by Inky Australian
Across all our previous essays, we have often invoked the name of the British Australian Community. So far we have taken it for granted that this grouping is familiar to all our readers and we have felt no pressing need to elaborate in detail on where they stand vis-à-vis Australian nationalism. The nationalist thesis is, put simply: Australia has a native identity of its own and its folk are drawn from all European source pools. The British Australian Community (BAC) thinks otherwise. This debate is all rather old hat now, but certain happenings have given us cause to re-litigate the problem of the BAC so to speak.
The grouping seems to be operating with newfound vigour as of late. New events, new personalities and a louder social media presence have raised their profile. A flashy new website gives them a more polished look and a series of campaigns (read, postings on social media) have drawn attention to outrages against the Australian people. We have also seen strange overlaps occurring between the BAC and groups that they have no business interacting with in an ideological sense. Perhaps this comes solely from an influx of members…or perhaps an influx of new funding. Eventually all will be revealed. But for this ‘judicial investigation’, we turn our attention to the fruits of the BAC’s Multicultural Strategy and the malign influences that we keenly notice are enveloping the organisation.
BAC for Dummies
For the sake of those unaware of the BAC’s history, it was founded back in 1967 as the United Kingdom Settler’s Association (UKSA), a support group for British migrants that aided with the assisted passage programs from the UK by offering cheap airfares. By the 1990s, when UK migration had dwindled to a trickle, the UKSA was on the verge of collapse. At the high-point of multiculturalism, republicanism and Keating-esque ‘Australia-in-Asia’ rhetoric, a strategic decision was made to re-orient the group to focus on promoting British heritage and fighting against ethnic discrimination of Australia’s ‘founding stock.’ In 1995, the organisation was renamed to its current title, reflecting the move away from a purely migrant association. The BAC of old linked to the Australian League of Rights and in today’s era holds conferences with the Australian Monarchist League. As noted in a previous essay, the BAC has long had leadership crossovers with another anglophile group, the English Speaking Union, at one stage sharing their headquarters with the ESU-Victoria in a building in South Yarra.
Unlike most of the other Australian dissidents, who conglomerate all manner of reactionary ideas with no clear ideology, the BAC position is reasonably straightforward and spelled out in some detail on their website: ethnic advocacy on behalf of Anglo-Celtic Australians combined with belief in liberal-democracy and a conservative moral ethic. Dr. Frank Salter, once a comrade to the nationalists and a founding member of the Australian National Alliance in the late 1970s, abandoned the nationalist position and has taken up a role as the leading voice within the BAC. The last two decades of BAC agitation has seen a ‘Revolt of the Anglophiles’, spreading the false consciousness (even within spaces friendly to the nationalist perspective) that Australian culture and nationhood is essentially British and ethnically ‘Anglo-Celtic’ in construction.
As result of this revolt, the ethnic descriptor ‘Anglo-Celtic’ (as replacement of the far more commonly used term ‘Anglo-Saxon’) entered into widespread use within the Australian far-right and dissident scene, including among those whose history reading is limited to Mein Kampf. “Australians are Anglo-Celtics” groups like the National Socialist Network now announce, echoing the words of the BAC whilst they play dress-up with Nazi symbols and Sutton Hoo helmets. Furthermore, where exactly an Irish-Catholic sits within the term ‘Anglo-Celtic’ is fraught with ambiguity. The BAC knows as well as nationalists that the Irish Question was a bone of contention for the Imperial patriots, and that Irish migrants had no reason in the slightest to uproot to Australia in order to be British. But that’s all just swept under the rug. Acknowledging the sleight of hand contained within their use of the term Anglo-Celtic is important; it ‘disappears’ the independent Irish strain that nurtured Australian national identity, surreptitiously assimilating what is to the Anglophiles the historically problematic Irish presence in the country.
Advertisement for the BAC in the pages of Quadrant magazine
British, Anglo-Saxons, Anglo-Celtics, British-descended, British Isles-descended, British-Australians, Anglo-Celtic Australians, Anglo-Australians, Anglo-British; it all makes the head of a nationalist spin. Why can’t we just speak of Australians full stop. That’s never prevented us from acknowledging our origins as a British colony or admitting that the Anglo stream nourishing Australian identity was a particularly large one. But we emerged from the broader European folk. To deny this and move backwards into Britishness or whatever else is to deny Australian Nationality.
Aside from the Anglophilia, the key point here is that the BAC always was – and still remains – deferential to the State and accommodational to its multicultural ideology. For 30 years, they have attempted to ‘play’ the multiculturalist game, asking politely for a seat at the table by pointing out that the Anglo-Celts alone have been unfairly excluded from the proceedings. The BAC sees no problem in accepting grants from various multicultural government bodies. When Frank Salter joined the BAC in 2021 and moved its base of operations to Sydney, they officially launched the ‘Multicultural Strategy’ as a means of ethnic defence. To quote directly from the BAC’s submission (written by Salter) to the Inquiry into Multiculturalism in Australia by the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Migration:
“…abolishing multiculturalism will be difficult because it serves vested interests that are influential with the major parties. Perhaps reform would be a more viable approach than abolition. The multicultural industry could be encouraged to live up to its pluralist rhetoric by accepting all Australians in the process. That would include Anglo- Celtic Australians in multicultural politics, an idea approximately advanced by the community organisation the British Australian Community…
A start could be made through political action in which politicians began [sic] recognizing the nation’s founding population as a legitimate interest group. Anglo-Celtic organisations would be provided with funding for community projects and professional activists, who would then be included in government-sponsored conferences and consulted with regarding policy. Once the practice got underway, political parties would compete for endorsement. Al Grassby’s statue in Canberra would disappear. Expressions of hostility towards Anglo- Celtic Australians would become less frequent. This would be true multiculturalism, one that respected all ethnic groups and included them in the spoils system.”
Success in this strategy of stimulating “true multiculturalism” is yet to be forthcoming. The BAC is no closer to a seat at the table in 2025 than they were in 1995. In the intervening three decades, Australia has become even less Anglo in ethnic composition and multicultural policy has pushed on with no regard for the interests of Australians in general. They may as well be showing up at the high-rollers table with a bag of grimy 5c coins. The BAC does however claim “Admitting defeat is another aspect of the multicultural strategy.” It’s a strange formulation, what they are saying is, the multicultural State must either accept Anglo-Celtics into the framework, or if they don’t, the BAC has successfully exposed the anti-White scam. And if the latter, then what? Do we come back to nationalism and actually attempt to undo the policy, or do we spend another 30 years trying to expose something that was obvious about multiculturalism from day one?
Celina Di Israeli
What sparked our attention was a most innocuous tweet (post on X? Never mind, old habits die hard) from a seemingly innocuous individual. Frank Salter recently published a collection of essays in book format, titled The National Question & Human Nature. The publishing company of this tome is currently unknown, but the 800-page length makes it certain that few of the online dissidents, afflicted as they already are with short attention spans from excessive internet use, will ever read it in full. Shortly thereafter, an account going by the name of Celina (@Celina101010), a young woman with flowing brown hair, took the occasion to celebrate Salter’s work: “Super keen for this one!!!” she announced, and posted a picture of the book alongside a screenshot of an Amazon order.
Celina cosies up to the BAC
What goes unsaid in this tweet, indeed on Celina’s entire X page, is that we are not dealing with any ordinary online dissident. Celina appeared earlier this year, posting about mass immigration, birth rates, demographics and the perils of Left-politics in modern Australia. Her account, fully kitted-out with a connected Substack and TikTok, almost instantly received retweets from Jordan Knight of the National Conservative Institute of Australia (NCIA) and Joel Jammal of Turning Point Australia (see our prior essay on these two individuals). An inaugural Substack essay (How We Win) laments the failure of organised conservatism to conserve Australia’s “traditional values.” Containing howlers like “Conservatives once stood firmly against mass immigration”, one assumes her intended audience were kindergartners (or not even born) during the Howard era. Transgenderism, the favourite low-hanging fruit of conservative anti-woke commentators, also gets extensive coverage with commentary decrying the barbarism of transgenders mutilating their genitalia – but never mention the name Magnus Hirschfeld or the Pritzker family of course.
Celina’s position within the network of Zionist conservatives was obvious before we even saw that the NCIA was her first ‘follow’ on X. Platforming attractive young women in order to draw the male gaze has been going on for years in conservative spaces, but in Celina’s case, the story takes a slightly different turn. As it so happens, there is one type of genital mutilation that Celina almost certainly approves of. Celina’s full name is Celina Di Veroli. The toponymic surname from a city in central Italy disguises her heritage as a full-blooded Jew with – according to her own testimony – eight separate great-grandparents who survived the holocaust. Celina is a student at the University of Sydney, a member of the UoS Conservative Club, and penned an essay for the Australian Jewish Times bemoaning pro-Palestine motions passed by the Student Representative Council last year. As we said, characters like Celina appear all the time (mostly on Sky News) and there’s nothing all that remarkable about her; the important question is, what is she doing promoting the BAC and Salter’s book?
BACPAC-ing to Brisbane
If the tweet by Miss Di Veroli sparked our curiosity, it was the announcement of the speakers for the second annual BAC ‘Political Action Committee’ that truly made us pay attention. The speakers for the 9th of September event being held in Brisbane are, in no particular order: BAC President Harry Richardson, Eric Louw, Stephen McInerney, Frank Salter and Stephen Chavura. Salter and Richardson are old-timers within the BAC, but the other three are new faces who deserve further inspection. We also cannot help but emphasise that 40 percent of the speakers at this conference decrying the replacement of Anglo-Celtics possess something other than an Anglo or Celtic-derived surname.
The speakers line-up for the 2025 BACPAC
Eric Louw, formerly of the University of Queensland, speaks as an authority on the topic of South Africa and Apartheid, generally providing a revisionist account of the latter. We are no experts on said topic and withhold judgment on his writings and political background. From what we have seen of Louw’s video commentaries, what is however notable is his inhibition to speak critically on a certain ethnic group whom the most staid opponents of Apartheid will admit played a very central role in undermining the South African regime. In February 2025, the BAC issued an open letter, presumably under the influence of Louw, urging the suspension of Australian aid to South Africa. What relevance South African property rights and the plight of the Boers has for the cause of Britishness in Australia is ultimately unclear. But the timing of the BAC’s declaration – at the same moment the US government came down hard on South Africa for its genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) – does makes one wonder.
Next up is Stephen McInerney, associate professor at Campion College, a private Catholic university in Western Sydney. Campion’s mission is that of ‘Western Civilisation’, offering a sole degree – a Bachelor of Arts majoring in Western Culture – to the small undergraduate student body. McInerney was previously on the executive board of the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation and wrote poems for Quadrant Magzine, and he has linked up with all the characters discussed in a previous essay: podcast appearances with the NCIA (Dan Ryan is an old friend of his) and The National Observer. McInerney’s comments on X are admittedly more radical than is to be expected by his employment background, so much so that he has fooled some well-meaning nationalists. We expect that this is part of the game, subtly pulling the online racists back into the conservative fold.
Last but not least, we come to Stephen Chavura. Chavura works alonside McInerney as a lecturer at Campion College. A regular at Dave Pellowe’s Church and State Summits, Chavura appears on Sky News, grumbles about leftist anti-Israel rhetoric on ADH TV, scribbles for The Spectator and the Murdoch Press, and authors books on the legacy of Sir Robert Menzies. All standard fare for your bog-standard Zionist-conservative. At a recent Institute for Public Affairs conference, Chavura made it clear he stands for civic nationalism, not racial nationalism:
“I have no problem with a multi-racial nation, and I’m copping a bit of flack these days for saying that, so that’s a bit of a shame. So long as the racial diversity does not undermine social solidarity and a single sense of national identity and appreciation for heritage.”
In the same conference lecture, Chavura blames the rise of anti-semitism in Australia on the “cancer” of multiculturalism; letting in all those Muslims who get upset when Israel engages in mass slaughter of their Palestinian brothers. It follows that one places the blame on those who foisted the policy of multiculturalism on Australians in the first place. In discussing its origins, Chavura quotes extensively from the work of Mark Lopez – The Origins of Multiculturalism in Australian Politics 1945–1975 (1996). Anyone who has ever read this groundbreaking book can tell you that the ultimate impulse for multiculturalism in Australia, as ideology originally conceived in America and policy put into practice by a small group of local activists, comes from the Jewish community and the leading work of Walter Lippmann. Chavaura’s twisted rhetoric predictably avoids pointing out this key fact; it just doesn’t fit what he wants us to believe about his Zionist allies. And again, Chavura’s attendance leaves us wondering, why is this creature of the conservative establishment joining hands with the BAC?
Kaufmannische Lehre
So what does it all mean. Why have Zionists decided that the BAC is a safe spot for them to hunker down? Explicit invocations of White identity are usually a no-go for them and the BAC are not without links that would otherwise scare them off. Salter doesn’t exactly hide his past professional collaborations with Dr. Kevin MacDonald and a limited degree of anti-Israel rhetoric is acceptable among BAC members. An answer comes from a closer look at the Multicultural Strategy and its intellectual influences.
In a previous piece we drew attention to an interview local BAP-ist Russell Walter (set to appear at the upcoming BAC-sponsored conference) conducted with Canadian-born academic Eric Kaufmann. The subject of the interview was Kaufmann’s book Whiteshift(2018), wherein he advocates for a limited and controlled form of White identity to be allowed in the public space, this in order to soothe or mollify the White race into a quiet extinction rather than risk a violent pro-White reaction. Kaufmann’s essay in Tablet Magazine – We Need to Talk About White Identity Politics – gives readers a taste of what Whiteshift means in practice:
“White majorities will gradually become “beige,” in Michael Lind’s terms, because intermarriage produces a logarithmic rise in the mixed population. In America and Western Europe, those of mixed race will become the majority in a century or so. However, it’s important that on the way there, people are able to travel at a pace that allows moderate conservatives to maintain a sense of continuity while enough change takes place to satisfy moderate liberals. Failure to do so risks alienating conservatives, perpetuating the populism and polarization that are convulsing western politics.”
Walter is not the only Australian dissident who has picked up on Kaufmann’s ideas. We believe the work of Kaufmann is highly relevant in understanding the direction of the BAC.
Eric Kaufmann and Whiteshift
When Kaufmann’s book appeared on the scene, the reaction from the broader racialist and far-right crowd – in particular around the Alt-Right – was universally and even viciously negative. Reviews and commentary on the book took Kaufmann to task for the prediction of inevitable racial mixing/demographic decline of White countries and excoriated him for his ‘final solution’ to the problem of White rage. Kaufmann’s ethnic heritage predictably drew out the harshest criticisms; the chutzpah of yet another Jew (in this case a mischling) brazenly proclaiming the extinction of White-majority societies, putting forth measures to prevent Whites from fighting back, and having the gall to try sell this all to Whites as a good thing. Almost nobody was interested in the slightest in approving of his plan to let Whites ‘go gentle into the good night’. Enter Prof. Frank Salter.
Kaufmann’s academic work has long been of interest to Salter. Kaufmann’s magnum opus The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America (2004) (wherein he makes similar comments on allowances for expressions of White identity) is oft referenced in his writings and video appearances, and the work has in some sense ‘guided’ Salter’s approach to the decline of Anglo societies. So naturally when Whiteshift appeared, Salter was keenly interested in what Kaufmann had to say on a topic dear to his heart. A review of Whiteshift by Salter, published by Quadrant and the Sydney Traditionalist Society, stands out for its astonishingly positive slant. According to him, Kaufmann’s stance is “brave” and “courageous”.
Rather than vehemently repulsing the sinister intentions displayed throughout the book, Salter spends most of the review nitpicking Kaufmann’s unfamiliarity with evolutionary psychology and concludes by commending him for breaking ranks with the rest of academia and putting forth a quote “vision of tolerance.” “Whiteshift might be part of a trend…” Salter writes, “The assumption that it is okay to express ethnic pride…is being extended to whites after many decades in the sin bin.” Perhaps, Salter seems to say, there is emerging a renegade ‘faction’ in the establishment to whom Whites can appeal to. Salter wrote these words in 2019, but we expect it has become all the more palpable to him and the BAC with the ongoing ‘vibe shift’ in politics since October 7 2023, the flight of Jewish money and intellectual influence from the political left over to the political right with an accompanying softening of anti-White rhetoric.
Since writing this review, Kaufmann remains a fixture in the BAC’s political material. For example, Kaufmann’s appearances across conservative media in the role of an anti-woke crusader can be found promoted by Salter on BAC website just last year. Salter’s response to Whiteshift and the rest of Kaufmann’s oeuvre is altogether baffling for someone widely known for being an erudite White identitarian. He’s obviously read the same book, but he doesn’t seem to care that Kaufmann’s sole political aim, which he has not in any sense been quiet about, is to prevent Whites from rescuing themselves from racial annihilation. This remained confusing to us, until we chanced across a recent media appearance made by Salter.
Without mincing words, we declare that Prof. Frank Salter is a traitor to Australia. As evidence, we present comments Salter made on the NCIA podcast back in March. So far nobody has picked up on these comments – evidently no one actually listens to the NCIA podcast, a small silver lining at least. Quoting his words in full (which can be found at the 35 minute mark):
“But of course we have diversified since then. I don’t think that an ethno-nationalist solution is appropriate. We are so diverse now, we have to take on board the diversity, we have to be able to live with it. But what is appropriate I think is arresting the assault on the dignity and the rights of the founding majorities. And it doesn’t matter if we fall to 40 percent or 30 percent, we’ll still have ethnic interests, we still want to avoid vilification and discrimination and violence. Quite often violence too. So we’ll have that interest. We’ll share that interest with other minorities. So I think that that is a mature, responsible way of defending group interests.”
No wonder Kaufmann’s plan for “tolerance” was couched in such positive framing. Salter agrees that White majorities have no future whatsoever and all that can still be done is attempt to exert our political rights. Salter is only one man and can express his views independently if he so chooses, but is this the position of the wider BAC leadership and rank-and-file members, an acceptance of not just multiculturalism but also multi-racialism? The BAC’s vision and policy positions bear the undeniable imprint of Salter. If the Multicultural Strategy has in fact been formulated with inevitable long-term racial decline in mind, the public deserves to know. It’s certainly not something being communicated openly on the BAC’s website and social media output.
Pay close attention and you see here that the BAC’s Multicultural Strategy is in practical terms an Australian version of Kaufmann’s ‘quiet extinction’ vision. Whether this is by design or by happy accident, they nonetheless operate on the same political principles. Like Kaufmann in Whiteshift, the BAC thinks that Whites have legitimate interests and should be allowed to publicly express their identity sans reprisal, even on a political level. Like Kaufmann, the BAC believes multiculturalism excludes the majority and is in need of reform (Kaufmann calls his reformed version ‘multivocalism’). And finally like Kaufmann, the BAC agrees that radical change necessary to prevent White demographic decline and re-take our countries from a hostile and genocidal power structure is the wrong way forward, a dangerous path that Whites should not (or in Kaufmann’s case, must not) go down. Preserving the status-quo, except with a buy-in for Whites, is all that is required. The BAC might quibble with him a bit about the miscegenation part, but that’s all far in the future anyways.
As a whole, the Multicultural Strategy is piecemeal, subservient, reformist; it is not revolutionary in the slightest. No genuine power structures are being challenged and there is no real threat to the system. The crux of the BAC is a desperate appeal to the State: “Take our concerns seriously, let us identify as White without fear of repression and we will pipe down and accept the multicultural future.” It is this that Zio-conservatives have no doubt taken note of.
Zionist Australian Community
At this stage in the conversation, it is necessary to ask: is the British Australian Community a compromised project? Is Salter’s racial betrayal the norm within the BAC? Have they received new funding from conservative donors along with instructions to push the latest political mirages – ‘Remigration’– and bring the Zio-cons fully into the fold? Going even further back, has the purpose of this group always been a deliberate attempt at a divide and conquer tactic? Split national sentiment down the middle in order to make sure resistance never goes anywhere; poison the debate with an Anglophilia that necessarily excludes millions of other White, but merely continental European descended, Australians.
One need not look very far to find historical examples of the BAC being on close terms with the Zionist element. Back when the BAC was merely the migrant association UKSA, and when arranging international transport was more taxing than just a few clicks on a website, a key partner handling the specifics of their travel arrangements was a company called Astronaut Travel Services (ATS). Founded by Bono Weiner and Lionel Landman, ATS later grew into Jetset Tours, a local travel behemoth run by Isi Leibler, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry (ECAJ) from 1978-1995. Leibler joined ATS as a managing director in 1965, at the time already a well-known figure in the Jewish community fighting racism and anti-semitism. We’re not saying that the UKSA was in any sense political back then, but Leibler and Co. would have no doubt done the necessary vetting of the group to sustain the by all counts fruitful business relationship.
History aside, what is clear is that the Zionists still find little cause to complain about the BAC of today, they show up in and around the group so often now. The facts speak for themselves:
Leading BAC members make regular appearances at the conferences and on the podcasts of Zionist-approved political groups, from the Foundation of the Round Table forums to the National Conservative Institute of Australia;
The BAC is local sponsor of the upcoming First Fleet Forum organised by the UK ‘Basketweavers’, of which the headline speaker is a Zionist content creator by the name of Russell Walter, an Australian disciple of Costin Alamariu’s Bronze Age Pervert character;
One of the speakers at the 2nd BACPAC is Steven Chavura, a Zionist-conservative political commentator who has quote “no problem with a multi-racial nation”;
Jewish conservative influencers such as Celina Di Veroli see it fit to promote the published works of Frank Salter and re-post the BAC’s X account;
The BAC promotes the Zionist-friendly Homeland Party and BAC members were present at the Remigration Conference in Italy in May, an event attended by right-populist parties from across Europe, most of whom are either outright Zionists or stay mute on the Palestinian genocide;
The BAC website plugs the videos of AHD TV, a Zio-conservative media network co-founded and chaired by Jewish investment banker Maurice Newman;
Harry Richardson, current president of the BAC, published multiple slavishly pro-Israel articles on his website The Richardson Post during and after the 12 day Iran-Israel war;
The original version of the book Anglophobia: The Unrecognised Hatred authored by Richardson and Salter, was serialized in Quadrant magazine in 2022 and other essays by Salter have been published in Quadrant since the early 2010s. Quadrant, politically adjunct to the Liberal-National Party, has maintained a Zionist stance since its inception and is unwavering hostile to racialism or non-Jewish nationalism more broadly. Founded in the 1950s by a Jewish publisher working for the CIA-backed Congress for Cultural Freedom, it is currently edited by Jewish journalist Rebecca Weisser; and
The book Anglophobia is advertised prominently on the news-site The Noticer, a blender of far-right ideas created by a former LNP ‘dirty tricks’ operative.
When Zionists find cause to collaborate and give your work the kiss of approval, this is better interpreted as the kiss of death. They have assessed the ideological content of your group, weighed up you and your body of work and have come to a single conclusion: this group is no threat to us – it will not upset the anti-White political order established post-1945, we can safely use them for our purposes. Nationalists come to similar conclusions about the BAC, only instead of joining them on this road to nowhere, we reject them outright.
To conclude, the BAC may be reaching its final (some would say inevitable) form. Bringing in the Zionists will no doubt accumulate you some short-term victories. But history tells us that the lifespan of a political grouping that accepts a Zionist presence, indeed of any country that allows Jewry to take the lead, ends with a shriveled husk once its usefulness to them has ceased. Nationalists, those who take an axe to the proverbial multiculturalist table, will remain standing long after the BAC has withered and died. For the sake of the Australian people, we can only hope that this happens sooner rather than later.
Fin