Tuesday, August 21, 2018

The Anning speech

Something happened in Australian politics last week. Senator Fraser Anning made his maiden speech in parliament and boldly challenged the civic nationalist status quo.

I have no idea how skilled a politician Senator Anning will prove to be, and I do have a few criticisms of the speech, but it was a promising moment of resistance, which hopefully will lead on to other things.

The speech began with a reference to a founding father of Australia, Sir Henry Parkes, who saw kinship as vital to national identity:
The founding father of our Federation knew that it was not simply a bounteous land that makes a nation, but the common threads of inherited identity that unite its people.

The great thing about this comment is that it directly rejects the liberal idea that autonomous choice is the highest good and that only a self-determined identity is allowed to matter. Instead, Senator Anning defends "the common threads of inherited identity" that defined traditional nations and peoples.

Anning then goes on to blend two normally separate political strands, by combining economic nationalism with a belief in a small, non-intrusive state. He identifies pre-Whitlam Australia (prior to the 1970s) as having a better political consensus:
Fifty years ago Australia was a cohesive, predominantly Anglo-Celtic nation. Most people thought of themselves as Christian of some sort, although most of us didn't go to church all that often. Everyone, from the cleaners to the captains of industry, had a shared vision of who we were as a people and our place in the world.

Until the late 1960s, prior to the rise of Whitlam in the Labor Party, there was a broad consensus between the Liberal and Labor parties on the kind of society we were and what we should be in the future. In the 1960s, both Liberal and Labor parties reflected a common framework of Judeo-Christian values, supporting the family as the basic unit of society. They both supported the principle that marriage was a union between a man and woman, and both parties recognised the sanctity of the lives of the unborn. Both major parties agreed that people should be free to live their own lives and say what they thought without fear of state sanction. Both sides of politics recognised the importance of our manufacturing industries as well as our farming and mining. Both parties recognised the importance of our predominantly European identity.

I agree with most of this but I think he underestimates how far the political class had moved away from "Judeo-Christian values" in favour of explicitly liberal ones, and that the logic of these liberal principles was likely over time to undermine traditional marriage and a traditional national identity. Liberalism tends to move generationally. One generation pushes it so far and then believes it has gone far enough, but the next generation takes it further.

Anning blames Gramscian communism for the decline of traditional Australia:
A tectonic shift has occurred in which the previously agreed social and political order has been overthrown in an insidious silent revolution. To understand fully what has happened to our country, I believe that we must look to the work of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci's insight was to see revolution in cultural rather than economic terms, with 'cultural hegemony' as the key to supposed class dominance. The Marxist state, Gramsci argued, could be achieved by gradual cultural revolution—subverting society via a long march through the institutions.

Maybe this is part of it. But in Australia some of the most influential radicals of the 1960s were associated with the Sydney Push and they had a left-libertarian philosophy rather than a communist one. They were strongly influenced by John Anderson, who had been appointed a professor of philosophy at Sydney University way back in 1927.

And we can go back to the 1930s to find influential figures in Australian politics pressing for a more diverse society as a matter of "social justice":
In newspaper articles, speeches made as president of the Victorian Labor Party during the 1930s, and later after election as federal member for Melbourne in 1940, Calwell's deep concern for social justice was invariably linked with the creation in Australia of an ethnically mixed society through large-scale immigration.

...in a confidential note addressed to Chifley in 1944 he wrote of his determination to develop a heterogeneous society

It's the same sort of thinking that we have today, except that it wasn't taken as far in 1944 as it is now - but the same logic is at play. And if you believe that social justice demands ethnic diversity, then it seems inevitable that this principle would eventually extend to diversity from all corners of the globe. Calwell only wanted to take the principle so far, but there was no reason for the next generation not to take it to the next logical stage. Cultural Marxism wasn't necessary for this to happen.

There is a lot more in Anning's speech. He wants nation building infrastructure projects; a return to affordable housing; a withdrawal from treaties which undermine Australian sovereignty; and support for independent farmers. I recommend reading the entire speech rather than relying on comments about it in the mainstream media.


  1. Cultural Marxism was primarily a US based movement that originated out of the Frankfurt School when it was exiled from Nazi Germany. The average person probably couldn't identify any of their thinkers, but could identify some of their idioms.

    I saw some of the reaction to Anning, and it seemed bad. The earlier speech by right-liberal Max Bernier in Canada went over a bit better. It is difficult for our position to gain legitimacy amidst a hostile media, and a wider culture that views us as privileged and hateful whiners angry over having to "share".

    1. If I were Anning I would continue to push not only the immigration issue, but connected issues such as affordable housing, congestion, foreign land ownership and so on. There are plenty of people out there being squeezed by the current political consensus. Some of these people will react to a hostile media by concluding that Anning is not part of the swamp. I just don't know yet if Anning has the political skills to carry this off.

    2. The Australian people are sick to death of;
      1. politics and politicians who suck up all the oxygen with their bs, spend millions on projects that have no relevance and if these politicians achieve anything it's bound to make things worse or harder.

      2. The ever expanding Administrative class that intrudes and regulates every aspect of their lives including what they can and can't do to their own home.

      3. Local Government when it steps out of the core traditional service roles and becomes instrusive social engineers.

      4. Ever more expensive compliance requirements that must be satisfied before any supposed freedom can be exercised. Ever more anonymous, distant and unsatisfactory customer relations.

      5. Media that is out of touch with ordinary people and societal norms. News as propaganda, political correctness.

      Each of those 5 are on trajectories ever more distant from the experience of ordinary people. It just just requires a straight shooter to articulate these issues and 65% of ordinary Aussies will be on board

      To be honest I think a huge number of people now can see this transcends left vs right. The left v right is a silly punch and Judy show to divide us. Everyone sees both parties enact the same laws that end up benefitting big business not them. Really with the libs now duplicating labors implosion when in power, both parties are the same.

      Don't ever let the media make you feel like their stereotype!It's just Murdoch dividing us to conquer us

  2. Cultural Marxism is a means of subversion but it can be effectively deployed only against a society which is vulnerable to that form of subversion. Therefore the Anglo Saxon states were already severely weakened at the time when the theories of the Frankfurt school were unleashed and the elites chose to impose these ideologies at that time because they correctly anticipated there would be no resistance to them. The minimal resistance was disorganised and readily quashed and hence ineffective. There is still no effective resistance as these societies descend into inevitable chaos.

    The reference Anning makes to "Judeo- Christian values" discredits him to some degree as there are no such values. The Jewish world view and values with their dualistic ethics and hostility to gentiles are antithetical to Christian values based upon the teaching of Jesus Christ whom Jews reject.

    The issues of affordable housing and foreign land ownership cannot be addressed without first addressing the matter of immigration which is the primary driver of these problems. The cessation of immigration and deportation of many immigrants already ensconced on the land would reduce the demand and desire for foreign nationals to own housing. On the contrary, any policy changes to limit foreign ownership of assets would be negated by the continuing high population displacement levels of immigration. Population replacement is, of course, the agenda of the elites and if the native population do not waken up to this, they will go the same way as the whites of South Africa. Politics is controlled by elites so options for success are limited. Therefore people have to create their own communities and networks to ensure their survival.