You haven't yet saved any bookmarks. To bookmark a post, just click .

Ash Sharp

Australia Day is a national holiday in which Australians historically have joined together in summer to enjoy a long weekend with the celebration of traditional Aussie customs such as atrocious beer, grilled kangaroo, and domestic violence.

There's a lot going on in Australia lately. A long-running discussion about Aboriginal rights has, of late, taken a wider identitarian turn.  On Jan. 26, 1788, Captain Arthur Phillip landed in Sydney Cove, near where the famous Opera House was later built, to establish a penal colony. This is the date commemorated by Australia Day, and thus the target for the so-called 'Invasion Day' protests.

Some of these protests demand change from the Australian government and action on the Uluru Statement From The Heart, a document put together by a concordance of Aboriginal leaders in 2017 which was rejected by the Australian Government in favor of recognizing Aboriginals in a constitutional amendment. Other protests are quite different in origin.

The Aboriginal elder Tauto Sansbury told a small crowd in Adelaide that recognizing the hurt caused by celebrating on the day the first fleet arrived must be the start of a wider conversation.

“People have said there’s other issues to deal with, well no there’s not,” he said. “This is the first one that breaks down the barriers. Then we can move on to all of the other things that are not right for Aboriginal people.”

Perhaps Mr. Sansbury is right, and the future is in changing the date of the celebration of Australia as a concept to another. Alice Springs Councillor Jacinta Nampijinpa Price disagrees.

"Let’s be honest about where the argument to change the date comes from: a place of resentment, anger and now hate. The vitriol that has been directed at me, as an Aboriginal woman, for voicing my opinion and for encouraging a healthier way of thinking, has been far, far worse then any alleged racist sentiment claimed to come from the celebration of Australia Day.

Is changing the date some kind of quick fix to obscure the failure to solve our real problems? Symbolic acts have no meaningful impact on Australia’s most marginalized, so why then are so many so happy to invest vast amounts of energy into a meaningless symbolic act?

It is a pathetic attempt at appeasing resentment, anger, and white guilt."

Tarneen Onus-Williams of the "Aboriginal Nationalist" group Warriors of the Aboriginal Resistance said

"F..k Australia, hope it burns to the ground.

People who celebrate Australia Day are celebrating the genocide of aboriginal people, waving Australian flags in our faces. It’s disgusting.

We don’t want the date changed. We don’t want to celebrate Australia Day at all."

Tarnee Onus-Williams

You might say Ms. Onus-Williams sounds like a bit of an extremist and generally I would agree. This week she called 3AW Radio host Neil Mitchell a "racist" for the slight of asking her if it was appropriate to use the state-funded Koorie Youth Council (headed by Onus-Williams herself) to use public money to promote 'Invasion Day' rallies. She also does not believe that White people's law applies to Aboriginals, which as I gather is a common sentiment among fringe groups.

For those questioning the genocide of the Aboriginal people, we must accept that there are technical grounds for her words. Between 1910 and 1970, up to 100,000 Aboriginal children were taken from their parents and put in white foster homes. According to the United Nations 1951 definition, this counts as a genocide. Granted, it's hardly gas chambers or Rwanda, but it was a messed up time regardless- with the youngest of these people still very much alive and part of society.

There's clearly a lot of work to go on between White people and Aboriginals to smooth things out. While I would make no apology for the rights of the descendants of the settlers, if Aboriginal people are indeed being treated unfairly in Australian society- that's a topic of discussion for Australians. What shouldn't be on the cards is the weaponization of this topic to advance agendas that are insurrectionist in intent. This is exactly what has happened in this 'Invasion Day' Movement. There will always be a conflict of interests between racial groups, and what interests me most is how opportunistic leftist ideologues capitalize on these issues, again and again.


This one leads me to many questions. As Bill Warner explains, Hijra is the Jihad of Migration.

There is no common motivation for Muslims to support the rights of Aboriginals on religious grounds, but there is plenty to be gained from supporting identitarian movements that target White Australians. I do wonder what would happen if magically those troublesome Whites were evaporated from Australia. Would the interests of Islamists and Aboriginals still align under those circumstances? The other assessment I draw from this image is that again, we witness the alliance between Islam and the Hard Left authoritarians in the field of social politics.

The oddity of course here is that people of non-White descent who follow a religion of conquest are now also Australians, but feel no allegiance to the nation-state that allowed them to become citizens. Rather, the stain of benefitting from the government of the oppressor is shrugged off. This time, the more recent immigrants are on the side of the people who are complaining about historical immigration.

ABC's Indigenous Affairs editor Stan Grant, himself of both settler and Aboriginal ancestry, approaches the truth with caution.

Australia Day feels angrier. It is a defiant flag in a window and a flag on fire at a protest. This is our age; what the Indian writer Pankaj Mishra calls "the age of anger". We prize identity more than citizenship.

Grant does hit the nail but is too confused in his blog post to strike it cleanly. Identity is indeed becoming more important than citizenship, as lines in multicultural societies are cracked open along religious and ethnic lines. A civilizational clash, so to speak.

Those who tack too close to the other side of the conflict are brought down by a storm of racist slurs.

Warren Mundine is an Aboriginal advocate and successful businessman. His book teaches the value of self-determination and warns against victim culture. As he writes:

After the 1967 referendum, Aboriginal people started to receive equal pay across the board through a combination of changes to laws and industrial decisions over about a decade. For some regional industries, like the pastoral industry, this meant a huge jump in expenses. Most Aboriginal people in those industries had never actually received equal wages. Instead of getting a pay increase, they lost their jobs and were kicked off their lands. The pastoralists lost a cheap source of labor and weren’t willing or able to pay them full wages.

At the same time, Aboriginal people gained rights to government benefits, which previously they weren’t entitled to. So those who lost their jobs became full-time welfare recipients... Ultimately, the key to tackling long-term unemployment among Aboriginal people is the same as for anyone else. You have to address long-term welfare dependency.

For these radical ideas, Mr. Mundine has been called Uncle Tom -which makes no sense at all unless you recognize the globalist leftist movement as in some sense monolithic- and coconut; brown on the outside but white on the inside. Yes, an age of anger indeed. You must obey the perception of what radicals say is your racial interest, or you are a traitor. How can any society stand such flagrant bigotry against examples of success? Mr. Mundine's book is available here. I highly recommend you buy a copy, I have.

Here lies the issue. When the system is shown to be quite accepting of people provided they are willing to work hard and not give up despite adversity, this breaks the narrative. But whose narrative is it?


Frequent readers of these pages may already recognize where I am going to point the finger. Where does this anger spring from? I have suspicions. The rhetoric used is all too familiar to me, and to my former allies on the Radical Left. We can surely recognize that society is not perfect or that unfairness occurs without demanding the entirety of society be overthrown. That is madness.

Across the spectrum, on this issue, the same narrative is deployed in every nation founded by Europeans. Colonialism is the worst thing to ever happen, and it's because of that the indigenous people need to be protected from the society the White Man built. Because the personal fortitude exhibited by men like Warren Mundine breaks the socialist's framing of the world, the world must be redrawn along racial lines in order to sow division further.

Thomas Sowell found the crux of this flawed mentality.

In the half century between 1945 and 1995, black Americans' raw test scores rose by the equivalent of 16 IQ points.

In other words, black Americans' test score results in 1995 would have given them an average IQ just over 100 in 1945. Only the repeated renorming of IQ tests upward created the illusion that blacks had made no progress, but were stuck at an IQ of 85. But we would never have known this if some researchers had not defied the taboo on studying race and IQ imposed by black "leaders" and white "friends."

Note well. Black intellectuals reject utterly the idea that non-White people cannot succeed in White nations. The idea that this is the case is an idea promoted by Neo-Marxists who wish to see the fall of Western Civilization in totality, in the vain hope that a socialist society will rise in its place. The racial causes championed by these radicals are mostly cat's paws. Once the bourgeoisie is finished, the ideological purging will begin again, regardless of how black you are.

The Neo-Marxist left is a global movement that is linked by recognizing very vague principles, like the equation of Whiteness with 'privilege' and, therefore, Capitalism itself. To fight Whiteness is to fight on the side of the good guys against the Evil Empire, so it goes. This mentality is unbelievably facile, but so open in interpretation that it can be applied to any situation where the blame can be laid at the feet of Whitey and/or Capitalism, which as previously stated, just means White People.


This makes it possible for British transgender mixed-race model and known racist Munroe Bergdorf (what a title!) to hold several conflicting ideas at once. I'm using Bergdorf as an example as there are few people who are so vehement in their overt ideological stances. Rest assured, Bergdorf is merely saying what a great many Neo-Marxists genuinely believe.

Bergdorf sees no conflict in having this as a pinned post in which she says;

"Don't let other people define you your identity is integral to creating change in the world"

This concept does not extend to Whites. White identity is toxic in nature. Bergdorf shows this to be her true opinion when she said;

"Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people."

Finally, Bergdorf makes strong statements in solidarity with Aboriginals.

Naturally, when it is pointed out that Bergdorf is in fact a racist the victim card is deployed. Land rights only matter when the newcomers arrived 250 years ago and are White. This is a consistent aspect of racial advocacy.

The flaw in the logic is clear, for which we must thank Bergdorf for being so open. The only possible reason for Bergdorf and her ilk to say such things is that they are in fact Hard Left racist activists themselves. If Australia is indeed "stolen land" and "always was, and always will be aboriginal", then Sweden always was, and always will be Nordic. France for the Gauls. Poland for the Polish. Europe: Always was an always will be European land.

Twitter user Old Holborn cuts straight to the point.

So it would certainly appear to all who are not far left fanatics. It cannot be reasonable to demand diversity and multiculturalism in one moment and then advocate for an ethnostate when it suits. Yet, this is where we are with the modern leftist. Western countries may not have borders, borders are for Nazis. 'Nations of Color' must have the right to expunge the Whites from their land. The press will ignore or support these ideas, as it can only be ethnic-cleansing when Whites do it. The double standards expressed by the left will, either intentionally or not, further deepen racial tensions. It is happening already, as White people are discovering a racial identity politics that is not actually racist at all.


Despite being told that Whiteness is toxic for several decades, the descendants of Europe have shown fantastic politeness and restraint in the face of severe problems brought about by migration- to the point of near certain demographic suicide in some nations. It is thanks to overtly racist activists like Bergdorf, Tarneen Onus-Williams and their American analogs such as Shaun King that racial consciousness is even a topic among Whites- particularly when it comes to the perception of racial bias against White people. As Michael I. Norton and Samuel R. Sommers discovered;

We asked 417 black and white respondents to assess how big a problem anti-black bias was in America in each decade from the 1950s to the present. We then asked them the same questions about anti-white bias — the extent to which they felt that racism against whites has changed since the 1950s.

Black and white Americans both thought anti-black bias had decreased over the decades. Whites saw that decline as steeper and more dramatic than blacks did, but the general impressions of the trend were similar for both races.

When asked about anti-white bias, though, black and white respondents differed significantly in their views. Black respondents identified virtually no anti-white bias in any decade. White respondents agreed that anti-white bias was not a problem in the 1950s, but reported that bias against whites started climbing in the 1960s and 1970s before rising sharply in the past 30 years.

When asked about the present-day United States, a striking difference emerged. Our average white respondent believed that at the time of our survey in 2011, anti-white bias was an even bigger problem than anti-black bias.

The entire concept of the Alt-Right or modern identitarianism is a product of Hard Left racist activism. I would argue that in the United States this trend towards Whites feeling victimized is only likely to continue, particularly with 5 more years of the Obama administration to come after this survey. From the events surrounding Australia Day, we can see a mirroring of the race-politics that were deployed by Neo-Marxist groups like Black Lives Matter so perhaps the path is a similar one. Perhaps Australia is priming to be made great again.

Institutionally, Australia now seems set for achieving the exact opposite of what diversity measures are set out to achieve.

Dr. Tim Soutphommasane is Australia's Race Discrimination Commissioner. in 2016 he wrote the following piece for ABC entitled "Is Australia a Racist Country? On the State of our Race Relations."

Our immigration program is now one that makes no discrimination on racial grounds. The status of citizenship is open to all members of Australian society, regardless of their ethnic background or national origin.

This does make it hard to sustain the view that Australian society is irredeemably racist. It is hard to square that assessment with our reality and celebration of cultural diversity. About 28% of our population was born overseas; another 20% are the children of migrants. Public acceptance of diversity and multiculturalism is also strong and robust. The Scanlon Foundation's social cohesion survey in 2015 found that 86% of Australians believe that multiculturalism is good for the country - a level that has been consistent the past three years.

None of this should be taken to mean that racism is not a problem. Unfortunately, it still is.

Dr. Soutphommasane goes on at length to talk about representation in the media and the problems caused by a perfectly reasonable suspicion of Islam.

As he focuses on relative minutiae, he misses that the very concept of diversity quotas or the granting of special privilege to religious groups is anathema to a free society. Despite all the evidence that Australians are hugely non-racist, he sees his role -as many other left-wing academics do- to stamp out racism, among white people in particular. As bigots will always exist, one cannot make such an impossible quest happen without resorting to tyranny.

This is not to say bigotry for the sake of bigotry should be acceptable, but the path Australia has taken is no more effective at improving race relations than electing Barack Obama was in the United States, or the ascension of Sadiq Khan in London.

Representation is meaningless if you simply supply access to power to leftists because they call you a racist if you don't. It never works the way it is thought to do by anyone except- drum roll please- leftist ideologues.

Councillor Price, who we met at the top of the article, is completely correct. Invasion Day is an exercise in appeasement. If Australia Day is changed, it is a small victory for the leftists who move onto another topic, emboldened. If the calls are ignored, the leftists still win- they can come back next year and the year after. Forever. The ideological roots of this movement belong to Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot. These people, of many races and backgrounds, are part of a long march of their own- like a virus, the ideology of Communist thought crosses the generations, seducing the young with stories of noble rebellion against imperialist devils.

If Australia is to resolve the issue of Aboriginal identity, first the topic of Hard Left Neo-Marxism must be addressed. Without this resolution, the divisions in Australia will only grow deeper. As I have shown, Australia is not a racist country, by the admission of Aboriginal leaders and the Race Discrimination Commissioner. What it does have a problem with are hardcore ideologically motivated leftist radicals. That is the true invasion of Australia.

The Editor

by The Editor