This episode is about an email I received, which you can listen to with my thoughts or that you can read below, without my thoughts.
Length: 27 minutes
Click on the link and enjoy!
Dear Mark,
I am writing to explain why I believe that Australians of specifically English descent are the only people who stand in the way of total globalist subjugation in this country.
My reasoning proceeds from a distinction between the following Australians: those of English descent, those of other Irish, Scottish, and Welsh descent, Australians of European descent, and non-whites.
This distinction is key because history teaches us that ethnic division, even if seemingly harmless, weakens a nation, and at best leads to a breakup of the nation-state (e.g. Czechoslovakia), at worst to subjugation. It is common to contrast Czechoslovakia with Yugoslavia, but I do not think that balkanisation is the worst thing that can happen to a nation. Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, even Bosnia, are now ethnically homogeneous nation-states, free to pursue their own destinies, whereas Australia's population resembles its founding stock less and less with every passing year.
In listening to the Melbourne Traditionalists' podcast episodes about the White Australia policy, it therefore jumped out at me that, from the beginning, many of the people involved in the plan to destroy the specifically English, and more broadly British, character of Australia were themselves not purely of English stock.
This is much easier to see after WWII, when individuals from alien (but still European) ethnicities played key roles in imposing *multiculturalism* on Australians, but looking further back, I believe you will find evidence of the same division between the English and the British ethnicities under the surface.
Lest some readers think that this division amounts to nothing more than barracking against England in sport, note that the margin of victory in the Brexit referendum was much smaller because of Scotland and Northern Ireland. That is to say, were it up to the Scots, the whole of England would have been locked into the EU against its will.
At this point, you might ask, "What do England and Scotland have to do with me? I'm Australian."
But to the foreigner, you are not Australian -- you are English. You are English because your ancestors came from England, and your being not-an-Englishman is a logical impossibility.
After all, says the foreigner, your family left England no more than a few generations ago; what's more, until recently, everyone else here was English too! A few years ago, when visiting Greece, it struck me that many of the people resembled locals in Oakleigh; by the same token, a visitor from England to Australia fifty years ago would have seen familiar faces wherever he went.
You have to understand that everything about you broadcasts Englishness to us: English is actually your ethnic language -- unlike ours -- your English christian names are actually your authentic names -- not anglicised, like ours --, your surnames are English -- unlike ours, and even if ours are anglicised they refer to our original surnames --, your turns of phrase are English -- unlike ours --, your traditional songs are English -- unlike ours --, and the way you think and speak and act are essentially English -- you don't realise it, but anyone who is not "Anglo" can almost smell it on you.
And of course, when you trace your ancestry, the records of your ancestors' births, deaths, and marriages are in churches and archives... in England.
Now the most important thing to understand is that the foreigner, having identified you as an Englishman, hates and envies you for it, because he has been raised to believe that he is superior to you, but in his heart he knows this to be a lie. He is raised on myths and legends or fantasies of his own people's greatness, but at every turn he is reminded that he lives in an Englishman's civilisation:
The Union Jack on the Australian flag; the names of states, cities, towns, streets, suburbs; statues of great Englishmen in public parks. (Which he would tear down in an instant if he could get away with it) The names of schools, all the Prime Ministers, the Queen on the money, and so on. What makes things worse is that the foreigner, especially the child or grandchild of an immigrant, hates the fact that some of your Englishness has rubbed off on him. You might think that the more he is like you, the more he will empathise with you, but the opposite is true: the more he loses contact with his roots, the more inauthentic he will feel himself to be, and the more stridently he will assert his differences from you.
I have lived here for twenty years and can tell you that there is nary an "ethnic" who does not think "Anglo" culture is "boring" and inferior. The foreigner says these silly things as a safe way to express a deeper, often incoherent resentment.
The foreigner here does not speak his ancestral language, and often speaks an ugly, inferior, inauthentic English vernacular; and the more Australianised, the more inauthentic and ignorant he feels himself to be when visits the **mother country** -- which is not Australia. Upon his return to Australia, he is both relieved and resentful -- relieved to be in familiar surroundings, but ever the more resentful that it is not his world.
However, there is a simple way to resolve this dilemma: it is to say that everyone can be an Australian, and to water down Australian identity from a blood-and-soil ethnicity to an accent, some paperwork, and consumer brands. That way, everyone can be **both** Australian **and** whatever he really is. This is how the foreigner can resolve the cognitive dissonance of claiming to be both Australian and not-Australian. The more Australia turns into a hodgepodge of ethnic mongrels, the more credible this attitude becomes.
However, there is one group of people whose very existence threatens this charade: you.
When you say, "I'm not an Englishman, my family has been here since the First Fleet", you attack the foundation of his world view. For if you, who are an Englishman as far as he is concerned, claim to have somehow detached yourself from a fifteen-hundred-year-long ethnic continuum, then you are saying that **he** cannot be an Australian without doing the same. Thus, all foreigners, even European ones, have a common interest in the destruction of the Australian nation. If they can get rid of you, their children can wear your Australian identity as a skinsuit, and there will be no-one to contradict their claims.
To put it in a nutshell: if everyone is Australian then no-one is, and if no-one is Australian, then everyone is.
Regards,
Mr. G
