There is a nationalist—a good man—but who seems to epitomise the very definition of madness: repeating the same behaviour in the expectation of a different result. Perhaps that is too harsh. Yet it is precisely that pattern we must examine, sympathetically, because it lies at the root of what continually confounds him.
He likes to point at the news whenever an event starkly demonstrates how multiracialists, liberals, and globalists have betrayed our society. It usually takes a serious outrage: a terrorist attack by militant Islamists, or the random killing of a native Australian by a so-called refugee. These preventable crimes, born of policies of multiculturalism, diversity, tolerance, and inclusion, inflame his ire. Above all, it is the “tolerance” that is tested until it frays beyond recognition.
When such incidents occur—whether here or across Europe—he springs into action, firing off links to his friends. The recipients are usually already aware of the story. He channels his disturbance into rapid articles and letters that, if nothing else, help him direct his anger. He takes it all rather personally. The trouble is that, in his indignation, he remains oblivious to how his missives ricochet around an echo-chamber, reaching only the already converted. They add to the noise rather than breaking it.
One can point a withering finger at these incidents for only so long. The years roll on, new and ever more outrageous events appear, and the same cycle repeats. Encoded in the outrage of nationalists like our friend is the deep frustration that nobody in power is doing anything about what is plainly visible to all. Yet he overlooks what sits directly before his own eyes. He has watched the pattern play out countless times: a person of colour commits an atrocity, the legacy media stays silent as long as possible, and when coverage can no longer be avoided, the wording is carefully sanitised.
Political leaders call for calm, so the perpetrator’s “community” does not suffer. They stress that “not all” are to blame. When ordinary people express their legitimate anger, that sentiment is immediately labelled as being fomented by the “far-right” seeking to “capitalise” on the “tragedy.” This reflexive response only deepens the nationalist’s fury—an understandable reaction. But he is missing an unmissable truth: the political class has no genuine interest in fixing the problem. Quite the reverse. They typically press the accelerator, inviting in even more disparate peoples and cultures.
How often have parliamentarians from these communities risen to denounce the “far-right” while shielding their own? The liberals watch approvingly, silent on the predictable results of their policies, and reserve their condemnation solely for the “rabble” who dare take to the streets in protest.
Take, for example, the case of Henry Nowak’s killer. It took six months to convict Vikram Digwa, yet less than two weeks to convict those who protested the killing. The message could not be clearer.
If our friend’s essays and shared articles are an attempt to appeal to reason, whose reason? Those who already know the score are not the ones who need convincing, while those on the other side appear untroubled—even content—that too few of us are being killed. Does he truly believe they lack intelligence on the matter? That authorities have no statistics (however euphemistically phrased) showing the correlation between the populations they import and the rising toll on the pre-existing native community?
The point is they are fully aware. Once we resign ourselves to this inescapable conclusion, the question becomes: what next? Continuing to fire off essays and news links in the hope that someone with real influence will finally intervene? Or that enough horror stories will eventually spark an electoral revolt and install a party that “will do something”?
Herein lies the root issue. Has our friend spent as much time and energy thinking about constructive answers to that question as he has stewing on the problem itself? The pointing must eventually give way to building—organising, supporting genuine nationalist institutions, and creating the political and cultural forces capable of reversing the damage. Outrage alone, no matter how righteous, will not save us. The time for pointing is passing. The time for decisive, coordinated action is now.