There is no doubt that the imposition of multi-racialism is harmful to the traditional Australian nation.
It is not only bad for natives, however, being in a few ways adverse to the interests of non-whites.
Multi-racialism is bad for non-whites in the sense of them having to attend places of education, work and community where they are vastly outnumbered by different racial groups. In-group preferences are real: among members of a shared race there tends to exist higher levels of altruism, trust, cooperation and harmony. Being excluded from many closer connections in these spaces–even if occurring implicitly–would be alienating in feeling like an outsider.
As I responded to a Twitter thread in April:
Multi-racialism is made further difficult by the lack of minority representation in our history, icons and heroes. Anzac Day presents such an example, where Australians pay particular reverence to the Diggers killed in World War One and World War Two. As is well known, the Diggers were almost exclusively white. Because their people are inadequately represented in the national mythos surrounding Diggers, non-whites do not meaningfully identify with or engage in this landmark cultural occasion.
Finally, as non-whites undergo assimilation into Australia, there comes a burdensome conflict between their ancestral and adopted identity. Are they Asian first, as the heart often dictates; or are they Australian first, as the government often dictates? Essentially, in order to make committed, loyal Australian citizens out of people from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, these people are required to forego powerful, untaught feelings of race. (Which, significantly, holds true regardless of whether they were born in Australia).
Such is the scope of non-white alienation, it manifests even after we show the greatest of goodwill.
Consider the case of Tim Soutphommasane, our former Race Commissioner. In 1985 Soutphommasane was permitted into Australia at 3-years-old, after being born to parents who fled Laos as refugees. Soutphommasane grew up in a country that had renounced the White Australia policy; was educated at world-class universities; and attained high paying public sector employment as Race Commissioner, prior to working as a professor at the University of Sydney.
The altruism of White Australia has undeniably provided Tim Soutphommasane with a fortunate life. Given this, one might reasonably assume that Soutphommasane would have a great appreciation for Australia and its people.
Well, such an assumption would be wrong. Soutphommasane obsessively lectures Australians on our ‘racism’ and ‘whiteness’–speaking only ever from the perspective of his tribal (Asian) interests.
On one hand, Soutphommasane could be criticised as showing ingratitude to the country which furnished him with shelter when he was just 3-years-old.
On the other, the clear alienation of Soutphommasane from White Australia supremely vindicates the nationalist view: different groups are best kept separate; forcing them together only serves to foster angst, animosity and hatred.
Which is rather ironic: if the Aussie Nationalist Blog ever came to his attention, Soutphommasane would (at the very least) condemn it as ‘racist’. Yet in the end, nationalism may be a more healthy prescription for all parties involved.
Does that mean that people can never come together, get over their prejudices and exist as “one” nation? I don’t know if I’m ready to believe that yet although many here in America might think different.
That’s an interesting question.
My view is that different racial groups, when placed together in the same territory on a large scale, can never truly exist as ‘one’ nation. One group will always express its political, cultural and ancestral hegemony at the expense of other groups (by alienating those who are outsiders).
There are certainly ways we could ameliorate present racial tensions: accepting the scientific reality of race, having a common religion, language etc.
But I don’t think those actions would take away the problem of racial conflict itself. Nor answer the question of why we should pursue a multiracial, civic idea of the nation – for mine, open borders is far more logical than this.
To quote myself from two years ago, “If one seeks to create a national homeland which places its own citizens first, then why not use empirically sufficient sources of identity, rather than contrived, flimsy grounds?” https://aussienationalistblog.com/category/ethnonationalism-vs-civic-nationalism/