Red-pilled, or blue-pilled, it’s easy to tell who is and who is not, judging by the reaction to Chris Shortis’s video. Posted on the UPF’s Facebook page, it challenges the viewer to react with common sense, or emotion.
For a nationalist, it was a revelation as to the depth of discussion happening over that way. The response from cuckolded Ziopatriots has been achingly predictable. None of them had the presence of wit to grasp its essence.
To understand Chris’s video, you must emancipate yourself from the muddled rules of the Patriot subculture. You need to have moved on from blaming Islam to condemning the root cause of its presence: the poisonous dispersions of a multiracial society that no one voted for, and which denies the Australian uniqueness crucial to, but too awkward for, explaining in patriotic rhetoric.
Scott Moerland defended the principle of social inclusivity in his soliloquy to people of colour who support his loathing of Islam. He posted this on his blog about the chocolate messiah, Danny Nalliah. By doing so, he left himself without enough moral traction to justify rejecting Moslems with any clarity; besides proving he’s a goose. His problem is that a definition of “us” is critical in this activism, but he—and those in his immediate society—is unfit to make that call; doubly disappointing in his case, but maybe not as much as it should be, since he was a former soldier. Thus to “whom” Islam is a menace becomes a more enlightened arrangement of the question.
Railing against Islam is to condemn this aspect of the holistic globalism to which it is irreconcilable, but to support multiracialism is to champion it: you cannot entertain one without admitting the other; and you cannot healthily maintain both positions. Similarly, globalism cannot discriminate once it has abolished borders, nor can those who validate it by embracing un-belonging tribes who have come to share our resources; even if they are only doing so to deflect criticisms of ‘racism’ in a disingenuous kind.
When your only points of view are “Islam is bad” and “lefties are bad too” you have a whole lot of in-between missing. Indeed, you are only viewing through one eye, and hearing in a single earhole. What’s more, you are probably a bigot after all.
Would anyone defend a Frenchman’s right to preserve his own soil and assert his right to be recognised as French? And offered the choice between a Middle Easterner and a Negro, which of the two would he classify a Frenchman?
In the case of the patriots who condemn nationalists as ‘Nazis’, they have just identified one of the two non-Caucasian choices as being a Frenchman, if they have not had the wherewithal to interrogate its logic. Likewise, the same answer must necessarily stand if the Frenchman was replaced with an Australian. Because they have distinguished Australianness as a metaphysical construct, the criterions for which cannot possibly exclude Moslems. This patriot has just sold out the very idea of patriotism by allowing a foreign occupier to claim our identity, but also retain their own, and while he cannot share in theirs. For this unrewarding transaction the charitable patriot disavows his own unique identity without receiving anything by way of compensation.
Morally, the true patriot and Moslem are more or less reading off a similarly conservative page. But the difference is that the patriot is a globalist and a Moslem is not. When he throws a bomb, the Moslem is waging war against globalism. Yet, if either were asked whether he condones a society in which crossdressing men dress become social crusaders having won the right to “go tinkle” in the little girls’ toilets, they would both react with violent horror. This abomination on society is a proclivity of that very globalism underscoring the dubious liberty anchoring the patriot message.
When patriots sentimentally defend their stance on other races with soppy refrains based on unique experiences of individual relationships with non-Whites using such oft-heard lines as “I swear, he’s more Aussie than most Aussies I know”, they are responding with an encoded reaction allowing the ethos governing mateship to mislead. They are buying into the lie that sent Australia into “multicultural mode” to begin with.
If White Australia was good enough for our descendants, if it was something to believe in, why are these supposedly dedicated patriots so viciously opposed to the idea if they are also proudly atavistic?
The answer to that is less fraught with confusion than this essay may suggest: it is simply that people are stupid.
These patriots are not the liberated individuals they think they are. They took the blue pill, but act like it was red. They are not scholars, or poets, or visionaries. They are just Gary and Finn arcing up because they dislike one bunch of wogs worse than another.
If they cherished Australian identity, if they went to the pains to acquire knowledge as to the justice of the nationalist cause, this kind of behaviour would appear shameful to them.
Thus, granted that many are gullible, and conceding that even more are just not bright, another entity has to enter the equation governing the baffling rationale of the Patriot; and it cuts to the raison d’être of Chris’s video.
In fact, it comes right out of Scott Moerland’s response to Chris’s commentary:
“I love the Jewish people. I support Israel! As a matter of fact Chris should also oppose this belief as he is a strong Christian. Jesus was a Jew and the bible clearly says (as Chris would definitely know) than any nation who curses Israel will also be cursed! Yes the Jews have been rebellious but this doesn’t change the fact that they are God’s chosen people!”
Moerland’s blog contains enough material to fill about thirteen-million critical nationalist essays. But he misses the entire point: like those he counts as his audience.
Having so shamelessly spruiked the above Zionist commercial, you get the picture of why such a deep gulch separates patriots and the nationalists.
Has Moerland ever contemplated the contradiction in calling yourself a patriot while showing deference to a foreign nation? How did Israeli flags become a fixture at ‘patriotic’ rallies celebrating ‘Aussie’ pride? And why is acceptance as a “true Aussie” in this unregulated bloc incumbent on one’s capitulation to Israel?
All those votes that ALA, Rise Up, and Hanson send the Liberals’ way go to a party that has no problem at all with letting Moslems build mosques; or even work their way through the ranks of the party. They have sold us off to China, they have given our jobs to curries, and they keep bringing in Moslems despite their attributed prejudice against them. Yet, the best the bogan brains can come up with is supporting the country that instigates the wars that keep sending fresh Moslem quotas—even if only by being conned into supporting the party which does.
Moreover, how can they accept Africans, and yet African gang crime is a recurring feature of their propaganda?
Just what is this mob on about? Are they for real, or are they just a honeypot for unexperienced travellers?
One of the other things they and the despised “left” have in common is blithely dismissing nationalist arguments as “Nazi”, even though they themselves get vilified as Nazis despite their dutiful, if clumsy, overtures to Israel.
And that, readers, is the point to Chris’s video. There was no gratuitous admiration for the Third Reich. It was not a call to pull on the jackboots and start parading the flags. It was a very clever rebuttal to those name callers, both on the Anti side, and allegedly on ours. If we are Nazis, then all the points Chris highlighted are things YOU support. This means, of course, YOU are Nazis too!