Whither gay marriage?

William Saletan of Slate thinks that polyamorous marriage doesn’t follow from gay marriage. He lists five reasons for why he thinks this is so:

1. Immutability. Kennedy tosses this into his opinion, bizarrely, as a side comment. Referring to gays who seek matrimony, he says, “[T]heir immutable nature dictates that same-sex marriage is their only real path to this profound commitment.” Later, he speaks of “new insights” that have transformed society, including this one: “Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable.” Kennedy doesn’t elaborate on these remarks, but they’re huge. Immutability is the biggest difference between homosexuality and polyamory. Even the pro-polyamory law review article cited by Roberts in his dissent acknowledges that immutability is a crucial factor in identifying unjust discrimination against classes of people—and that “polygamists are not born that way.”

He is saying here that homosexuality, unlike polyamory, is immutable, and hence non-analogous to polyamory. His argument goes something like this: one is born gay and remains so throughout life, but one isn’t born polyamorous, and nor is one biologically compelled to remain so throughout life.

Not so fast.

If gender is fluid, then sexual orientation is not immutable. Here is why:

Caitlyn Jenner was born a man and was a heterosexual for the majority of her life, but then she became a woman who is sexually attracted to other women, and hence her sexual orientation became homosexual. Since her sexual orientation changed from heterosexual to homosexual, it is by definition mutable.

“2. Loneliness. According to Kennedy, “Marriage responds to the universal fear that a lonely person might call out only to find no one there. It offers the hope of companionship and understanding and assurance that while both still live there will be someone to care for the other.” At the end of his opinion, Kennedy returns to this theme. He says gay people who are legally excluded from marriage are “condemned to live in loneliness.” You can’t say that about polyamorists. Legally, they may be condemned to monogamy. But not to solitude.”

No, they’re not. There is nothing stopping two gays from living with one another. Moreover, conservatives were willing to grant gay couples all of the rights and privileges granted to heterosexual couples (the so called civil union), and so it’s not the case that “material circumstances” unconducive to coupling and brought about by a lack of state privileges and rights were preventing gays from living as a couple.

3.Exclusion. Kennedy notes that when laws forbid gay marriage, “same-sex couples are denied all the benefits afforded to opposite-sex couples.” He lists many such benefits, including tax breaks, inheritance rights, property rights, adoption rights, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and health insurance. He also points out that children in same-sex households “suffer the significant material costs of being raised by unmarried parents.” That’s not true for kids in polyamorous households. Their parents can marry—they just have to pair up, leaving one adult, at most, unaccounted for. And when they do, each couple gets the same spousal benefits as a monogamous couple.

And it’s not true of “gay couples” either, because conservatives were willing to grant gays “civil unions”, which gave gays all of the rights and privileges that come with marriage bar the word marriage itself.

4. Divided loyalty. Kennedy says marriage “embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.” He doesn’t explain how these ideals distinguish homosexuality from polygamy. But they do. Fidelity and devotion are concentrated virtues. When you spread them out among multiple spouses (or, yes, even among children—that means you, Duggars), you dilute them. One article cited by Roberts notes that many polyamorists are “polyfidelitous,” which means they “don’t date outside their ménage.” But when you’re free to have sex with anyone inside the ménage, or to spend the weekend with this spouse instead of that one, the value of your fidelity and devotion are diminished, just as surely as inflation shrinks the value of a dollar.

This argument doesn’t work because it doesn’t work in all cases. A married, homosexual couple might not love one another as much as each member of a polyamours relationship loves one another, so does that mean that the said married, homosexual couples ought not have been able to marry? If you think I’m being pedantic, then consider this: conservatives used to argue that marriage is about children, to which pedantic leftists responded by pointing out that not all married, heterosexual couples have children. In the same way, not all married, homosexual couples love one another as much as members of a polyamours relationship love one another.

5. Conflict. Countless marriages have exploded and ended because two spouses couldn’t get along. With three or four spouses, it’s that much harder to keep everyone happy. Kennedy doesn’t talk about this, but Mary Bonauto, an attorney representing gay couples in Obergefell, discussed it during oral argument. When Alito asked her why states should have to recognize gay marriages but not plural marriages—and forced her to address the scenario of two men and two women in a foursome, which bypasses the usual complaint about underage or patriarchal polygamy—Bonauto replied that plural marriage might raise valid governmental concerns about “disrupting family relationships.” For example, she asked: “If there’s a divorce from the second wife, does that mean the fourth wife has access to the child of the second wife?”

Conflict isn’t unique to polyamarous marriage. One could say that, on average, it’s greater in polyamous marriages than in homosexual or heterosexual marriages, but then again, one could say that marriage is about children, and since, on average, heterosexual couples have more children than homosexual couples, homosexuals should not be able to marry. No leftist would accept that argument, so why should conservatives accept it with “conflict” substituted for “children”?


Radio National is dumb

Radio National recently “refuted” race in the same manner that a five year old “refutes” his parents that it’s not bath time. In other words, utter idiocy.

This must be the silliest thing ever written on race. That it has stood thus long without a whit of criticism or push back is an indictment of our elite and a direct refutation of the argument put forth in the article that argues that modern day people believe in the “myth of race”, for if they did, why on earth would they tolerate this piece?

“However, when scientists look deep into the DNA of humans they cannot see race. For example, if race were to exist, there would be an expectation that all people with ‘darker’ skin have very similar DNA, when compared to those with ‘lighter’ skin. But that’s not the case.”

No serious race scientist, not today or in the 1600s, believed that mankind should be grouped by skin colour alone.

Here is Francois Bernier, of the 17th century, who is credited with the first post-classical classification of man into races:

“For although the Egyptians, for instance, and the Indians are very black, or rather tawny, this colour is nevertheless only accidental to them, and comes only because they expose themselves to the sun; for those who take care of themselves and are not obliged to expose themselves to it as often as the [common] people are, are not blacker than many Spaniards.

And thus he correctly, correct according to this very article!, recognized North Africans, Indians and Arabs to be “closer” to Europeans than Africans.

This accords exactly with this very article:

“For example, Alan Templeton, a professor of genetics at Washington University in Missouri, has shown that genetic differences on the whole aren’t dependent on a person’s skin colour…”

And thus I have shown this article to be egregiously in error. Embarrassingly wrong. Cringe-worthingly wrong.

“A few decades later a German physician called Johann Friedrich Blumenbach added another category called Malays and, critically, he made a hierarchy.”

Note that he didn’t idiotically group Africans with Malays. Blumenbach believed skin colour to be a coincidence, of not much importance in and of itself.

” Alan Templeton, a professor of genetics at Washington University in Missouri, has shown that genetic differences on the whole aren’t dependent on a person’s skin colour, but rather where someone’s recent ancestors lived. Consequently, the DNA of people from Europe and Africa is closer, on the average, to those from Africa and Melanesia.”

Yes, genetic similarity is based on ancestry. Did I, or any other believer in race, ever argue otherwise?

Man can be classified into races based on the distributions of as many alleles as you want (the more you choose, the finer the classification). These classifications accord remarkably well with the classifications put forth by Francois Bernier and Blumenbach.

Time will tell whether or not these different races differ in important behavioral traits.

Article for rightstuff.biz

The trans-racial tipping point

Once again the edgy-sphere has proven itself to be on the cutting edge of the zeitgeist, though like all truly edgy movements, the masses remain unaware of our existence.

Steve Sailer, quite possibly the greatest intellectual of our time and the most respectable spokesman for our corner of the internet, explicitly referenced “trans-racialism” last year, long before it blew up all over twitter. I can recall thinking about trans-racialism even before twitter existed, and I’m sure it crept into your brains as well. Well done, edge-lords, you are at the fore of political and cultural change: now go into your basements and shitpost on the internet about how you were aware of “trans-racialism” before it was a thing, and how all these normalfags on twitter are just sheeple following your refined cultural tastes and political insights.

I joke, of course. We should not retreat to our basements. What we ought to do is jump right into the fray, because this is not just the trans-racial tipping point; it’s also, and more importantly, the tipping point of that movement that has become known as the Alt-Right.


It could not have happened at a more opportune time. Only a few weeks ago Bruce Jenner transitioned from a man to a woman. The respectable and prole media competed among themselves for whom could lavish the most praise on this “courageous woman”; and the masses competed among themselves on social media for whom could shame the most shit-lords.

Gender as a social construct lead to the Bruce Jenner Phenomenon. This idea slowly crept from academia into the mainstream. I saw the first signs of it last year, when Facebook, the most mainstream website in the world, allowed its users to classify their gender as non-binary.

Race, too, is supposedly a social construct, and therefore trans-racialism must be just as legitimate as transgenderism. As such, the left ought to embrace Rachel Doleza, the most prominent trans-racialist to date, who recently came out as black, having transitioned from a white woman to a black woman.

But as Greg Johnson recently pointed out, the far-left don’t believe that race is a social construct. They only say that because they want to deny white people white identity. When it comes to their own identifies, race is very real.

As such, the left did not embrace Racheal Dolezal. Naive blue pills, either in trolling or in earnest, saw this as an opportunity to accuse the left of being bigots, of being “the real racists”.

This is the tipping point for the Alt-Right because the left, in denouncing Racheal Dolezal, is forced to admit that race is something real. Blue pills can go one of two ways: continue in their good goy ways of denouncing leftists as the real racists, or become so disillusioned that they break away from blue-pilled conservatism, drifting, perhaps, towards alt-right ideas.

We ought to seize this opportunity. I am therefore imploring all of you to don your fedoras and bow ties and to proceed to your nearest comment section.

The left will try to wriggle out of it by saying that the two cases, transgenderism and trans-racialism, are not analogous because being black comes with a whole lot of “oppression baggage” that a trans-racialist black isn’t exposed to. This is easily refuted by pointing out that it’s exactly the same for transgenderism, for women are oppressed relative to men.

The left might also argue that, while a white can pass as black, a black can’t pass as white. This, too, is nonsense because one’s ability to pass is irrelevant. All that matters is how the trans-racialist feels. Furthermore, one could argue that transgendered people can’t pass. Bruce Jenner looks nothing like that Vanity Fair cover photo. In real life, he actually looks like a degenerate male, as almost all transgendered people do.

Shit-tier argumentation

The above argument is what you should expect. As previously pointed out, it’s nonsensical. To say that “oppression” makes transgenderism and trans-racialism non-analogous is something so dumb that only an affirmative-action black could say it. If one were to change each instance of “black” with “woman” and each instance of “white” with “man”, then that above paragraph would still make sense in the context of the war on women. How, then, are these two cases non-analogous?


Nakkiah Lui is a professional Aboriginal who wants you all to know that trans-racialism isn’t going to happen. As someone who profits from being a mediocre individual who happens to have fraction of aboriginal ancestry, she feels threatened by more competent women than herself, women like Racheal Dolezal, transitioning into aborigines and cornering her market.

Among the more intelligent leftists, people who comment at, say, gawker, a much more philosophical and interesting discussion is taking place. Leftists are actually thinking really hard about this, as they ought to.


After these two shit-tier arguments, there really isn’t much more the left can throw at you. When pushed this far, a leftist will probably say that race is “realer” than gender, and therefore something that cannot be changed. At this point, the façade of “race is a social construct” is torn down, and torrents of “liberals are the real racists” will fly. Now it’s up to you to convince the blue pills that race really is “real”.

the future

uni holidays are coming up, so i’m going to have a lot of time on my hands in a few weeks. What i hope to do with my time over the holidays is get an australian alt-right website up and running. It isn’t going to be anything fancy or high-brow. It doesn’t need to be. I figure that tearing apart popular writers and personalities like Clementine Ford, Tim Sout, etc will be quite enough to garner media attention — and that’s what we want, media attention.

So i’m going to need contributions from writers. For an indication of what kind of style and rigor we’re looking for, look to the “daily stormer” and the “right stuff.biz”.

Look forward to working with you all!

P.s. i’m also attempting to mass mail thousands of edgy letters to wealthy homes. Postage is a lot more expansive than i thought, so i’m looking at other possibilities as well. Perhaps distributing the letters myself would be a good idea. I do, however, run the risk of being caught, which would have pretty disastrous consequences.

Bamboo Ceiling

The Asian Australian Lawyers Association has produced a study that purports to show that Asians are underrepresented as partners in law firms. The key numbers are these:

9.6% of Australia’s population is Asian
3.1% of partners in law firms are Asian

Asian-Australian are underrepresented as partners in law firms by 67%.

But those data are problematic because they assume that the population of Asian-Australians are as capable as White Australians at becoming partners in a law firm. Clearly being a partner in a law firm requires a very high level of English proficiency. Is Australia’s Asian population as capable at English as Australia’s White population? Given that the majority of Asian-Australian were born overseas, that is very unlikely to be true.

7%* of Australia’s population is “overseas-born Asian.” That means that 9.6%-7%=2.6% is the number of Australian-born Asians.

If we make the reasonable assumption that those Asians born in Australia are as equally proficient in English as White Australians, and that those Asians born overseas are not, then, crudely, the two numbers under comparison are:

2.6% of Australia’s population is Australian-born Asian
3.1% of partners in law firms are Asian

According to those two numbers, Asians are overrepresented by 16%.

*The Australian article says 6%, but it also says that the 6% does not include 295,000 Indians. When one adds in the 295,000 Indians, the percentage increases from 6% to 7%.

Also note that the numbers from the Australian article come from the 2011 census, so it’s not clear to what degree they accord with 2015’s Asian share of the population.

Redfern Now — Not Buying it

As the Great UVA Rape Hoax of 2014 makes it final round of the American Media Circuit, leftists everywhere are despairing:” I hope that my mistakes in reporting this story do not silence the voices of victims that need to be heard,” wrote Sabrina Erdely, who launched the hoax in her blockbuster article “A Rape on Campus.” As the hoaxes mount, American audiences turn ever more to “GamerGaters, 4channers, professional misogynists, and garden-variety rightwingers” for their news. The Narrative is becoming harder and harder to sell to American audiences, but this isn’t a problem for the globalist leftists who run America’s media because they can export their Narrative to Australian audiences, who abound in white guilt that is waiting to be tapped.

Whereas American Audiences received their Narrative through a 9000 word article brimming with masterful literary allusions to “broken glass” and Great Works , Australian Audiences received their Narrative through what can only be described as the McDonaldisation of the Narrative: “Redfern Now: The Telemovie” might not have been made by dumb people, but it was certainly made for dumb people. A cast of characters with no depth whatsoever, a formulaic plot, simplistic dialog, numerous factual errors and “fool-proof” allusions to fashionable left wing delusions– subtlety is asking too much of Redfern Now’s audience.

The elevation of this film to “[an] important 90 minutes of television” can only be explained by the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” affirmative action on the big screen. Businesses in Show Business are reluctant pander to the affirmative action crowd because it so perilously affects their bottom line. But when Show Business and the State merge into one big authoritarian Ministry of Truth, the bottom line can be ignored because the tax payer can always be relied upon to pay up.

The American media have been slowly exporting their Narrative across the pacific. Up until now, we in Australia have only received it in drips and drabs. A little feminism here, a little anti-racism there; finally we in Australia have a film that condenses every single left-wing delusion into one overarching Narrative.

The film opens to three young aboriginal girls out for a night of partying at Kings Cross. They are dressed scantily, as is their right to do so. It’s late, and these girls want to go home, so they hail a taxi. Almost every single taxi driver in Sydney is South East Asian, but that’s not true in the Narrative. In the Narrative, all taxi drivers are racist white men who refuse to drive aboriginal women home because Racism. Spurred on by this injustice, these three young aboriginal women resolve to walk home.

Redfern, their home, is depicted as an Aboriginal enclave, even though in reality Redfern is becoming less and less aboriginal as the effects of gentrification set it. Less than 300 aborigines call Redfern home today, down from 35,000 in the 1968. As they pass through Redfern, a man jumps out of the shadows to surprise them. But because this man is an aboriginal, he poses no threat to these women. In the Narrative, not all men are rapists; only white men are rapists.

One of the women makes it homes safely to her loving aboriginal husband, who doesn’t appear phased by the fact that his wife has spent a night at Kings Cross flirting with other men. In the Narrative, aboriginal men don’t care if their wives cheat on them. Domestic dysfunction only afflicts white families.

Our trio of women is now down to one. As she makes the final leg of her journey home, she is brutally raped by a white man. Had the writers opted for the more realistic route – the perpetrator of the rape being an aboriginal man – then audiences might have gotten the idea that aboriginal communities were afflicted by an epidemic of rape. In the Narrative, aboriginal communities are afflicted by white male rapists, not by aboriginal men who can’t control their drink or their sex drive.

The movie progresses from here in a lacklustre and predictable way.Eighty minutes of banal dialog and cringeworthy interactions between the cast’s depthless characters culminate in an “Atticus finch-style” court case. “Pretentious incompetence” is how I would sum it all up. This is a film that takes itself way too seriously. As an undergraduate media students’ first foray into filmmaking, it would be excusable; but as a $5 million dollar film produced by a professional film company funded by the Australian taxpayer, it is an embarrassment and a scandal.

Blame The West For Everything

Whether it be the extraordinary violent crime rate of African Americans, the tendency of Aboriginal parents to neglect their children, or any heinous act perpetrated by a minority, the left will invariably absolve minorities of all guilt, laying all the blame on Whites. Even sanctified victim groups like women are not spared if the woman happens to be White and her raper Muslim, as the mass rape of 1400 English girls and its subsequent cover up so clearly evinced.

I was therefore not surprised to read, in The Daily Life, that White people are at fault for Muslim men marrying underage girls.

Ruby Hamad of the Daily life Writes:

So complete is the othering of Muslims that the west doesn’t perceive that it has the same attitudes to sex, particularly when it comes to women, albeit with different manifestations.

I bolded “same attitudes to sex” because I want you to remember that quote as you read her next paragraph:

I am talking, of course, of the sexual double standard that demonises female sexuality in the western culture.

So she’s blaming Western sexual norms — the “sexual double standard” — for the tendency of Muslim men to marry underage girls. But hold on, a paragraph earlier she said, “[The West] has the same attitude towards sex [as the Muslim world].” How, then, can it be the case that Western sexual norms are at fault for Muslim underage marriage when both the West’s and the Muslim world’s sexual norms are the same, according to Ruby Hamad? Perhaps it lies in her qualification of “different manifestation.” What could that mean?

The negative perception of women’s sexuality that sees women labelled with slurs like “slut,” and blamed for their own rapes, is the same one that leaves Muslim parents so afraid of their daughter becoming sexually active that they seek to marry her off at the earliest opportunity, with little thought given to the ramifications this presents to her future.

So her “different manifestations” are slut shaming and rape acceptance. You can tell that she hasn’t spent much time in the Muslim world, because had she then she’d know that slut shaming and rape acceptance are far more prevalent there than in the West.

In the Muslim world, a women who so much as bears her hair in public is “slut shamed.” The notion that slut shaming in the west is comparable to slut shaming in the Muslim world is therefore laughably absurd. In Egypt, Qatar , Lebanon and Jordan, a husband is legally able to rape his wife. Moreover, in Qatar, a women who reports rape is likely to be herself punished. According to the Asian Human Rights Commission, women in Pakistan are ” treated as a man’s property.”

Thus if slut shaming and rape acceptance are the causes of Muslim underage marriage, then clearly the West has nothing to do with it, as these two “sexual norms” are even more common in the Muslim World than in the West.

Hamad then goes on to blame feminism and sexual liberation for Muslim underage marriage. That strikes me as odd given that she wrote her piece on a feminist website — ahem, a “white” feminist website. It all makes sense now:

Ironically, living in a western society may actually make young Muslim girls more, not less, vulnerable as parents fear the effects of living in a cultural environment where premarital sex is the norm. The more common sex becomes in the wider culture, the more some Muslim parents will feel the need to take action to avert their daughters from partaking in it.

This keeps coming up: feminism or patriarchal Islam? One day you’re going to have to choose, Hamad.

This looks like another case of affirmative action gone wrong.

Feminists Can’t Win

For those women who were not born with attractive faces or large breasts, the ascendancy of the ass is a godsend — a back door, if you will, to attractiveness.

The rise of the ass has been welcomed by feminists, both for the reason outlined above and because it is a way to stick it to white chicks, who, in comparison to black chicks, are not as prodigiously endowed down there — though, as usual, no one cares about the collateral damage this trend has inflicted upon Asians, notoriously small-assed.

In an era in which race does not exist (except when it does), feminism’s implicit acceptance of the idea that black women have large asses for genetic reasons is strange. When confronted with such contradictions, it’s always a good idea to revert to the maxim Who Whom — who is doing what to whom. If the idea that race exists can be used against white people, then race exists.

Theories abound for why the ass has overtaken the breasts in the “male’s gaze.” According to Ray Browne, a researcher of popular culture, it has to do with the rise in women wearing pants, specifically denim pants:

[E]mphasis on the upper female torso has recently given way to the lower area of the body, specifically the buttocks. Such a change happened quite recently when denim jeans became fashionable. In order to emphasize fit, jeans manufacturers accentuated hips. And after brand name jeans became so popular with the designer’s name on the hip pocket, even more accentuation was given to the posterior. The more jeans sales increased, the more ads were used which emphasized the derrier, to such an extent, in fact, that this particular area may eventually surpass breasts as the number one sexual image of the female body…

One of the victories of feminism has been the unisexualisation of clothing — girls wearing pants instead of dresses, skirts, etc. It was believed that this would bring about a new, progressive era in which women’s bodies were no longer sexualised, ditto for their clothing. But if Ray Browne’s theory is correct, then the exact opposite has happened: in addition to breasts, men now have another “sexual object” to occupy their “male gaze” — the ass.

Personally, i’m pretty happy with all this. My job (picking items from shelves in a supermarket) would be pretty boring were it not for women pushing their trolleys around in tight pants.

Australia Day


Australia Day, 1788

Australia Day, 1788

Every year on the 26th of January, Australians are brought together by their shared hatred of this country’s past and of its founding people — the British. Egged on by the media, the universities and the high school curriculum, credulous youth and newly minted immigrants lap it all up. Those Australians who dare commemorate Australia’s British heritage are branded as racist dinosaurs — Bogans — who pose an imminent threat to Australia’s diversity. It is Australia’s diversity, according to the Establishment, that redeems Australia from its shameful history. The British, those plain, white-bread toffs, are a vestige of Australia’s shameful past, destined to fade into the background of Australia’s increasingly multicultural landscape.

What is this shameful history that Australia bears? It is undeniable that the net result of British colonisation was the destruction of the Aboriginal Peoples, and so the discontent that Aborigines express on Australia Day is understandable and justifiable. But to solely define Australia’s British legacy as one of wanton destruction of the Aboriginal Peoples is naive and historically inaccurate. These historical inaccuracies, if unchecked and unchallenged, will fate British Australians (Anglo-Celtic Australians) to the same bleak future presently realised in the Aborigines: cultural and demographic extinction.

Violence was not brought to Australia by the British. Aborigines, hunter gatherers, lived extraordinarily violent lives (as all hunter gatherers do), replete with inter-tribal warfare. If an Alien had observed Australia from outer-space, he would not have made a distinction between the incessant inter-tribal warfare of the Aborigines and the colonisation of Australia by the British, except to note that the British had advanced technolohy and looked different. This stark contrast in appearance between the British and the Aborigines would not have impressed very deeply in the alien’s mind, because for millennia he would have observed not one people in Australia but vastly different peoples, all of strikingly different appearance. Not many people are aware of the fact that Australia had (and perhaps still has) a pygmy population in its far northern tips. This little known fact greatly troubles those who peddle the “one people” myth.

The historical inaccuracies surrounding colonisation demonise British settlers and have robbed Australia of Founding Father figures. Take Governor Arthur Phillip. He was a Naval Captain who commanded the First Fleet, a task so difficult that some historians have described it as the equivalent of ‘an inter-planetary expedition.’ The success with with he discharged his duties should have sealed his fate as one of Australia’s Founding Fathers, but mention of Governor Phillip is exceedingly rare on Australia day, not to mention Governor Macquarie, Matthew Flinders, Governor Sorrel, William Wentworth and countless others. What has become of the reputations of these great men? They have been subsumed into a caricature of a cruel, racist colonialist. For most Australians, this caricature defines Australia’s colonial history.

Governor Arthur Phillip, a Founding Father of Australia

This caricature is historically inaccurate. Governor Phillip held sympathetic views towards the Aborigines, as did almost all of his successors. Personally instructed by King George III to ‘endeavour by every possible means to open an intercourse with the natives and to conciliate their affections’, Phillip befriended an Aborigine named Bennelong, whom he taught English and for whom he built a hut. Bennelong’s English skills enabled him to accompany Phillip on a trip to England, where he toured the country and spoke with Lord Sydney, the politician in charge of the First Fleet. Bennelong wrote to Philip from Australia:

Sidney Cove. New S. Wales Augst. 29 1796

I am very well. I hope you are very well. I live at the Governor’s. I have every day dinner there. I have not my wife; another black man took her away; we have had muzzy [bad] doings: he speared me in the back, but I better now: his name is now Carroway [the names are frequently changed], all my friends alive and well. Not me go to England no more. I am at home now. I hope Sir you send me anything you please Sir. hope all is well in England. I hope Mrs. Phillips very well. You nurse me Madam when I sick, you very good Madam: thank you Madam, & hope you remember me Madam, not forget. I know you very well Madam. Madam, send me two Pair stockings. You very good Madam. Thank you Madam. Sir, you give my duty to Ld Sydney. Thank you very good my Lord. very good: hope very well all family, very well. Sir, send me you please Some Handkerchiefs for Pocket. you please Sir send me some shoes: two pair you please Sir.


Hardly the stuff of racial hatred; and Bennelong’s wife being taken from him by another Aborigine is indicative of the violence endemic to his people.

In an attempt to demonise Phillip, many have made much of his order to capture and kill a random group of Aborigines. Such action, however, must be understood in context: it was a rational tactic of warfare, used by both sides, not wanton racial prejudice. So unmotivated by wanton racial prejudice was Phillip that he refused to retaliate even when he himself was speared by an Aborigine.

Lieutenant Governor David Collins, first governor of the Van Diemen’s Land Colony, told his settlers and convicts that “‘the Aborigines of this Country are as much under the Protection of the Laws of Great Britain as themselves’, and that they had been ‘placed in the King’s Peace’ in order to afford ‘their Persons and Property the protection of the British Laws.'” Collins’ views towards the Aborigines are thus sorely misrepresented by the colonial caricature.

The Van Diemen’s Land Colony was home to the infamous Black War, a war that drove the Tasmanian Aborigines to extinction, though it’s hardly fair to call it a genocide because the Van Diemen’s land authorities made every effort to accommodate the Aborigines. On this Black War, the man responsible, Governor George Arthur, had this to say: ‘It was a fatal error in the first settlement of Van Diemen’s Land that a treaty was not entered into with the Natives, of which Savages well comprehend the nature – had they received some compensation for the territory they surrendered, no matter how trifling, and had adequate laws been from the very first introduced and enforced for their protection, His Majesty’s Government would have acquired a valuable possession without the injurious consequences which have followed our occupation and which must ever remain a stain upon the Colonisation of Van Diemen’s land.’ George Arthur’s ruminations on the Black War make clear that the war had nothing at all to do with racial prejudice, but rather with two different peoples trying to co-exist in small area.

After the Black War, very few Tasmanian Aborigines remained. The ones that did remain were not hunted to extinction, as genocide would imply, but rather were taken under the wing of George Augustus Robinson, Chief Protector of the Aborigines. He won the trust and friendship of the remaining Tasmanian Aborigines, whom he tried to save from extinction, giving the Aborigines their own islands in the Bass Strait on which to prosper. Unfortunately, disease dashed this final hope.

Truganini, one of the last “Pure Blooded” Tasmanian Aborigines, friend of George Augusts Robinson — Protector of Aborigines.

Sympathy towards the Aborigines reached even the lofty heights of London’s Colonial office. Lord Glenelg, Colonial Secretary, said of the Aborigines: ‘[A] People whose proprietary title to the soil we have not the slightest grounds for disputing.` All subsequent Colonial Secretaries shared Glenelg’s view, though they lacked his devotion.

Why do these historical inaccuracies persist even though they are demonstrably false? I believe that it comes down to the poor state of Aborigines today. Aborigines today are imprisoned, diseased and impoverished at far higher rates than the white population. Such vast disparities warrant an explanation, but in today’s politically correct climate, any explanation that lays part of the blame on Aborigines themselves is met with extreme prejudice, and hence it becomes necessary to lay all of the blame on whites, even if this is historically inaccurate.

Australians are going to have to come to terms with harsh realities if they are to understand the present state of Aborigines. It is very likely that Aborigines do poorly in western society because they lack the mean intelligence to compete with Whites and Asians. This cannot be dismissed as blanket racism against brown people, because even Europeans of the 19th and 18th century believed brown skinned Maoris to be intellectually superior to brown skinned Aborigines. Samuel Marsden, an influential settler, said: ‘[The Maoris] are a very superior people [in comparison to Aborigines] in point of mental capacity, requiring but the introduction of Commerce and the Arts, [which] having a natural tendency to inculcate industrious and moral habits, open a way for the introduction of the Gospel.’ At present there are no reliable studies of Aboriginal IQ, but it is known that Aborigines score less than Whites on Educational tests — even when controlling for SES — and that mean Aboriginal brain size is smaller than mean White brain size, strongly suggesting that Aborigines really do possess a lower mean IQ than Whites.

It is essential that these facts come to light because white guilt over the present state of Aborigines has for many justified multiculturalism, and with it the continued marginalisation of Australia’s core and founding people, the Anglo-Celtic Australians. This marginalisation manifests itself every 26th of January, a day on which the Anglo-Celtic pioneers who built Australia ought to be commemorated, but is instead a day on which these Anglo-Celtic pioneers are attacked, and a day on which diversity and multiculturalism are praised above all else.

One example of the attacks that Anglo-Celtic Australians are subject to are the calls to change the flag. The calls to change the flag are a staple of anti-British sentiment. Around about this time of year the sentiment heats up, but it remains relatively warm all year round. Calls to change the flag almost always downplay the British heritage of Australia and overplay the Aboriginal and “multicultural” parts of Australia. Australia is both culturally and demographically British, and our national symbols ought to reflect this reality.

Australia’s British heritage is omitted from the flag.

Another prong of the establishment’s assault on Anglo-Celtic Australia are the calls to change the name of Australia Day to Invasion Day. To this I say: which invasion are you referring to — the invasion by Aboriginal tribes of other Aboriginal tribes, or the invasion by the British of Australia? Thus it is silly to call Australia Day “Invasion Day” because Aborigines had been invading one another for millennia.

Dick Smith proposes that Australia Day’s name be changed to First Fleet Day because ‘For many Indigenous Australians, the date is no holiday but a reminder of their country being taken over by others. It completely disrupted a way of life that had been undisturbed for 50,000 years.’ As previously pointed out, this is nonsensical because Aborigines had been invading one another for millenia.

These attacks on Anglo-Celtic Australia reveal the rank hypocrisy of Australia’s elite. If it is a bad thing that Aborigines are undergoing cultural and demographic extinction, then the cultural and demographic extinction looming over Anglo-Celtic Australia must also be a bad thing, and therefore something our Establishment should be expending all efforts to prevent. But the attacks on Anglo-Celtic Australia and the celebration of diversity above all else make clear that our Establishment has no concern for preserving Australia’s Anglo-Celtic heritage.

Greg Sheridan, writing in The Australian, referred to the cultural and demographic extinction looming over Anglo-Celtic Australia as ‘benign-cultural genocide.’ Had he said that of the Aborigines, he would have been taken to court for violating 18c.

This Australia day, it’s important to realise that for Aborigines, Australia Day represents the destruction of their peoples and ways of life, but Australians should not let this get in the way of commemorating the Anglo-Celtic pioneers who built this country, and whose descendants still form the core of this great nation, lest the the same fate that befell the Aborigines becomes ours.