Aussie Nationalist Landmark Posts · Christianity and faith related issues · Coronavirus

My ideological journey

Image by Marco Bottigelli via Pinterest

Since the creation of this site in October 2015, the content has changed: both in subject matter (and hopefully) in quality. Naturally, these exterior changes have reflected an interior ideological journey, summarised in the following viewpoints held across four distinct periods:

  1. An anti-Islam stage.
  2. A patriotic, populist stage.
  3. A pro-white, identitarian stage.
  4. A paleoconservative and nationalist stage, predicated on Catholic faith. (As a simplified descriptor, this perspective shall be referred to below as ‘Catholic nationalism’).

The anti-Islam stage

This stage essentially lasted from October 2015 to June 2016; during which, the rise of ISIS and Islamic terror attacks dominated headlines.

At this time, the prevailing framework through which I interpreted the world, was by reference to the adverse impact of Islam. The latter, so I maintained, posed the greatest threat to Western countries: through terrorism, mass Islamic immigration, non-violent forms of Jihad, and creeping Sharia law. Islam also imperiled the to date achievements of Liberalism, especially in its retrograde views on women and sexual morality.

Leading influences during this period included Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Geert Wilders.

The patriotic, populist stage

This period essentially lasted from June 2016 to August 2017; during which, Brexit, the Trump phenomenon, and the rise of One Nation dominated headlines.

From this time, I recognised that opposition to Islam, was insufficient in and of itself to solve the problems that confronted the West. The real demarcation line, instead, was between those who sought to put Australia first–in immigration, trade, and foreign policy–and those who did not.

Likewise, while Islamic influence was unwelcome, it was only part of the larger problem of multiculturalism: expressed in ethnic ghettos, alongside a cultural and linguistic diversity that unfairly alienated traditional Australians.

Finally, there was a broader culture war brewing. By means of political correctness, gender identity politics, and false accusations of ‘racism’, the left sought to unfairly clamp down on its conservative opponents. This was a major problem, one that justified–in principle–the protection of free speech and the unhindered exchange of ideas.

Leading influences during this period included Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Douglas Murray, Patrick Buchanan, and Pauline Hanson.

The pro-white, identitarian stage

This period essentially lasted from August 2017 to July 2019. During this time, a focal point of media attention was the ‘Alt-Right’, which arose from an enlarged right-wing interest in the 2016 Trump Presidential campaign. (As an aside, the first time I heard of the ‘Alt-Right’ was in August 2016, when Hillary Clinton denounced its growing influence on the Trump campaign.)

The key event that shaped my development of explicit pro-white, identitarian politics, was the ‘Unite the Right’ rally held in Charlottesville, Virginia in August 2017. The premise behind ‘Unite the Right’ was to protest the removal of the statute of Robert E. Lee, a war hero and symbol of American heritage. For this just cause, the protesters were slandered as ‘Nazis’, physically attacked by ANTIFA, while both law enforcement and the judicial authorities enabled this disenfranchisement. In light of these reactions, the personal takeaway from Charlottesville was that white identity was under direct attack, which had to be defended in corresponding terms.

As such, in the months that followed, my worldview developed to largely centre around race. In my view, race was the core of identity; the main source of dissension; the primary pool of altruism, cooperation, and harmony; in short, the chief determinative factor in human relations. Further, the problem was not so much ‘multiculturalism’; it was multiracialism–which had to be resisted accordingly, to secure the continued and perpetual preponderance of European people in Western countries.

Leading influences during this period included Jared Taylor, Greg Johnson, James Allsup, and Mark Collett.

Catholic nationalism

From about July 2019 onwards, the preceding racialist politics came to be inadequate. I realised that all of the political questions, debates, and issues prior considered had still not answered the far larger questions of:

  • Why do things exist?
  • Why am I here?
  • What is the purpose of my life?
  • What will console me when I die?

Following this and after an extended examination, I converted to Catholicism in November 2020 out of a firm belief in its truth.

Now in a certain sense, becoming Catholic was not a massive ideological change. My previous opinions formed within the three aforementioned stages were not necessarily discarded; I remained a reactionary in the context of our contemporary liberal, left-wing society.

Though, through the lenses of Catholic faith, my opinions became more fully matured and discerning. For instance, I still hold race to be a salient part of identity; measures taken to preserve the hegemony of European people in Western countries are both legitimate and justifiable. Despite this, I now fervently deny that race is the core of identity, because God is the ultimate reality to which all rational creatures are directed. This being so, to know, love, and serve God is infinitely more important than the attainment of any worldly good, including the furtherance of racial interests.

Key influences during this period have included Patrick Deneen, Nicholas Fuentes, Edward Feser, and E. Michael Jones.

The true source of division

When considering the multitude of lies being sold to and consumed by most ordinary people–concerning God, morality, history, Donald Trump, race, gender, the coronavirus lockdowns, and vaccines–it no longer suffices to interpret societal division in political, ideological, or even racial terms.

Rather, the more fundamental distinction is between two opposite parts of mankind. On one side, there are those that seek the truth in all things, even at the expense of financial gain, prestige, and comfort. On the other side, there are those that seek financial gain, prestige, and comfort at the expense of truth. This latter side, moreover, sacrifices the truth by either accepting lies for reasons of convenience or consciously spreading falsehoods.

This divergence is so great to render it clear that it admits of no material explanation; in other words, our “wrestling is not against flesh and blood” (Ephesians 6:12). Therefore, a larger spiritual struggle is at hand.

In this spiritual struggle, those that seek the truth represent the forces of Jesus Christ, the “way, the truth, and the life” (John 14:6); conversely, those that enable deception represent the forces of Satan, “the Father of lies” (John 8:44).

As described by Pope Leo XIII in ‘On Freemasonry and Naturalism’,

The race of man, after its miserable fall from God, the Creator and the Giver of heavenly gifts, “through the envy of the devil,” separated into two diverse and opposite parts, of which the one steadfastly contends for truth and virtue, the other for those things which are contrary to virtue and to truth… At every period of time each has been in conflict with the other (my emphasis).

It is only by having recourse to this spiritual framework, that our current problems can be properly accounted for. This is, ultimately, the true source of division. All other explanations merely scratch the surface, allowing this most primordial and fundamental cause for societal division to subsist unnoticed.

Leave a Reply