Perhaps the elite are right in saying that the Australia of the past is finished. Thirteen years ago, Don Watson, Prime Minister Paul Keating’s speechwriter, had said that “Australia” – a multicultural, feminised post-Mabo minestrone – cannot be brought under a collective “national identity”: G. Pemberton, “Identity Crisis,” The Weekend Australia, June 25-26, 1994, p. 30. And that was way back in the good old days of the ‘90s, before the present chaos had got started. As much as one would hate to agree with him, perhaps he is right: things have gone too far and a grand divorce is in order.

The idea of secession, the breakup of Australia, done by Whites, rather than as a product of Aboriginal recognition, has had its champions, who have come and gone. I have leaflets from the New Queensland Movement and the Western Australia Secession Association, which now seem to have fallen away. The basic idea though is still worth thinking about; to found a new homeland for Anglo-Australians by sawing of NSW and Victoria (sorry), to form a new ethnostate. Here is some thoughts about this in the US context: ; .

Session movements have and are occurring across the world. It is only a childlike sense of nationalism, a naïve belief in the “nation,” which often mirrors the holder’s primitive political beliefs, which has prevented the Freedom Movement considering this option with the urgency it needs. Western Australia once voted in a state-based referendum for secession, and breaking away from the Commonwealth of Australia has always been a popular idea with the “Swans.” In 1993, the then Premier of Western Australia, Richard Court said that his government would refuse to cut ties with the Crown if a republic referendum succeeded without the support of Western Australia. Court did not rule out the possibility of secession. On Western Australian secessionism see: G. Craven, Secession: The Ultimate States Right, (Melbourne University Press, Melbourne, 1986).

Even socialist columnist, Phillip Adams, has said that the glue that once held the nation state together has been dissolved by the solvent of modernity: “we’re entering an era when almost any group can break away from the whole, reclaiming or demanding their piece of territory”: P. Adams, “From the Global Village to Tribal Ghetto,” The Weekend Australian, April 22-23, 1995, p. 27. Adams is right in saying that the internet will fuel separatism: “Thanks to the information superhighway, members of local tribes will be able to communicate instantly and comprehensively with like-minded people- members of the same tribe-all over the world.” Well then, White “deplorables” of the world unite!

Although Adams is obviously directing such advice about re-tribalisation to ethnics and non-whites, the Anglo Saxon people, and more generally Nordic (Northern European) Whites, should follow the same advice, I believe. In less than forty years, the United States and Britain will be majority non-White, and not long after, or even before, “Australia” will fall. Now is the time to realise that these nations, although founded by the blood of our people, are no longer ours, but are alien lands. We can no longer call Australia “home.”

Nevertheless, thanks to the internet and the communications revolution the tyranny of distance need no longer separate fair people from across the world. Now, more than ever before, our race is our nation. The time has come for Anglo-Australians to organise to save themselves, their own ethno-racial group. Anglo-Australians need their own ethno-racial/cultural protection groups. The strategy for their formation should be modelled on that of other successful minorities, for we are now a minority, the once merely dispossessed majority which has been now made a minority, as a prelude to its racial annihilation.

To attempt to counter this fall will be the most difficult task ever undertaken by any group in history. The decline of the once White West, its descend into decay, disease and decadence, makes the fall of the Roman Empire look like the spilling of the tea at an English tea party. Nevertheless, it should no longer be our aim to “save Australia,” but merely to save our kind. It makes no sense to be concerned about the republic when Britain itself is facing dissolution. It makes no sense to fight for CIR when through ethnic swamping Whites in Australia face a future where they will be constantly out-voted. Why defend our “wonderful Constitution” when such a Constitution is likely to be replaced by a one world government in an Asianised Australia? And should we fight for social credit in a primarily future Chinese “Australia”? (See G. Faye, Archeofuturism, 2.0, (Arktos, 2016), for such thought experiments.) All these matters only make sense as issues worthy of political opposition if the racial question is addressed and dealt with first, for otherwise you are merely working to leave a smooth-functioning politico-legal system for Asians to use, if – and this is debatable – they chose to uphold liberal democracy at all, rather than Chinese communism.

Where do we go and what do we do? It is not the aim of this essay to put down in published form what our strategy for survival should be for that should be the goal of our movement. But we have said that a study of the organisation of other successful ethnic struggle groups would be instructive. There will need to be various ethnic-based groups defending our kind, including legally and economically, in a future where jobs will become as scarce as hen’s teeth. Other ethnic groups can do this, then why not us?

When this idea is mentioned to Freedom Movement types, who are very much stuck in a time warp, they say: “But that’s tribalism!’ Yes, it is, sunshine. That is precisely what is happening, and if preventative action is not taken we will disappear. The universalistic game is up, so dust off a nationalist version of Christianity; we know you have one hidden in there just for this special occasion. In past centuries Christians had no problem with such ideas; the likes of William Dampier (1651-1715), would have had no trouble talking about this, as disturbed as he would have been.

The basis for our opposition should be based on discrete cell groups of about 4-5 people, or families, who are very well known to each other and trusted. These core resistance/survival groups will aim to act in many ways like an extended family, helping each other and pulling resources if necessary. Men and women’s groups will meet regularly to discuss, plot, plan and conspire, and dream – perfectly legal, just as our enemies met in such cell groups in their early days. Recruitment will be slow, but infiltration, difficult. In time the core resistance groups could come together to form higher more complex structures, much like cells come together to form organs, and organs, ultimately a functioning body. Once our individualism was the Anglo-Saxon’s greatest strength. But today, pitted against collectivistic ethnic groups, we are easily conquered. We must therefore hang together, of be hung separately.

Where then should you start? Start with what resources you have. Start with the people that you have and trust. This may mean that you have only yourself, in the worst-case scenario. But in some political battles, small, poorly funded groups have won against the goliath-system. Don’t be afraid, and don’t despair, for the noble battle which you are now about to embark on will be life-long and arduous. Win or lose, it will be the most important thing you will do with your life – your chance to influence human destiny.