Joel Davis: So I’m joined by Matthew Grant of the Australian Natives Association for a discussion on Australian nationalism. People often criticise me for not talking about Australian nationalism enough with my channel. Part of the reason why that’s the case is because the majority of my audience aren’t Australian. And I try to talk about nationalism in general. But today we are Australia posting.

 

And if you aren’t from Australia, I think you’ll nevertheless get a lot out of this discussion. You can make the argument that Australia essentially is the first wignat country in world history. There’s a very rich tradition of White nationalism, racial nationalism in Australia due to our kind of particular historical circumstances.

 

So the case study of Australia and Australian history, I think, is more relevant than ever to 21st century nationalism across the Western world. Because a lot of the ideas that we debate over in the so-called dissident ride or the alt-Right or whatever you want to call it. Those debates played out in Australian history, particularly the first few decades after Federation prior to the Second World War.

 

So I want to get into a discussion about that.

 

But before we do that, Grant is the founder of the Australian Natives Association, or the new iteration. There was an Australian Natives Association that existed for many years, for many decades in Australian history, which became defunct. But this is kind of like a relaunching of this organisation, which was traditionally a citizens organisation that was in support of and in defense of the White Australia policy.

 

But Grant, love to hear you explain to us the motives behind founding it, the legacy that you’re trying to take the mantle from, obviously the legacy of Australian Native Association and the kind of philosophy of what you guys are doing.

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, fair enough. Yeah, no worries. Well, thanks for having me on.

 

First of all, I’d like to say how excited I am by the fact you’re getting complaints, that people are complaining you’re not posting about Australian content enough! [chuckling] It’s been many not just for you, but it’s been for many years coming, this kind of cultural shift in our circles.

 

When I first kind of landed on the scene, TM, in 2013, 2014, back in the old days, the Internet, similarly to how it is now, was just completely preoccupied with American talking points. I mean, European talking points got in there a bit more, European politics. But Australian politics and doing justice to Australia’s political history has, for a very long time, long time been off the radar. And it’s been so exciting in the last three or four years to really see a more steady growth in interest in Australian politics and our political history and our great political heritage.

 

You mentioned we’re one of the first countries, if not the first country, to pioneer Wignatism. And I would say that more so than that, I would say Australia really was the first country to politically develop the concept of ethno-nationalism, to create not only just to create an ethnicity, but also to have ethnic solidarity and to seek political aims which went to the benefit of your average member of the ethnic group.

 

We had a unique situation in Australia where in the Gold Rush days in the middle of the 19th century, we had a large influx of Chinese and some other Oriental races, mainly Indians.

 

And so this kind of happened in California, in the United States around the same time as well.

 

[03:56]

 

But I think the racial question kind of remained in California, where in Australia it became a very hot topic because the Oriental and Pacific races were so far spread through Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland. It became a national cry and a national issue. And Australia really was one of the first countries to pioneer legislation for racial exclusion. A number of bills were draughted in the New South Wales Parliament and Victorian Parliaments that didn’t get royal assent.

 

But anyway, an issue I’ll get into later. But definitely we are a Wignat pioneering country and always have been, but, yeah, to get to the ANA. The ANA was first founded in 1871 in Melbourne. In Victoria, a small hotel room was booked out. About 20 young men met in a room and basically decided that they were going to start a Friendly Society for native born Australians.

 

And just to touch on that, obviously, the use of the word “native”, I’m so used to it, I sometimes forget people outside of our circles would probably think of Aboriginals when we use the word “native”. When we consider the terminology of being native to Australia, we consider that Australia is a European concept. It’s a British concept, principally that to be a native member of Australia, you need to not only subscribe to the concept of Australia as an ethnic nationality, but also to be born into it.

 

So to get onto that, the natives, so in 1871, a group of young Victorians wanted to start a Friendly Society, or a Mutual Benefit Society for natives. It was exclusionary to male membership and basically their key premise at the start was to provide financial support for each other.

 

So they had medical funds, insurance, they had all sorts of different, kind of like welfare stuff, widows payments, funeral allowances and all of that. So in the old days, before the Welfare State was such a large burden of beasts, I suppose there was a lot of non-government run, friendly societies and fraternal organisations which saw to the welfare of their members, and the ANA was one of those.

 

[06:43]

 

But the main difference with the ANA is that they actually took up political objectives. They were non-sectarians, they didn’t take religious issues, they also didn’t take party issues.

 

So whether it was the Free Trade Party or the Protectionist Party or whoever, they wouldn’t make issues, they wouldn’t pick an issue with political parties, but they would set kind of broad stroke national political objectives.

 

And one of them materialised into federation. Preceding that was the pressure for colonial governments to exclude Chinese migration.

 

In 1888 there was an inter-colonial conference on the issues of Asian migration. And the colonial delegates from all the different colonies agreed that basically establishing some controllable borders was of the utmost importance to the welfare of Australians. And the ANA was a great driving force behind that.

 

And then they became the pioneering force behind federating the different colonies together into a single constitutional Commonwealth. The ANA took an absolute leading role in that charge. There was a lot of dilly dally from the different politicians in all the colonies. They wasn’t really in their interest to serve up their powers and authority to a new federal government. But the ANA drove that message for the intention of having a single unified border.

 

One of the key issues at the time was New South Wales and Victoria had managed to introduce a poll tax on Chinese migrants.

 

So basically it made it very expensive for you to land a ship in any harbour that had Chinese on it. But South Australia and Queensland were a leak and sieve and they were letting orientals through the borders into New South Wales and Victoria, which they couldn’t control the land borders. They’re just too far and wide and very difficult to manage.

 

So the whole intention of having a single Federated set of colonies is there’d be a single border and a single national immigration policy which could be controlled. And the ANA was very much at the heart of driving that political change from 1871 through to federation in 1901.

 

Yeah, that probably touches on the start of it Joel, what else do you want to know?

 

Joel Davis: Well, the story of the contemporary organisation.

 

I mean, I have spoken to you a little bit in private and I definitely appreciate what you guys are doing.

 

So maybe you could tell us about obviously the Australian Natives Association completely fell away. I don’t know exactly what year, but then you’ve reconstituted it, I guess.

 

So maybe you could tell us that story, and as I said, the kind of philosophy of what you’re trying to do.

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, fair enough. Yeah. Look, the ANA in terms of its decline, it’s very typical. It’s easy to throw stones at the baby boomer generation because right about the time they hit maturity, they didn’t join the ANA like their parents and grandparents did. And the membership of the ANA really started bottoming out in the late 60s and early 70s. Some branches continued on. Some, actually the last branch in Australia was in Perth in Western Australia, which closed, I think, around, 2004. A few branches carried on the struggle.

 

[10:23]

 

But the main body of the ANA kind of folded up it’s operations in the 1980s and merged it’s resources with another couple of insurance companies to form what is now Australian Unity. Which you can still get insurance and health care and all that from.

 

The other thing worth noting with the decline, basically, they maintained their principles right into the 1970s, including the concept of a White Australia policy. They maintained adherence to that right until their kind of dying days.

 

And so obviously that was a bit unattractive to the new cosmopolitan, spoilt, baby boomer generation.

 

But, yeah, so that was pretty much the decline. Membership started bottoming out. They had all this money that they’d built up over the last 50 years and went into just being a kind of insurance company without the community related elements to it.

 

In terms of reconstituting the ANA. In 2015, we started meeting in Canberra. We weren’t known as the ANA back then and we hadn’t decided on what kind of a brand we would take up or what we were kind of doing. I was an activist in those days. I was a bit of a public speaker at a few rallies against the construction of mosques and just generally against the issue of Third World immigration. You can probably find my speeches somewhere on the internet.

 

You can find some interviews I’ve done with the ABC, where I gave an unapologetic defense of the principle of a White Australia. Unfortunately of a good 45 minutes interview, mopping the floor with an ABC journo. They only aired about ten minutes of it, but they weren’t tremendously unfair because all of my points of view were couched in Australia’s political history. All references made to Arthur Caldwell and Edmund Barton and Alfred Deacon and all the rest of it.

 

So I was a bit of an activist back in the day. To this day I’m probably less of an activist and just more of an organiser. I still will periodically give comment to journalists. Recently we got a bit of a mention in the Victorian, I think it’s the Sunday, … Can’t remember! The Age. I think it might have been The Age. Obviously, old Tommy Sewell’s group got front page, centre, big, big full page print out of their photo of themselves in front of a burning cross and all the rest of it.

 

We’ve got a little side mention. Always tell the journos what we believe, never apologise, never back down! I mean, what we believe, though, isn’t really malicious. We believe in the principle of a White Australia, both on economic, cultural and social grounds. We don’t really hate people because they breathe! It’s principally on the interest of maintaining a national sense of community, where people have a common sense of identity, belonging, sense of community trust, enhance social capital and maintain the wages of workers and ensure that basically our industrial conditions aren’t destroyed by Third World immigration.

 

We do believe in defending the heritage, I suppose, and the birthright of our racial inheritance from Europe, predominantly our British ancestral heritage and our cultural traditions.

 

[14:07]

 

But yeah, had been an advocate in 2015 and still an advocate to this day.

 

The reason I got the ANA rolling is basically I realised back in those years that there was a lot of good people floating around out there which didn’t really have a good peer support network. They didn’t have good friends, or if they had friends, they weren’t friends that were trying to keep them on the straight and narrow, I suppose trying to help advocate for living a full and good and honest life.

 

There was a lot of people that you might consider red pilled, people who were kind of up on the nationalism and liked the idea of it. But their lives, they weren’t walking what they were talking. They were living lives of challenge. And the modern world has a lot of challenges. It has a lot of temptations to sin and immorality and a lot of people can get blown away by that if they’re adrift in the sea on their own.

 

And so I thought, at a minimum, if we get all these people into a room, we kind of formalise our relationships and try and advocate for each other and try and enhance each other’s lives, we might actually be able to stay the course and kind of not get blown off course by the prevailing winds of this turbulent life that we live.

 

So we started meeting in 2015 in Canberra. By 2018, we had basically had relations with a lot of other nationalist organisations, or so-called anyway, that had gone up in Australia, who had collapsed in Australia. Had experienced a lot of, I suppose, lessons learnt, second-hand. We were always one foot in the door and one foot out of the door in our dealings with other groups for various reasons.

 

But what we kind of learnt by watching other groups rise to great heights and then crash to great nothingness is that we needed to have a more formalised system of organising that you couldn’t have one bloke who has all the hot takes and everyone just trusts him, bro! We had to figure out a way of formalizing ourselves. I was always an advocate for fraternal organisations. I wrote an essay, back in the day when I was younger. I was a bit of a libertarian autist and wrote an extensive piece on the function of fraternal organisations and how important they were to people and enhancing society generally, like building social capital before the Welfare State.

 

And so I was always an advocate of that model.

 

[16:56]

 

And even in The Times, in the few years that we’d been meeting informally in Canberra, I’d seen the fruits of just having a kind of a more formal group of friends that are there with the strict intent of actually helping each other. I’d seen people lose their jobs and we were able to help them get work. We’d seen people lose their house. We’re able to provide a couch for them to sleep on.

 

I myself, when I was newly minted in marriage, a lot of the boys threw in extra money just as a loan to me to help me buy my first house. I think we all saw the benefit of just having good people in a room together and we saw maybe this enormous potential for formalizing that arrangement and trying to actually build an institution like the ANA that would serve people for the rest of their lives and perhaps serve our children and the next generation after us.

 

So in October 2018, I’d finalised a draught constitution for the ANA, which we could be incorporated with. And we sat down one night, there was probably 30 people in a room, which is a spectacular turnout for Canberra, per capita. It’s pretty good numbers we were getting at the time. And we went through the task of looking through a constitution and basically setting in place something that was legally binding to protect the rights of members and to also make the institution transparent.

 

So for instance, if you were giving money to the ANA, it wasn’t going into my personal bank account or it wasn’t going into someone’s lock-box under his bed, it was going into a genuine bank account which has access controls.

 

Basically, the use of any of our association money needs to be signed off by two members of the elected committee.

 

So there was a level of transparency and there was a register to keep track of the movements of all of the money and where money gets spent. And all members were entitled to access that information with a few days notice.

 

And then on top of that, members who came into the organisation, who put their pound of flesh into it, had their skin in the game, you can’t just kick them out without any right of appeal or recourse.

 

So basically we wanted members to feel not only that their money was being managed correctly, but we also wanted them to feel secure in their membership. We wanted to be able to tell people, if you throw in with us, you’re not going to be chewed up and spat out like we’d seen other people in different organisations over the years getting destroyed. We were going to take care of people. And if there was ever going to be a dispute between members or between members and their leadership that they’d elected, that there’d be formalised processes to manage the dispute.

 

And basically the rights of members were something that we were very keen on.

 

[20:03]

 

So anyway, we went through this constitution which had a whole bunch of checks like that and just ensuring that the whole thing would outlive any single personality. I built the Constitution with the intention that should anything ever happen to me, or if I should myself become a corrupt kind of despot that’s not actually serving the interests of the members, you’d be able to have a peaceful transition of leadership. That by the cast of a single vote, which is legally binding at our annual meeting that I could be gone. And that the will of the members who’d put their skin into the game, and put their pound of flesh into it would be the prevailing vote and that they would have the say in how their organisation is run.

 

Because at the end of the day, I believe that the organisation is owned by the members. It’s not owned by any particular personality or by any particular intellect. It’s the members who put their skin in the game.

 

And I think it’s the members who should have the right to determine what happens to their organisation.

 

So we looked at the example, like the classic age old example of this organisation called Club Nation in Sydney. And they were there in the early mid 2000s. At one point at the height of their organisation, they were renting three houses. They had like 70 members, had 60 or $70,000 in cash. And there was a personality feud, which I won’t go into, but basically there was a drama between two blokes, and that money disappeared overnight.

 

And all of those members who’d put a few years of their time, effort, into that group suddenly were completely burned out. They’d lost their money, they’d lost all their effort. And what was it for? It was for nothing. They hadn’t really achieved any permanent improvement to their lives or to the community.

 

And a lot of people left.

 

A lot of people had never been seen again after that group.

 

And so you have this perennial issue when organisations are not managed correctly and where the rights of members mean nothing and there’s no formal arrangements to protect the investment and the effort of members.

 

You suddenly have this situation where every decade there’s a new and fancy group which gets up to some peak membership. Like in Sydney, you can get groups of 50 to 100 guys every decade and then suddenly there’s some drama and the whole thing falls apart and then you never hear from anyone again!

 

I mean, Lads Society in Sydney. That’s another recent example. After a couple of unfortunate events there, for one reason or another, we now have a huge cohort of people that were well meaning nationalists that are completely gone because their investment, their time, their effort, their energy was kind of tossed into the bin.

 

And then the way the organisation was managed, it’s:

 

“The Fuhrer’s way or it’s the highway!”

 

And a lot of people who felt invested in the thing kind of jumped ship after a couple of unfortunate events.

 

[23:18]

 

But yeah, anyway, so we were very strict on this constitutional model and we wanted to make sure the organisation endured. And we’ve been meeting since 2015, so we’ve been meeting for what, seven years now, and four of which have been under this constitutional model of government which has served us incredibly well. And in that time, the recognition of that constitutional model of government, and I suppose our cultural attributes as well, they’ve been recognised by other people across Australia. And we’ve since had the foundation of our branch in Victoria which due to their population density has already outpaced us in size and they have a lot of very good energy there, very good guys.

 

And then there’s another branch in Brisbane. They’re probably not as mature as us but they’re getting off the ground and there’s just excellent people leading the organisation there. We’ve seen steady growth and that’s what we are. We’re a “slow growth” organisation.

 

We don’t believe in kind of big tent, bring everyone in at once, because you run the risk of inviting various factions into the organisation. We believe in the kind of drip feed model where we bring people in, we bring in the best, the cream of the crop, and we make sure that they’re culturally and politically on the same page as us before we start bringing in more people. I suppose to reduce the risk of factionalism in the organisation.

 

If you bring in 100 people, you’re going to bring in 30 storm weenies, you’re going to bring in 20 libertarians, you’re going to bring in ten Nazbol. And they’re all going to kind of band together in their own little micro political factions, and it kind of ruins the harmony of the whole organisation. And that’s something we’d seen, at arm’s length, other organisations go through with this kind of mass “get everyone into a room” mindset. They kind of introduced a whole bunch of factional infighting which was probably one of the leading causes to killing a lot of organisations.

 

Joel Davis: I want to get off this topic soon, onto the topic of Australian nationalism broadly. But one question I wanted to ask you while we’re still on this subject is, it seems to me like the objective of the ANA is to function as a kind of like a community organisation, a cultural organisation.

 

Obviously there is a political focus that the organisation has, but it’s not like a political party or something like this.

 

So what’s your thoughts upon the construction of other organisations? Like you said, traditionally the original Australian Native Association, they didn’t officially endorse any particular political party but they did endorse policies in the national interest, particularly pertaining to immigration.

 

So what’s your thoughts about the Australian political landscape, the construction of a nationalist political party in I mean, there’s the Australia First party which seems to be largely inactive, which is, I guess, a nationalist political party. But of the actual parties that have representation in the Federal governments or in the state Parliaments the closest thing to a nationalist party that seems to exist is the so-called “One Nation” party.

 

But although their policies are better than the alternatives in the sense that they have like a Net Zero immigration policy and so on, they’re still kind of like a civic nationalist party, not an ethno-nationalist or racial nationalist party. They don’t support White Australia.

 

So what do you think is necessary or can you foresee over the coming decades vis a vis creating a new political party in Australia? Do you think that’s necessary? And what kind of relationship would the ANA have towards a project like that?

 

[27:18]

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, no really good question. Look my point of view on it is that the ANA could be the cornerstone of a whole lot of other kind of activities including political activities.

 

The most important thing from my point of view is actually building up that class of men that are going to be capable of kind of waging a struggle against the system. So where we’re at now in the kind of the Alt-Right sphere or whatever you want to call it, is the pedigree of men that are in it are not in my opinion up to the task of actually waging war on the system in any meaningful way. We have a lot of unemployed people, a lot of people disenfranchised from society generally, a lot of men who don’t own property, a lot of men who don’t have families, or a reason to live beyond I suppose arguing with people on the internet.

 

In my opinion the first priority we have before we can even think about kind of waging a struggle against the system and trying to retain some kind of independence over our country is to build up the class of men that we’re dealing with. Che Guevara talks about his cardre. We need to build our cardres.

 

Most of the people that are in the system now who will defend the system will never, I don’t feel convinced that they’re going to change their minds. There’s no hot take that you can spread on the internet that’s going to make a 45 year old married to a Filipino, who’s on 150k a year and his million dollar over-inflated house, decide that he’s going to become an Australian nationalist.

 

Most people on a personal and financial level are completely invested in the global system. And it may even upset them a little bit, but it’s never going to, … Any hot take you have or any inconvenience they may have, like recently this insanity, this Covid tyranny was like the test of accelerationism. It’s like if that wasn’t enough to cause a widespread bloody overthrow of government, then not a lot of things will be. Because that wasn’t even along on a racial issue. That was like you basically can’t live or eat or do anything.

 

[29:50]

 

So in my opinion the most important effort we can have is find people, like yourself and other good young men, who know there’s an issue with the system and to build their character and build their capability, build their resources and make them the leaders of the future basically. And to put them together in a meaningful way. So we do community stuff, that’s right.

 

But we also have a focus on building character and improving skills. There’s a lot of people in our organisation who are successful in business, who have done well in the various industries, who have been able to afford everyone practical advice on career building, building a meaningful career. We have rhetoric competitions where we have two people at a meeting pinned against each other to argue about a choice topic of the day, to build people’s public speaking skills and their ability to think on the spot and to argue.

 

So, yeah, we’re really about building the cadre of men that can then go on and consider a nationalist party or to consider what’s the next play in terms of advancing our ethnic interests.

 

I do think in probably the near future, by the scale of things, like 20 years from now, we will probably have the infrastructure and the cadre of men necessary to start competing in elections. In what party that takes form of, it’ll definitely need to be a new party, or potentially Australia First, depending on the trajectory that it takes.

 

Definitely not a fan of Entryism. We’ve seen countless generations of young men who are like:

 

“Oh, I’ll just join the Liberal Party and then I’m going to, from the inside, make it based and red pilled!”

 

We’ve lost a lot of people to that form of Entryism. Because they get themselves into the political party, put their blood, sweat and tears into it for three or four years, and then when they finally reached a power position in the Liberal Party or whatever it is, they suddenly realise that if they reveal their power level, they’re probably going to get kicked out! And all those years of effort were for nothing!

 

Joel Davis: By the way, for international viewers, the Liberal Party is what would be the equivalent of the Conservative Party in Britain or the Republican Party in the United States. Our kind of conventional centre Right political party.

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, that’s right. There’s a saying we hit it home all the time:

 

“You don’t take over the Liberal Party, the Liberal Party takes over you!”

 

And if you can remember that, you’ll know the direction we need to take. But I definitely don’t think it’s something we can look at in the immediate future. We need people to have influence in the community, influence in industry, people who are beyond reproof, who have demonstrated their competency in the real world, in the community and in business. People who have the ability to be successful leaders in business or in the community are then the next logical players for politics.

 

I don’t think you can go start running unemployed 4Chan arguers for the State elections. They’re just not competent personalities. Even if they had really hot political takes, they need to be actually effective at their jobs and managing all the different risks and issues which come with politics.

 

So yeah, anyway, I suppose that probably answers your question.

 

[33:43]

 

Joel Davis: No, I agree with you, because one issue that we have as radicals is that we live in a society which isn’t ready for our ideas yet because the enemy has been basically in control of the levers of propaganda, generally speaking, for generations.

 

And so we live in a society that is the product of their ideas, not our ideas. Our ideas have been marginalised and suppressed, intentionally.

 

And so before we can develop political power, we must first develop cultural power. We have to move hearts and minds to be ready for our ideas in the first place. And so conventional politics, whilst it has a place in that because there is a meta-political dimension to participating in conventional politics, I think we have to think outside the box, particularly in our situation in Australia. We have to think about how to get people to think in ethno-political terms. And that’s a challenge because we live in a society that is so dominated by multicultural ideas.

 

You mentioned like the 45 year old with the Filipino wife, not just in that sense, but in the sense of media messaging and so on.

 

It’s coming at people from all Angles, this deracinated ideology and this civic nationalist conception of the country. And so to kind of awaken ethnic self recognition and identity, like a White Australian identity, which is not dead. I mean, some people have, which I hate this take. Some people argue that Australians aren’t an ethnic group, that you’re either an Anglo Saxon, or you’re some other kind of White person, but you’re not an Australian, because Australia is this kind of colonial fabrication. I disagree. I think Australian ethno-genesis has occurred. And that fact really came close to home for me when I spent some time in Britain earlier this year.

 

And obviously all of my ancestry is British. But it didn’t feel like home and the people didn’t feel like my people in the same way that they do here, and I feel here. And that’s because even though they are obviously it’s like a cousin ethnicity, or we obviously have a shared ancestry with the British, we have a lot more proximity to them than anybody else. We’re still a different people. We’ve become unique in the same way that Americans have become unique and Canadians have become unique and so on.

 

[36:21]

 

And so that uniqueness is truly who we are the first ancestors of mine that came to Australia came as early settlers in the beginning of the 19th century. And there are towns in this country named after them. The story of Australia is the story of my ancestors as a settler people who have this country has kind of been created in our image. And that’s a unique experience and a unique historical process over centuries which no other Anglos shares with us in the same way.

 

And my identity as an Australian is something which is kind of not represented in contemporary culture in an explicit fashion. There are so many things that are implicitly coded, White Australian coded in the culture, obviously. But it isn’t formally recognised in the way people organise themselves, the way people act.

 

And so growing up in a very multicultural area in Sydney in my youth and being around lots of other ethnic groups at high school and so on, they all have a very strong sense of themselves because they’re minorities. And with the impacts of immigration, cultivating our sense of identity, which was previously was just a default setting. When you’re the super-majority, you have a kind of default identity which it’s like a fish in water. You don’t even recognise you’re in water because you’re so immersed in it.

 

But now people are losing their immersion in it, particularly in the major cities, because you have entire suburbs that are just Chinese or Indian or whatever and you become minorities.

 

And so I think in this context, there is an opportunity that we have to take to awaken the identity of our people in the new generation. You mentioned, like, career paths. For example. Like, a lot of these other ethnic groups engage in nepotism. They hire their own people, they band together in the workplace and take care of one another. They favour each other in business interactions.

 

Like, for example, the Muslim groups, they’ll have the mosque and they’ll have the community groups. And we need to do the same thing.

 

The only way in which we can compete against these other groups is by collectivizing. Only through kind of racial solidarity, which really is the essence of what the Australia National Project was from the very beginning. That’s why, from what you said about the ANA, I really like the project and I see things like this as the way forward.

 

[38:45]

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, that’s right.

 

I mean, if you’re an individualist and you have no kind of functional strategic relationship with people of your own kin, you’re going to have a very hard time advancing in this country. It’s becoming increasingly difficult, particularly, as you rightfully say, in some cities where there’s just significant numbers of kind of non-Australians.

 

It was a similar case, in fact, one of the leading causes which led to the formation of the ANA, back in 1871. Back in those days, you had to be English born to get anywhere in respect, in industry, or in politics. Native born Australians were considered kind of colonials. They were lower class, uncultured, kind of raff.

 

And the whole part of the ANA was increasing the dignity of native born Australians and creating their strategic relationships which would help them advance. A lot of the first high court members of the court and people that were in high positions of politics and local industry really came into their own through their associations with the ANA. And in that time, it was natives versus Poms. Now it’s kind of natives versus everyone, because there’s bloody everyone around!

 

So, yeah, you’re absolutely right! And the strategic value, I mean, if that’s how foreigners do it, all the different ethnic groups from overseas, they come in and build up their strategic relationships and support each other.

 

I was talking to one fellow, I believe he was from Pakistan. And he had a Pakistani builder who was building his house and the costs of construction went through the roof. Normally a contractor would try and extract the costs out of you somehow, but because this fellow is a member of his mosque and he’s bloody mates with him, he just absorbed the cost.

 

And basically this guy got a house a lot cheaper than he should have by rights. So your individual floating amongst the whims of the free market would have been pillaged in that situation and in all other situations. If you don’t have a strategic support group that’ll help you, I suppose financially, career wise, but also morally and socially. It’s very important for people to have a genuine sense of community and to have friends that they can actually really count upon and take assurance from.

 

That’s the other issue in this kind of deracinated individualist kind of Western decadence we’re in, so many people are lonely. You read these studies which are alleging our generation is the loneliest generation that’s ever lived. People in our generation consider themselves more socially isolated than it’s ever been. I mean, you can look at pointing the finger at the internet and TV and all the rest of it, which are definitely factors, but one of the key factors is that we don’t have community association anymore.

 

I mean, they used to used to go to the pub, you had your friends at the pub, you used to have your church, your friends at your church, you used to have your dancers at the woolshed, you used to have the ANA, you used to have your RSL [Returned and Services League (of Australia) ].

 

There were so many institutions which created a sense of belonging and identity and a meaningful sense of community. People were able to keep their sanity and people were able to live full lives and then have the strategic benefits of this kind of nepotism which you get from being in a community.

 

Where we are now as a nationality, is so many people have lost a genuine sense of community. The most meaningful community they get is from their fellow employees. You’re not there because you share the same politics or you share the same beliefs. You’re there because you’re both there to make money. So it doesn’t make for a very good relationship, unless you get lucky.

 

So it’s a very important thing that we’re doing.

 

[43:04]

 

And the other element to it as well, I suppose, if you let me quickly talk on it, is just trying to advocate for our members to live good and full lives despite the dire state of our national politics and the dire state of where things are going for our race and our ethnic nationality, you can still live a full and meaningful life in this time.

 

And that’s what we tell our members, that if you do the right thing, you make the Right strategic moves, you can still be an advocate for our cause, still work towards building a better future, and whilst at the same time living a full and meaningful life. And that’s something we’re big on.

 

If everyone is kind of up the wall crazy no family, no job, no reason to live, no community other than their friends on 4chan. This is when you get suicide. This is when you get burnout. I’ve seen plenty of people over the years who didn’t have a good sense of community, people from interstate who kind of just dropped off the face of the earth.

 

It’s not that they didn’t believe in anything anymore. It actually just became too difficult to believe in anything anymore because you didn’t have any friends, or a community to share your issues and concerns and all of that with so even to just maintain the fight and to maintain the cause, you need to maintain the sanity and the mental health and well being of your membership, which means having a community, and having a strategic community that takes care of each other.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, that’s really the essence, too, of nationalism. Right? The whole idea of nationalism is collective sovereignty that we have to band together as a community, as an organic community, to look after one another and to look out for each other’s common welfare in a hostile world.

 

And so it’s kind of ironic we’re in this situation where nationalists in Australia are largely disorganised. I don’t think the crisis is so much one of sentiment. Like, as if there isn’t enough sentimental proclivity to Nativist sensibilities in the Australian nation, but everyone is just so disorganised. We have a very apolitical society and a very disengaged kind of civil society, really.

 

And as a result of that, we have no political agency. Politics is taken care of by basically the university educated class of Left-wing intellectuals and journalists and big business lobby groups that are only really interested in their bottom line. And so politics is completely lacking identity in this country, more or less.

 

[45:50]

 

Step one is getting ourselves organised, as you said as well, when it comes to mental health and this kind of thing, obviously it’s great to have a community, but it’s also just like, you have agency multiplication when you’re in a community. So you mentioned things like, yeah, everyone takes care of each other, and so on, but it’s like, as an individual, you can’t really have any impact on wider society. You can only have impact on wider society as a group.

 

So step one in doing politics is building a group.

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah!

 

Joel Davis: If you’re an ethno-nationalist, you build it around our ethnic group, and we are still a super-majority. I mean, according to the last census, it’s hard to tell exactly what the numbers are because the way that they categorized it, it was like, what’s your primary ancestry? I can’t remember exactly how they framed it. And it was like there was a very large portion of people that picked English, Scottish or Irish.

 

But then there was like, 30% of people that said Australian. And you would assume that most of the people who picked the Australian box are probably people who have Anglo-Celtic ancestry.

 

Mathew Grant: 100% pure dinkum Aussies!

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but it’s hard to know exactly what the ratio is. But we’re looking at 70% to 80% of the population of the country are Anglo-Celtic Australians, real Australians.

 

So there’s no reason why we can’t run this country if we just get ourselves organised and revive our culture. I mean, it’s a great shame, for example, like our national sport, for example, which is cricket, how it has become kind of colonised by Indians. Like my little brother, he doesn’t really like cricket. I grew up playing cricket and I was like:

 

“What’s your problem with cricket?”

 

He’s like:

 

“It’s an Indian sport!”

 

It’s kind of cool that he rejects something because it’s Indian, in a sense, because it shows that he’s got the, …

 

Mathew Grant: It’s a shame it has become Indian, though.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, but he’s rejecting our national sport!

 

So it’s like, this is terrible! This is totally tragic! And so reviving the specific cultural form of Australia, I think, is also vital because I remember growing up, as I said, in a multicultural kind of environment. The White kids, we did kind of stick together in our own friend groups because we were the only ones that were into metal [music] and we were the only ones that were into certain very White things to be into. There was still kind of like a subtle continuity of our culture within us, even though we live in the 21st century with all of its trappings.

 

So it’s not as though, this nation isn’t dead. It still lives on in the hearts of our people. It’s just about activating it and reviving it as a force in society.

 

[48:38]

 

And so I think that’s really what our project should be as nationalists is like reviving a certain kind of romanticism.

 

I mean, if you look at the history of many nationalist movements in, particular if you look in the history of various ethnoist movements in Europe, … Because obviously you have in Europe you had these kind of big empires that gobbled up lots of different sub ethnicities and so on.

 

And they kind of struggled to break free of these imperial arrangements and gain their own ethno-states. And usually what happened in the decades prior to the assertion of these ethno-states was a kind of romanticist, nationalist movement where the specific cultural form of that ethnic group began to be celebrated in a more extreme way than it had happened prior with poets and music and other elements of the culture that developed strong ethnic feeling in a generation that would ultimately end up expressing itself politically.

 

So obviously, in the 21st century, it would take on a different form.

 

But I think that’s also something that’s often neglected by nationalists who just think only in terms of politics rather than in these kind of sub-political cultural spheres, which are kind of really the ground. If you’re an organicist in the sense that you see that political legitimacy comes from organic identity, then you have to kind of look to that organic foundation, not just purely think in terms of political parties and abstract kind of ideological critiques and so on.

 

Mathew Grant: In high resolution photos from 1930s Germany! [chuckling] to throw in a quip for the cultural advocacy of the ANA to follow Ozthetics [?] on Telegram. That’s something we’re a big believer in.

 

In fact, we actually ratified in one of our first budgets, I think it was in 2019, we put money aside for the Henry Higgins Art, Music, and literature Award, where we put out an open invitation for submissions on a marking criteria which was purely Australian, where people were putting in submissions for literature, music and art to try and win some cash money.

 

One of the great Nativists godfathers of Australia, JF Archibald, he was the editor of The Bulletin, which was the newspaper where Henry Lawson and Banjo Patterson got their start. JF Archibald was a staunch nativist, Nativist Republican. The Bulletin newspaper, it’s subheading was “The Bulletin –Australia for the White Man”. And the Bulletin operated for many years.

 

JF Archibald, he went on to actually start an art award of his own, to try and create an incentive for Australian art to be produced, basically creating an awards system for that. And obviously, by virtue of his newspaper, he got Australian literature started. I mean, not all Australian literature, but obviously the two big names, Lawson and Patterson, got their start on The Bulletin, getting paid pennies for the word kind of thing.

 

[52:00]

 

And so, yeah, creating a platform for organic cultural content, but making sure it’s strictly Australian is a really powerful thing. They had a huge advantage back in the day that there wasn’t Hollywood, Internet and TV piping into everyone’s living room and kind of destroying any kind of organic local culture from being developed. Obviously, you had trends coming from the UK via the newspaper or whatever, but it was a very slow moving kind of beast which allowed for enough of an organic culture to be developed here.

 

But I think one of our big objectives absolutely has to be the cultivation of an Australian sentiment, art, literature and music. And that’s actually one of the published aims of the Australian Natives Association is to find more ways to encourage the generation of Australian culture, literature, art, music, all the rest of it. To create an Australian sentiment and an Australian centric way of thinking and a perspective to do justice to ourselves as an ethnic group and to our heritage. And not just kind of living and dying on foreign cultural trends, I suppose, but to cultivate our own that are native to the soil and, I suppose, relevant and fruitful for us.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, so I wanted to bridge, maybe that’s a good bridging point to the question of the Australian ethno-genesis, like, what makes us distinct as a particular people? Because I find this question to be very interesting and also something that isn’t often discussed in mainstream nationalist circles. I mean, often when talking with American friends and British friends, other than when trolling them and taking the piss out of them, usually we emphasise what we have in common because that’s natural to do. Right?

 

I think there are very key characteristics that make us distinct. Foreigners typically pick up upon the Australian shit-poster. There’s memes about, like, “beware Australian shit-posters” and so on, because we have that larrakin spirit that is unique, I guess. We love taking the piss and so on, but there’s more to us than just that.

 

So I think particularly when thinking about Australian war history, you can see a lot of expressions of uniquely Australian character as well as in Australian political history. We have a strong kind of egalitarian bent, a certain kind of humility, which is kind of, I think, unique in comparison to the more rigid class structure of our British cousins and so on.

 

So I’m curious to get your thoughts on how exactly you would describe the ethno-genesis.

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, no, you touched on the high notes there. I suppose it’s really important to understand the context in which Australia’s cultural ethno-genesis occurred. So Australia, being settled by the United Kingdom is probably the furthest possible distance you could go from the United Kingdom.

 

So during our early days of settlement, from the 1780s onwards, there was always a vast, I suppose, cultural disconnect from the United Kingdom.

 

And also, more importantly for the development of our culture, actual isolation, physical isolation. There was always a shortage of men, like manpower, there was a shortage of men. Then there was always the need to rely upon each other.

 

[55:42]

 

So in the United Kingdom and in the United States, you had your volunteer kind of Fire Services and all of that, that would deal with the fire. You didn’t have that in Australia. Just outside of Sydney town if you were out on the frontier, you had to rely on your neighbour. Doesn’t matter what part of the UK your neighbour came from, doesn’t matter what class he belonged to, doesn’t matter how much money he makes, doesn’t matter what kind of clothes he wears. All the kind of ordinary forms of the class system imported from Europe began to erode away quite thoroughly in the Australian frontier where Australia’s culture was really being developed.

 

In times of fire and drought and flood, know, snakes and all the rest of the natural challenges that come with living in this country and trying to subdue this country, everyone had to rely on each other.

 

There’s a great bit of literature by Henry Lawson called “Shall We Gather at the River?” Which tells the story of this small church in this little country town where all these families had come together and they had a really hard year. They’d had a lot of disputes amongst themselves and they’d had a lot of dramas but they all kind of reconciled their issues with each other because they remembered in times of hardship that they were all there for each other because they had to be out of necessity.

 

There was no institutions which saw to the benefit of everyone. It was kind of the stark isolation from civilisation, as it were. This kind of frontier existence generated a whole new culture where class didn’t matter. William Spence described the concept of mateship, described the relationship that extended between one Whiteman and the other. That’s what William Spence kind of discusses in his book Australia’s Awakening. And it’s very true, I think, over the hundred or so years of very stark kind of frontier hard conditions in Australia people had to learn to take care of each other regardless of class. You take care of people for free too. By virtue of charity, you would actually help your neighbour without any kind of profit motive behind it.

 

So I think you had that the seeds of our culture really kicked off in that point of view. This egalitarian bent. We had everyone looking after everyone.

 

And because of the shortage of labour because there was more work to be done than there was hands to do it in these large sheep estates, gold fields, coal mines and all of the young industries of Australia, every man was worth something. Every man had a value higher than what it was in Europe. In Europe, there was a big queue of 100 starving peasants that would line up to take your job if you had dignity. In Australia, you could have dignity and there wouldn’t be anyone lining up for your job because everyone was employed.

 

[59:10]

 

So you had, in the foundations of Australia’s culture the building of this kind of, … You know, maybe the larrakin spirit is probably one of the symptoms of what is probably more of a cultural, I suppose, pillar of Australian culture that is, every man and his dignity. Men in Australia traditionally had dignity. They had self respect. They followed their own mind. They were hard headed. They did what they believed and they didn’t care what anyone thought. I think they had no regard for what rich people, what their employer thought, because they were needed! They couldn’t get sacked. It wasn’t the masses following the leaders. It was kind of this staunch kind of masculine, self driven identity.

 

And so an element of that, I suppose, is our humour. We’ll have a crack at anything or anyone because we just don’t care. If it’s funny, we will say it [chuckling]. The sensibility, as Banjo Patterson writes in Old Australian Ways, that English folk carry this long yoke over their shoulders of staid conservatory. They’re so obsessed with status in society, they’re so afraid of, I suppose, scandal or the risk of scandal, that they just have no character or just no personality.

 

Obviously you said you’ve travelled to Europe. We wouldn’t be incorrect in saying that Europeans just have no, they’re a different animal to an Australian! I won’t say they have no personality because you have foreign listeners [chuckling]! But I [chuckling] think the outspoken kind of masculine, no damns given Australian personality was just something cultivated on the frontier by virtue of the fact that there was a shortage of labour. Every man was valued and every man could kind of get away with a lot more than he could anywhere else.

 

And then on the second part of it, every man was taking care of every other man out of the goodness of his own heart because everyone relied upon each other for survival. If you didn’t do that, we would have failed in colonizing the frontier and we would have all been packing it in on Sydney shore!

 

So these are probably the two biggest elements in the foundation of separating Australia’s culture from the British culture, is we shut it off, this fear of conformity, I suppose. Australians, this vagabonding love of change and this love for exploration and challenge and hardship. And we also treat each other as equals. If one Whiteman to the other, we have ethnic solidarity. We don’t care for the class system, we don’t care if you were born of good stock of good money. We care if you’re a man with dignity. If you’re a man with dignity, self respect, who treats another man as well as he’d like to be treated, then, yeah, you’re a respected Australian.

 

So yeah, I don’t know, that’s probably an interesting element to consider in the ethno-genesis those kind of two key points, I would say.

 

[1:02:35]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, I definitely agree with that. In some ways, I feel like we have more in common with the Americans than with the British, in a sense, because I guess the Americans are also a frontier people and so particular kinds of Americans often I feel as though it’s a bit easier to understand one another because they also have a bit more of an egalitarian classless culture and a bit more of a kind of a jovial spirit, if you will. Which I think kind of comes from settling harsh new environments and being outside of the old European order, puts kind of different social and cultural pressures.

 

But yeah, I also wanted to ask you what you think about the Americanisation of Australian culture as well, because this is, I think, probably a difficult thing for us to kind of confront. I mean, it impacts me as well. When you engage in the Anglophone internet world you get internalised into America in many ways because the American population is like twelve times what the Australian population is, at least.

 

And so you’re kind of immersed in this America centric discourse. It happens a lot with politics as well. American politics is a lot more interesting than Australian politics, frankly, in recent years. The whole Trump thing and now you have Kanye West doing his thing. It’s all very interesting in comparison to you know, bickering in Australian politics over who has the best health care policy or something. It’s really not that interesting.

 

I mean the immigration issue in Australia is the only thing that really interests me politically in a kind of serious way.

 

But basically the way that that was dealt with was previous election both major parties claimed they were going to reduce immigration because during Covid we basically didn’t have immigration for the best part of two years because the borders were shut. And everyone realised how great it was. It was like the one good thing about the whole Covid epoch was, …

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, wages, …

 

Joel Davis: Massive influx of people. And yeah, wages were going up, and it turns out we don’t really need these people to be coming in.

 

And so they both promised that they would continue this, and as soon as the election is over, they threw that back in our face. And now we are projected to have the biggest influx of immigrants in Australian history, which is a total joke!

 

But really outside of this issue I find it very hard to I probably should care more but I find it very hard to find it all very interesting. And it feels as though we are kind of culturally downstream from developments. Also that we’re kind of part of an empire. And that we don’t really similarly to the situation with us respect to the Japanese and the Second World War.

 

It was like, we don’t really have an option but to act in the kind of superstructure of the empire and it’s kind of global interest, sort of to kind of defend our security within our region because as an outpost of the White race in Asia, even though America is basically ZOG [Zionist Occupied Government] America and is the foundation of globo-homo and is the evil empire and the Great Satan and all of these things, it really doesn’t make any sense for Australia not to be in an alliance with the Americans because we’re in China’s backyard, in a sense.

 

[1:06:27]

 

And so we’re kind of stuck in the Anglo sphere, for better or worse. And there’s some good elements to it, some bad elements to it.

 

And I think this is figuring out that relationship, to me, seems to be one of the great challenges for Australian nationalism. Like our relation to and for Australianism, which both of us, I think, would probably describe our worldview as Australianists. We have kind of a certain amount of racial solidarity to an extent with the core stock, like the native core stock of the American people and a lot of things that we can kind of share with them. Like we’re the only other country that has country music and rodeos and stuff like that going on.

 

So we have a lot that we share with the Americans, but at the same time there is a certain precariousness for the kind of assertion of Australian identity within the hostility of seppo [?] dominance over the kind of cultural mainstream.

 

So I’m curious to get your thoughts on that.

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, fair enough. Well, it all really kicked off with the fall of Singapore in World War II, when the Poms absolutely stitched us up and surrendered Singapore without a fight because they thought urban combat was, you know, “not gentlemen like”.

 

And so the Japs force marched, Australian and Commonwealth forces basically to their deaths in camps in Southeast Asia. And ever since that bloody Pommy stitch-up in Singapore, Australia turned to the United States.

 

And you’re dead right. We share a lot of similarities with the United States on account of the fact that they as well are a frontier culture. They as well, in the mid 19th century had an influx of Chinese to their Californian gold and silver fields. They had the Negro racial issue brought about by slavery. They also saw racial issues in the same way we did.

 

So we have very similar political cross pollination. Charles Pearson wrote in 1893, National Life and Character, which was a book basically projecting the future of the Pacific and Australia’s place in it, and made a lot of very strong racial tones, which were repeated by Edmund Barton when they formed the Immigration Restriction Act in the first Australian Parliament.

 

That book was given to Teddy Roosevelt in the United States and he liked the book so much he actually bought a copy for every member of Congress to the United States. And it’s alleged that the United States there, he was there, 1913 thereabouts, immigration legislation was based upon everyone’s review of this book, written by the Australian, Charles Pearson. There was a lot of cross pollination with the United States, I mean, even before the fall of Singapore. That’s one example of it.

 

[1:09:35]

 

I think the biggest difference with the United States and us, I suppose, falls along the cultural and then the economic lines that are downstream from the cultural ones. I think Americans are far more individualistic than Australians are. Americans appear to be, from an Australian point of view, far more obsessed with kind of individual wealth, success, fame, all the rest of it. Where Australians don’t seem to be as obsessed with that. We don’t seem to follow musicians, or actors, or politicians, with cult like status, like the Americans do. We just don’t care. We might like someone’s music, but we don’t buy every magazine that their face appears on. Probably the closest thing you get to that is the Royal family mania here.

 

But I think this kind of down to the core of individualism, I think, has just got taken to the next level in the United States, which has the downstream economic impact of that, which is they didn’t have the same kind of trade union movement Australia did. Didn’t have the same kind of ethnic industrial solidarity that we did.

 

So there’s those elements to it. This kind of individualist culture. And the Americanisation of Australian culture really, I think one of the big elements of it has been the importation of this kind of individualism at the first point. And then immediately following the importation of individualism came all of the kind of Hollywood degenerate propaganda basically. The anti-family, anti-life, kind of just pro-self indulgent decadence that just gets shipped out of the United States.

 

It’s really interesting. In the 1970s, late 1970s in Sydney, there was a Maoist group of Australians that just loved Chairman Mao and they loved Chinese Marxism. And they really hated American imperialism, right? So they were importing this Chinese Maoist literature.

 

And as part of that decided that they properly hated America. They hated America so much they actually tried to find Australian inspiration for why they should hate America and American cultural and political imperialism.

 

In the 1970s, the British foreign investment in Australia was pretty thoroughly tapering off when American companies were buying up Australian farms and mines, lock, stock and barrel. And that continues to this day. We worry about foreign Chinese investment, and rightfully. So but the United States owns approximately three times more than what Chinese companies and Chinese individuals do in Australia. They very genuinely are the economic tentacles in this country.

 

But back to the Maoists, the Maoists that are in opposition to all of this, they accidentally nativised themselves and they started reading some kind of anti-American literature from, like, Henry Lawson and they accidentally went down the rabbit hole of nativism. And this cell of Maoists in Sydney in the 70s ended up becoming some of the better part of the National Action Group, which was in the 1980s in Sydney. They were a nationalist kind of edgy, Wignat group. It’s interesting, there’s been many attempts politically contemporary to actually deflect this kind of American cultural hegemony, but it’s almost impossible to break, because they pump it into our living rooms.

 

[1:13:46]

 

I mean, there was an attempt at an Australian film industry in the 1930s led by this absolute cracker-jack producer and director, Charles Chavel, who made a great number of movies like The Sons of Matthew and Eureka Stockade and Heritage. His movies are actually, they started off okay and then they actually ended up becoming commercial failures. Because what had happened was a lot of the Australian cinemas signed a contract with a Hollywood (((in brackets))) company which actually excluded screening any movies that they didn’t publish. So for a large section of the post war Australian cinema, only American movies were being shown, or movies that were published by American studios.

 

So a lot of local film actually wasn’t even able to be sold and played on local cinema screens. So our native film industry was killed in one fell swoop by the Americans. Similar things occurred with music. I know less detail on it, but I had heard there was a lot of issues with American publishers.

 

Basically, by making a contract arrangement like:

 

“You’ll be able to get our music, but you’re not allowed to broadcast Australian music.”

 

So you get that going on from the Americans.

 

And then on the other side you got Bob Menzies making sure all the bloody ABC journalists have thick British accents to maintain Australia’s accent. That was his prerogative. So from all sides, this kind of native Australian culture has been getting suppressed by the Yanks since the fall of World War II. And shaking it off is a very, very hard task!

 

And as you rightfully say on the Anglophone internet, I’ve been there. I was a young man. I once lived and breathed the great words of Ron Paul, peace and blessings be upon him! I rated American politics for many years when I was a younger fellow, because we are in the American empire. There’s no question about it. Culturally, we are subservient to the seppos [? Jews]. They have successfully stifled all native Australian kind of music, art, literature, movies. They’ve commercially destroyed any kind of native stuff and they have that advantage because they speak the same language as us. In other kind of Southeast Asian countries. Koreans have to have their own music, literature, movies, because they can’t actually just bang import American stuff. It’s a different language.

 

So we’ve been disadvantaged to the fact that we speak English because we’re always going to be victimized by Big Brother who speaks English as well, but he’s got more commercial power to propagate his own culture.

 

[1:16:52]

 

Joel Davis: There’s a lot of Australians in Hollywood too, directors, actors and they kind of just suck all the best talent in as well because obviously if you have talent in the field it’s very easy if you’re an Australian to just join the Hollywood scene. So why wouldn’t you?

 

So anyone who is professionally ambitious and successful just ends up becoming Americanised. I think it’s something that we just have to learn to live with that we are just going to share this kind of Anglo-spherical cultural space to a certain extent. And I don’t really perceive a lot of hostility from the Americans toward us. It doesn’t seem as though they in many cases it seems as though they actually quite appreciate our cultural productions themselves. And there’s a market in American market for uniquely Australian stuff.

 

So it’s a delicate balancing act, I guess, that’s required. I mean, ideally we can one day terraform the outback and engage in a kind of mass population of the Australian continent with kind of White Australian stock and turn this country into a superpower that can have more relative power to the United States as a cultural force. But until that day comes there’s just going to be a certain amount of Americanisation that is inescapable.

 

The question is whether that’s mean I don’t know if it’s as you said, the individualism of American culture I think is a negative thing.

 

But I think that’s kind of part of the American struggle. I guess, with judeo-American forces as well, particularly the cultural degeneracy and so on, there is a kind of necessity for solidarity to emerge in the American people to confront their challenges, which in many respects are very similar to our own.

 

I think a very productive relationship can exist between Australian and American nationalists who would probably see eye to eye on almost everything anyway. Both countries are Christian, but there’s a strong Protestant contingent, a strong Catholic contingent, and so there’s the challenges that surround a Christian identity without being sectarian about it that both countries have, as you said, the assertion of White Identity, particularly within the kind of paradigm of modern ethno-genesis. Though Australia has a little bit more homogeneity because we’re more British and Irish and less everything else, as opposed to them.

 

As you said, there’s a lot that we have in common with them, which is not necessarily a bad thing to celebrate. And we do have a history of fighting shoulder to shoulder in many wars and so on, and our alliance isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, so I’m sure that’ll continue.

 

So it’s possible to have brother nations, if you will. And I guess that’s the relationship we have with the New Zealand, the relationship we’ll have with the Americans and with the United Kingdom and to a lesser extent with the Canadians, and I guess maybe even the Irish, you could say, for the foreseeable.

 

[1:20:21]

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, that’s right. I mean, you wouldn’t mind as much if the Yanks were shipping out good Western movies and good music and bloody good religiosity. It wouldn’t be a problem being in their empire. The problem being in their empire is the judeo element of their empire pumping out absolute poison!

 

But yeah, anyway, it is what it is. We just need to have indie films, ANA indie films and ANA music.

 

Joel Davis: We definitely need to have more Australian rock music, I feel. I think rock and metal music will continue to kind of live on and develop, I think, as a more explicitly White coded subculture in incoming decades across the Western world. Because with that kind of lack for uniquely White expression and with the commercial decline of those genres of music, I wouldn’t be surprised to see their revival. Whenever I go to see an alt rock band, or a metal band, the crowd is pretty much everyone is White.

 

Whereas if you were going to go see like a pop or hip hop or something like that show, the complete opposite would be the case.

 

So I think uniquely Australian music scenes, particularly like pub rock revival, that kind of thing, I think would be something brilliant to hopefully see over the coming decade in Australia. To have something that the next generation of kids can get into, like Australian Zoomers can get into and embrace as a cultural expression of their ethnic identity. Because the kids need to have something to latch onto culturally. And there are Australian films that do get produced, but they’re few and far between, and usually they are Australian-American collabourations rather than like purely Australian productions.

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, that’s right. I’m still waiting for a Nativist bowls club. That would be the peak of Aussian cultural output! [chuckling]

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, [chuckling] well, one last thing that we could touch on before we bring this to a close is a bit of a discussion of Australian nationalism.

 

It’s hard to get your hands on a lot of texts from Australian nationalist leaders and figures 100 years ago that’s one project of mine over in the coming years is to try and accumulate and dig up some of these out of print texts and intellectually contribute to the revival and maintenance of the Australian nationalist intellectual tradition.

 

But one common thread that I see in a lot of particularly, I don’t know if you want to use the word “socialist”, because socialist means a lot of different things to different people, but there is a kind of like racial socialist tradition in Australian nationalist history. And a conception of nationalism which is distinct from German National Socialism or from British imperialism with its lack of a better term White supremacist worldview which is a kind of universalistic pan-nationalism. These kinds of ideas were also popular. I bring up the Americans again in American nationalism in the early 20th century.

 

[1:23:45]

 

But the Australian national tradition seemed to have this idea, Australia being a rather minor country, which didn’t really have designs upon imperial expansion beyond perhaps securing Papua New Guinea or something. Not just like White pan-nationalism, although a certain kind of pan-Whiteism or pan-Europeanism was there, but a kind of universal pan-nationalism, a vision of the world in which ethno-nationalist principles were seen as kind of integral to the management of global affairs.

 

And Australian representatives in the Treaty of Versailles and in the kind of post war negotiations to set up the UN and so on, consistently defended these principles, which were the principles under which they defended also White Australia. And this vision of nationalism was also even though you could position it as of the Left, because the Right, like Conservatives at the time, were British Imperialists, who, you mentioned someone like Sir Robert Menzies, who viewed solidarity with the British Empire and even, like an imperial federation, as a potential model that Australia could be integrated in, rather than standing alone as a distinct nation state with its own destiny. The Australian Left, which were Republican in a sense, but they had this racial socialist notion of Australia on the basis of the kind of unity of the Australian working class, to define our own destiny in kind of hostility to the international capitalist world order and the British imperial structure and so on.

 

And so this post imperial, socialist, Republican, racial nationalism, which is something that is an idea that’s a lot more popular in contemporary nationalist circles, an idea which was kind of pioneered in many ways by the Australian nationalist tradition.

 

So I think that idea that flows through the Australian nationalist tradition is something which is more relevant now than ever to basically morally narrating a defense of our people in the face of this globalist multicultural order.

 

In many ways, White Australia wasn’t just destroyed from within, but through international pressure. The assertion of White Australia is in many ways going to necessarily be a rejection of the liberal globalist paradigm. And there’s an economic dimension which would require things like protectionism and more autarchy and these kinds of elements on the basis of building up national power to assert our own destiny.

 

So to get your kind of thoughts on the Australian national tradition and what it means in the 21st century as well.

 

[1:26:16]

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, well, there’s a great quote which sums up a huge section of what you just said. So Alfred Deacon, he was the second Prime Minister of Australia, the Federated Australia, and he was also a massive figure in the ANA in Victoria. He said in his election speech, in his run for the job back in the day, he said that:

 

“A White Australia does not by any means mean only the preservation of the complexion of the people of this country. It means the maintenance of conditions of life that are fit for White men and White women. It means protection against the underpaid labour of other lands. It means social justice so far as we can establish it, including just trading and the payment of fair wages.”

 

So what you have in Deacon’s little quote there is an awesome synopsis summary of what Australian nationalism is.

 

It’s a fusion between the idea of having a racially homogeneous, culturally homogeneous nationality for the sake of national community, identity, belonging, all those things we discussed.

 

But it also fuses that desire with the desire for an industrial society which has social justice. So fair wages, fair days work! Australia pioneered the eight hour working day, 8 hours work, 8 hours rest, 8 hours recreation. Australian political nationalism was absolutely pioneered by socialists. It was the Australian Labour Party that was the first political party to advocate for a White Australia. It had White Australia as its first plank in its political platform.

 

The Australian Workers Union, which became the largest union in Australia, representing workers from all sorts of industries. Their first plank on their platform was the maintenance and preservation of a White Australia. White Australia was on the platform of the Australian Labour Party and the Australian Workers Union until 1972.

 

So they were socialists. They were ethnic socialists, I suppose. And the form of socialism was a little bit different too. We’re not talking about Marxism, not talking about Bolshevism in Australia we describe it as producerism. This concept that Andrew Fisher, who was the first Labour Prime Minister of Australia, he articulated the issue very well, in that people who work shall be rewarded. People who do not work shall not be rewarded. People who speculate on assets, shares, of course their property won’t be seized, but the economics are not going to be geared towards benefacting shareholders. It will go towards benefacting workers and people who work, which may include managers and may include CEOs, because they have to do work in order to get their bread at the end of the day.

 

[1:29:27]

 

So it was a tradition in Australia that everyone would be taken care of we have this concept of a White working man’s paradise! William Lane and the founders of the Labour movement in Australia, like William Spence and all the rest of them, they were convinced in this grand national ideal where you had in the Harvester case, where Justice Higgins determined that:

 

“Every worker in Australia should be entitled to a wage that was sufficient to support a wife and three children in frugal comfort.”

 

They had the view of a racial national community in which every man had their dignity, every man had a vote, where every man had fair wages, fair conditions, where he could work 8 hours and have 8 hours recreation and then 8 hours of sleep. It was the optimum form of high civilisation that people were seeking after in Australia.

 

Our racial nationalism is not just built on the merit of this idea of racial supremacy, or anything like that. It was all among the founders of the Labour Party that said:

 

“We have no imperial ambitions and we have respect for people. All of our Southeast Asian neighbours have absolute respect and regard for their dignity and their rights as nationalities. We just believe in doing best for our own people following a policy which sees to the advancement of the welfare and the dignity of every single Australian worker.”

 

That’s like the highest objective of the Australian nationalist cause. And it’s an amazing heritage when you start to crack into the literature and figure out what exactly the founders of our country advocated for. It’s a beautiful picture! It’s the picture of the highest form of civilisation, in my opinion, that every man can assert his will, can say what he wants, can earn an honest wage, can have a family in “frugal comfort”, have a home of his own.

 

The Australian dream of having every worker being entitled to a three bedroom home on a quarter acre block with enough room for your veggies, your chooks, and your Hills Hoist washing line! These are all these foundational elements that our forebears fought for, for our heritage, and that’s been pulled out from underneath us and sold overseas and squeezed into the hands of people who already had money.

 

Joel Davis: It’s very powerful for me learning about the legacy of the Australian nationalist intellectual tradition because without having strong knowledge of it, I independently came to basically the same conclusions after years of developing my own personal political ideas. Which was very edifying because to kind of wrestle with political ideas for years come to conclusions and then to look back into the basically forgotten history of your own country’s nationalist intellectual tradition and find the exact same things there demonstrates a certain kind of Australianness to the way that I think about politics.

 

This Australianism of fusing, … It’s the socialism, as you said, that’s different than Marxism. Marxism emphasises the class struggle. It emphasises basically the solidarity of the working class internationally.

 

And this idea is not the same thing as Australian socialism.

 

And also the idea that all market relations are forms of exploitation.

 

[1:33:22]

 

But nevertheless, it does criticise the investor class, the speculator class, correctly. A more apt economic framing that I think fits with the so-called producerism of the socialist nationalist tradition in Australia would be the American economist Thorstein Verblen, who I’ve done some videos breaking down his his stuff before on my channel.

 

His criticism of capitalism, the The Theory of the Leisure Class, came out in 1899, I think, fits a lot better with the kind of Labour Party, early Labour Party kind of approach to economics. But the emphasis of the nation as the essential kind of political unit rather than an economic class, this puts the Australian national tradition firmly in the so-called Third Position, I believe.

 

You wouldn’t describe it as fascist, however, because the approach to the state, whilst you couldn’t really describe it as liberal either. The approach to the state is not particularly authoritarian and definitely not totalitarian. It emphasises democracy and kind of representation, but without individual rights being too overemphasised. We inherit the British common law tradition.

 

And so the rights of the individual and so on are preserved to a great extent, but they aren’t kind of emphasised as the essential political unit.

 

Instead, the Australian tradition emphasised the nation and the family and the general welfare.

 

So this actually reminds me a lot more of Catholic social and political thought, even though the Australian tradition was not sectarian. So you had Protestants and Catholics involved.

 

It reminds me of Catholic social and political teaching from the late 19th century and early 20th century, interestingly enough, without the obviously full on integralism because it’s got a certain secular approach to preserve racial unity between Protestants and Catholics.

 

But yeah, the ideas there, I think, to me are very much the ideas that I’ve been defending to a very large extent in contemporary discussions in the nationalist intellectual world online.

 

I think maybe the main distinction I would have with some of their ideas is that I’m more authoritarian than they are, but only really due to the pragmatic situation of the 21st century. I think in order to kind of defeat our enemies today, a more authoritarian approach to state power is required to kind of use the state to batter our enemies and reset the social order.

 

But the ideal probably would be once you reverse social engineer society back into the state that we were in 100 years ago, when basically you had traditional sexual morality, you had a religious, ethnically homogeneous population. You wouldn’t really need to have as authoritarian of a state because the culture would produce a civil society of sufficient virtue to be more autonomously, self regulating.

 

Mathew Grant: Yeah, that’s right. I mean, our common law kind of democracy is only as good as the people in it. And at the current state of affairs, your average punter isn’t a very good bloody model citizen, which is very unfortunate!

 

But, yeah, in their day and age, their politic was good.

 

And I think a lot of justice is done to our common law heritage. I think a lot of our law and our systems of property and rights were all inherited from Rome. When the Romans settled Britain, they brought with them their law. And their law remained there even after the withdrawal of the Romans. And to this day, a lot of our common law is based on judgements from Justinian’s digest of court rulings that were made in the Roman Empire and the Roman Republic. Our heritage goes back a very long way.

 

But it’s only as good as the people that are in it, unfortunately.

 

[1:37:29]

 

But, yeah, it’s a great heritage and it is instinctually in a lot of Australians, a lot of people who come into these kind of circles. We’re instinctively thinking this way before even stumbling upon the Australian literature. And when you find the Australian literature, suddenly everything just makes sense. Everything you were already thinking had been put out before you, and even in a more refined format. And I suppose a more glorious format.

 

I suppose before we wrap up, I’d like to make a reference to a statement that Henry Scullen made in 1922. He was another Prime Minister, right when the economic hard times were kicking off. He said that:

 

“Australians should be more appreciative of the beauties of their own land, for it truly was a land of the dawn awakening to a grand, glorious future. Some people, of course, scoff at sentiment. And hard headed practical men who declare that Australia cannot live by sentiment exist. But sentiment is the basis of every practical idea we have!”

 

That’s that other character factor of Australians. We’re absolute idealists! People who are politically motivated in Australia have sentimentality and idealism. We’re very practical, but we set high lofty goals for the cause of our civilisation and our ethnicity.

 

And I think the stock of nationalists that I’ve met in my years, people who were Australians and committed to this Australian trajectory, were thinkers like that. People who aim high and set a high ideal for where our nation should be.

 

So we have something to look forward to, even if things aren’t necessarily achievable in our own lives, if we’re working towards the great goal, it’s all we can reasonably do.

 

Joel Davis: Yeah, well, thanks for recording this with me. I hope that you all enjoyed it. Thanks, Matt.

 

And if you are Australian and you don’t talk to me on social media, you should probably get in contact with me so that we can build the Australian scene online and integrate more. I really want to bring back Australian Twitter. We used to have Dingo Twitter which was a strong contingent of Australian nationalists who would run amok on Twitter and that kind of died out a few years ago.

 

With Elon Musk taking over the website we now have an opportunity to reconstitute ourselves and troll Left-wing journalists and so on.

 

Red pill conservatives and this kind of thing.

 

So we need to take that opportunity. And so get in touch with me, get plugged into the nationalist scene if you aren’t organised, don’t have nationalist friends, move in nationalist circles, reach out. Particularly if you are in places that have an ANA local, get in touch with them.

 

And by the way Matt, how could people, if they are interested in joining or associating with the ANA, what’s the best way to go about doing that?

 

Mathew Grant: Just go to Ausnatives.org, or Google “Australian Natives Association”. Our website’s pretty much up the top there. There’s just a join page there. Just send your inquiry. Where are you? Why are you interested? And we will get back to you. Please reach out!

 

We’ve been around for many years and the stock of the people in our membership are really honest, good, straight thinking fellows. If you’re not in the ANA you could be, you’re absolutely missing out!

 

[1:41:18]

 

 

END

top

 

 

 

============================================

 

Youtube Comments

top

(Comments as of 7/23/2023 = 90)

@hre2044
2 months ago
is there any group in canada like this?

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Give me a home among the gum trees….

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
White man outpost makes us cling to eachother and rely on eachother. Bravery and courage. Mateship.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Bring back the working man’s wage – aligned with the dignity of man and Catholic Social Teaching.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Catholic social teaching and the value of labour as true wealth. My friend from England knew about our trade unions long before she got here.
1

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Yeah despite the fact that Catholic are the majority there continues to be sectarianism in Australia where the Catholics are seen as more loyal to the Pope than to the Queen – and just generalised distrust of any sort of tall poppy high church and anti Irish feeling imported from England.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Weddings Parties Antyhing.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
You read The Grapes of Wrath and you can see the inviduatlism in the American fronteir culture and the lack of mateship.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Our convict ancestors were the sub class of British society – rejected and exported as white slaves and perhaps to their surprise built this great nation.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Our music does have strong links to Irish music.
1

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
The English working class, especially from the north of England and Ireland get along much better witht he egalatarianism of Australia – and do have strong personalities, compared to Brits from the home counties and the south of England. There is less staid conformity there.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
The tyranny of distance.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Britian does still have a lot of power via its exported culture via the media – and so it is a surprise to some Brits that others love that cuture and want to be a part of it or even live there, but also the sad part is that our stories are pushed aside.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Reviving a certain type of romanticism. I remember at uni talking about native Australian culture, music and poetry.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
A subtle continuity of our culture is still there.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
People have become reliant on social media for social interaction so if you drop off social media, for them you cease to exist – and they almost seem to take your removal from socail media personally.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Yes very lonely – no community belonging now, espeically with the lack of faith.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Yes it seems to be native borns against everyone else now. My friend had her house bought by rellies across the world as her ethnic group stuck together.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago (edited)
Yes the majority Australian culture is now under threat and so the fish bowl is becoming more obvious. Yes my art teacher arrived in the early 50s from London, had an interview with a minister and walked into a good job.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Yes there is nepotism that exists amongst other ethnic groups.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Our nation formed in the image of white settlers. Yes very well put.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Non white people know the Australian ethnic group exists as they discuss it all the time.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Yeah the propaganda is generations old. It is so difficult to talk to my mum who watches the news and believes it.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Yes the liberal party does take you over.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Rhetoric is a very good idea – Ignatius Loyola when he decieded to be a spiritual warrior for Christ, not only learned latin with youths half his age but also took classes in reason and rhetoric.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Now you can’t even get a volunteer job with a community organisation without having three vaccinations.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Yes most people are personally invested in the global financial system.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
There is a lot of bias against whtie men finding work – as there is a racial and sex bias to work – espeically untrained work. There is also no support for native born people for housing and work.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Would be helpful to reignite our identity through the reintroduction of an Australian pound – as the dollar currency was not based in our heritage.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
We were such a large country with a small native Australian population and so it was so important to protect this nation from foreign immigration – otherwise it would have been much more difficult to have autonomy and settle the land under the rule of law. The white Australia policy was so importaint to protedt this. The English settled Australia and built the infrastructure and western civilisation here – and today there is an existing native Australian population.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Benefits and Catholic Social Teaching.

@PeterShieldsukcatstripey
3 months ago
Yes my partner”s parents were English and I did notice how they are very focussed on social standing and very scared of standing out in any way.

@ItchiusScrotus
4 months ago
Just discovered you through an old debate you did with Keith Woods on the same team
Never seen your channel and i was missing out

@CanadianGuerrilla
4 months ago (edited)
This might seem like an odd question, but there appears (to this outsider) to be a peculiar Australian tendency to market political and cultural output as proprietary: “Katter’s Australian Party”, “Nick Xenophon Team”, “Pauline Hanson’s One Nation”, etc. Even the recent film about Elvis was referred to as “Baz Luhrman’s Elvis” in Warner Bros advertisements. What’s the reason behind this (or am I identifying a phenomenon where there isn’t any)?

@killercd7682
5 months ago (edited)
Some of the comments about Europeans and Brits are absolutely ridiculous. Put 10 Englishmen in a bar and you’ll have the most entertaining banter and conversation you’ve ever heard. Some of these attempts to carve out a separate Australian identity are a bit absurd. White Australians are inheritors of a European civilisation that goes back at least to Roman times. It’s trying to see ourselves as apart from that that leads to the charge that we have no culture. It’s when you try to cut us off from our roots.

@Columbia1867
6 months ago
Interesting discussion.
As a Canadian, I was pretty surprised to hear the notion that Australians see America as more of a ‘brother nation’ than Canada. I always just assumed the opposite was the case.
You mentioned, for example, the historical frontier character shared between Australia and America, which is something that Canada happens to share as well. In addition, Canada and Australia both had more of an economic reliance on raw resources compared to America, and the dynamic of class not playing as much of a role in Australia is also the case in Canada. That’s all without mentioning the obvious about the Crown/Commonwealth vs American republic.

1 reply

@peroercegovac1973
12 hours ago
From someone who lived in both countries as an outsider I reckon the difference is that Canadians are very, very, very British, more so than the British, whilst Aussies are a real Brit working class and Irish mix. Not quite as polite, more down to earth and they do not mind their ps and qs if you get my drift.

@mudvayne490
6 months ago
This really hits home, much appreciated

@AZNationalist
6 months ago
You will never convince me that Australias national sport isn’t wrestling Crocs

@WIKIHOUSE_HISTORY
6 months ago (edited)
Brilliant discussion guys, hearing this conversation has filled me with such confidence for the future.
Iv bookmarked ANA’s website and will be looking into it further.
I have such history that ties my family to this land as my family has spilt blood building some of the most important and oldest railroads in Australia, as well as fighting in all of our countries wars.
My grandfather is 1/4 aboriginal and on my grandmothers side she has told me that I am related to bush ranger Ben Hall (I’m yet to prove this for myself however). Thank you for this, greetings from Queensland and God Bless.

@danjohnson4682
6 months ago
Dick Smith: “Australia’s billionaires are lobbying the government to increase immigration.”
Australia’s billionaires:
Harry Triguboff
Anthony Pratt
Frank Lowy – running the Lowy Institute
John Gandel
Lindsay Fox
Michael Hintze
Raphael Geminder & Fiona Geminder
Maurice Alter
Solomon Lew
All are Juice.
They already attempted for 100 million migrants into Australia, didn’t succeed – haven’t given up, will try again.
Reason Melbourne is voted the most “livable” city in the world every year – Juice run it, the whole multicultural, melting pot etc they benefit $$$ from it, meanwhile they live segregated in Toorak and surrounding suburbs.
Same with Sydney, they live segregated in Mosman, Bondi and coastal suburbs – meanwhile rest of the city is third world alike.
Nothing Australian about Melbourne and Sydney anymore.
Brisbane is next.

@Leigh666XF
6 months ago
Finally getting a chance to listen to this.
20 minutes in, Matt says the association can change leadership (hence direction) by popular vote of paying members. This is ripe for subversion, no?
It’s great that he’s so conscious of keeping the group together long term though.
1

@gottadomor7438
6 months ago
Just listened your Christmas conversation w/ WRR. Two good & strong men & minds.
Our cause is good and always reinforced by voices like both of yours. To better days … They ARE coming.

1 reply

@michaelfreshwater885
6 months ago
Looks like Nathaniel has been booted.

@jkotarsky
6 months ago
I just saw you on WhiteRabbitRadio on Odysee. Great Job.

@alexdavis1541
7 months ago
Great stream. As someone with strong personal links to both NZ and the UK, who also has family in Australia, the stream gave me much food for thought, including introducing me to names and history new to me. Too little of this is explored by other Anglosphere commentators.
One gripe though, the legal systems across the Anglosphere have deep roots indeed, but those traditions owe much, much more to what we inherited from the Anglo-Saxons, rather than Rome.
Pretty well all aspects of Romano-British culture was cast aside as a a result of the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain. We have the Anglo-Saxons to thank for common law, the jury system and so on.
This is an important point because it shows that the civilisation of the Anglosphere sits firmly in the northern European sphere (Spengler’s Faustian civilisation). Original, unique and distinct from previous civilisations, including the Classical
2

@TheBushrangianOrder
7 months ago
An excellent interview guys, I really enjoyed it. I hope to see more content like this in the future.
2

@PoddyPeaPea
7 months ago
Let’s go Australians!
5

@michaelfreshwater885
7 months ago
Where’s Nathaniel?

@cbybulldogs1631
7 months ago
Labor is accelerating the ‘big Australia’ agenda.
We are breaking immigration records the likes of which we’ve never seen.
3

@thumperhunts6250
7 months ago
Can you make this a weekly get together Joel. I’ve listened to this three times
7

@triple5762
7 months ago
You sound very intelligent and accomplished, well thought and considered. Then I look at your website and the cover photo does not portray this image at all, but quite the opposite.
1

1 reply

@athejbaka7084
7 months ago
Why? The cringe phot isn’t too bad

@bobfred159
7 months ago
Love Alfred Deakin, Love the ANA
3

@VitoCarlucci88
7 months ago
I had no idea, this is all so true.
2

@kencratchley8697
7 months ago
The leader only ran off with half the Klub Nation money, as when some members accessed one account and gave it back to contributors. The leader then went and took the money from the other account.

@SonofTiamat
7 months ago
Good discussion. I like how at around the fifty mark you talk about egalitarianism. There’s too much of a tendency to downplay or scoff at egalitarianism, and I think this is due to the temporarily embarrassed aristocrat mentality that pervades the right. There’s fraternity and national identity in egalitarianism, whereas historically, nobles intermarried with nobles from other countries
9

@newaustralianbulletin
7 months ago
Yes, Grant. A bit of loyalty never goes astray.
3

@australiafirstpartyvideos5229
7 months ago
Frankly, we’re offended. News of the demise of Australia First is greatly exaggerated. Why don’t you ask US what’s going on instead of spearheading a youth revolution intent on trampling all over us? Matt ought to have said something there but we’ve got his jib. You are welcome to have Dr Saleam on the program. Contact AustraliaFirstParty@protonmail.com.
2

joeldavis
·
1 reply

@joeldavisvideos
7 months ago
Offended by what? Nothing negative was said about the Australia First Party in the interview other than the factual statement that the party holds no state or federal seats. As for “spearheading a youth revolution intent on trampling all over us” – I frankly don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
5

@nachobusiness2663
7 months ago
Dream team. Valuable networking
5

@rueisblue
7 months ago
I have always felt as an American that Australians and Americans are some of the most similar people on earth. Really cool to hear the history of this movement from your perspective. Non Anglo-Saxons will never appreciate us like we will each other
20

7 replies

@Hopeofmen
7 months ago
Anglo gang rise up
9

@rueisblue
7 months ago
@Hopeofmen anglo pride world wide 😎🇺🇸🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇭🇲🇳🇿🇨🇦
11

@athejbaka7084
7 months ago
Anglos won
2

@ALLHEART_
7 months ago
Ulstermen, Yankees, Aussies, and Afrikaaners are very similar peoples yes.
2

@rueisblue
7 months ago
@ALLHEART_ I’m a dixie but I understand your point. We are all settler peoples
4

@virtualpilgrim8645
6 months ago
without Christianity you are all doomed

@virtualpilgrim8645
6 months ago
What do you mean by “an American”? White people or ghetto blacks?

@jamesbyrd5175
7 months ago
Never learned so much about Kangaroo Island before.
2

@happyhammer1
7 months ago
Same here, if it wasn’t for demographic replacement I probably wouldn’t be that political.
8

1 reply

@SonofTiamat
7 months ago
I think most people’s default position is libertarian, leaning either left or right. Then existential threats force them away from grilling in peace
1

@happyhammer1
7 months ago
Regional cultures used to be a defining characteristic but now that it’s decline the vacuum it’s created is being filled by the entertainment industry and partisan politics. That’s why we see grown men collecting toys or getting tattoos of their favorite intellectual property.
6

5 replies

@SonofTiamat
7 months ago
I blame the cultural osmosis of Hollywood culture, which has now cursed everyone with a Californian vocal fry
2

@happyhammer1
7 months ago
@SonofTiamat me too.

@gusgrizzel8397
7 months ago
Oz used to only allowed why-tes to immigrate until the 1970s. That’s how it became such a strong nation.
1

@happyhammer1
7 months ago
@gusgrizzel8397 It’s crazy that we have to self censor using the word why-te. We are supposedly this omnipotent oppressor but we can’t even describe ourselves on social media unless it’s a condemnation.
2

@gusgrizzel8397
7 months ago
@happyhammer1 Yes, it’s more than crazy, it’s oppressive. We aren’t allowed to have any culture or community or “pride”.

@Hera-nv2xh
7 months ago
Good discussion, I’m an Aussie that hadn’t heard of the ANA before. I would say I definitely have strong Australianist sensibilities. I am surprised you didn’t mention the aboriginal voice though, which will massively undermine the history and original conception of the Australian nation
11

joeldavis
·
1 reply

@joeldavisvideos
7 months ago
planning on doing something specifically on the voice in the future dont worry m8
7

@jacobitewiseman3696
7 months ago (edited)
Weren’t your ancestors criminals who had to survive? And uh-huh yeah you know because nations weren’t homogeneous for several millennium.

@LadyOfShaIott
7 months ago
Superb discussion. Things can seem very bleak in globalist Australia, especially down here in Victoria. Trying to think in terms of localism and trying to build community is far more helpful. Huge thanks again Joel; a blessed Christmas to you and to everyone on this channel.
38
joeldavis

1 reply

@hre2044
5 months ago
It’s worse in Canada, we have nothing in this country and my own town has seen mass demographic change, colleges are full of foreigners, an adult learning school is, parks, malls etc.
4

@Vingul
7 months ago
I have barely any connection to Australia at all, good to see some focus on it regardless.
3

joeldavis
·
4 replies

@joeldavisvideos
7 months ago
Ive spoken about everyone’s else’s BS for years now you can sit down and listen to mine
21

@Vingul
7 months ago
​ @joeldavisvideos BS BS, BS BS. No shortage of it.

@SonofTiamat
7 months ago
Is the BS thing an inside joke at AA’s expense?
1

@LadyOfShaIott
7 months ago
@joeldavisvideos 😂 100 percent.
2

@alanbstard4
7 months ago (edited)
Sir Robert Menzies white Australia. Immigration restriction Act

good to see the ANA. Joel davis is wrong. We should always keep Australians close to British culture. nationalists could have used the covid lockdown to advance a policy of stopping immigration, as the virus requires free movement. Instead, we wasted a chance attacking the lockdown. Re Singapore, the vast majority of troops were Indian, bloody hopeless, although British leadership ultimately responsible for failure, namely Churchill failing to supply air cover
CANZUK now
2

==========================

See Also

top

 

 

Mark Collett — It’s Okay To Be White — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Christmas Adverts – Multicultural Propaganda — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — What We Must Do To Win — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — Assad Didn’t Do It – Faked Syrian Gas Attack — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The Plot to Flood Europe with 200 Million Africans — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett — The jewish Question Explained in Four Minutes — TRANSCRIPT

Mark Collett at The Scandza Forum, Copenhagen – Oct 12, 2019 — Transcript

Patriotic Weekly Review – with Blair Cottrell – Dec 4, 2019 — TRANSCRIPT

Dangerfield – Talking Tough with Mark Collett – Mar 28, 2020 — Transcript

Mark Collett – Sam Melia Sentencing – with Laura Towler – Mar 1, 2024 – Transcript

Joe Marsh – Sam Melia Going into Court Before He was Sentenced – Mar 1, 2024 – Transcript

 

 

 

911 – The Jews Had Me Fooled: A Jewish Engineered Pearl Harbor

Organized jewry Did 9/11

Organized jewry Did 9/11 — The 16th Anniversary, 2017

Know More News — Christopher Bollyn, The Man Who Solved 9/11 — TRANSCRIPT

The Realist Report with Christopher Bollyn – Sep 2018 — TRANSCRIPT

Guns and Butter interviews Christopher Bollyn — The War on Terror – Dec 18, 2019 — Transcript

AE911Truth – Exposing Those Who Covered up the Crime of the Century – May 28, 2023 – Transcript

 

============================================

PDF Download

top

Total words in transcript = 15,155

• Total words in post = 18,148
• Total images = xx
• Total A4 pages = xxx

Use your browser to download/export a PDF of this post.

 

Version History

top

Version 5:

Version 4:

Version 3:

Version 2:

Version 1: Tue, May 21, 2024 — Published post. Includes Youtube comments (90).