‘our guys’ serving in the Australian Senate.
Besides the symbolic gravity in Anning remaining an Australian Senator, for nothing else, his re-election would induce a comical Leftist outrage–perhaps akin to Trump’s 2016 victory.
Notwithstanding my unwavering support–writing, tweeting, talking to friends, voting–there are serious limitations to Fraser Anning and his party. His re-election prospects aren’t assured; it would seem highly unlikely that any fellow ‘Conservative National’ Senators are elected. In any event, we are talking about a man that (at best) will exercise limited power over legislative processes.
Anning’s year in Australian politics does reveal the inherent weaknesses of seeking top-down change. For the cardinal sin of representing White Australia, Anning has been relentlessly pilloried in Canberra, from One Nation to the Greens. Moreover, regardless of what Anning actually says, probably 80 % of the electorate will dismiss him and his party out of hand.
Voters aren’t impartial, rationally-minded agents; they are products of a period’s institutions and the popular attitudes which prevail. Because Cultural Marxists have virtually completed their march through educational, sporting, professional, film, mass media, and social media institutions, they’ve effectually conditioned the way most people think about culture and politics. Within this contemporary Marxist monopoly, political attempts to reconstitute traditional Australia–as Fraser Anning is the latest example of–are often futile. Given most minds are controlled by malicious opposition, representative politics becomes less a battleground, and more an afterthought.
Which leads to my second action I suggest identitarians (including myself), take. Paradoxically, this politically oriented action involves mostly non-political works.
If mainstream politics is beyond us now because institutions were conquered by Cultural Marxists, we should respond in turn. We ought to get educated, get employed: which builds up resources, and provides a chance to climb existing corporate and organisational ladders.
If these hierarchies are ascended properly and broadly enough, the day will come when ourleaders direct wide-sweeping institutional change. Law firms could scrap their days which celebrate LGBTQI people, in favour of exalting Mother’s and Father’s Day. At public events, the ‘Welcome to Country’ ceremonies could be changed to extol both Aboriginal culture and Anglo-Australian achievement. Twitter might jettison its hostility to ‘White Nationalism’, in favour of creating an open market-place of ideas.
If any one of these small changes occurred, we would move closer towards a state of cultural parity with the Left. Unforeseen, improbable contingencies aside; this is the only way we can viably compete for Australian minds and perhaps one day, our political destiny.
Besides getting educated; working out, dressing well, being affable, and reading all helps prepare for this potential institutional recoupment.
So the best approach to this upcoming election, may in fact be through refocusing our attention to candidly assess the aforementioned institutional obstacles.
Then we may begin to appropriately remedy this sorry predicament, however laborious or unlikely ultimate success is. This path forward is clear; whether we succeed essentially comes down to will.