Jaenelle Antas

The Herald Sun has reported, just in time for Australia Day, that those who fly Australian flags are more racist than those who don’t. The study was conducted at an Australia Day fireworks celebration last year in Perth, where 513 people were interviewed and asked about their views on a variety of immigration and values related statements.

This study has been cited all around Australia and I’ve even seen some global news sources carrying it, despite the fact that it doesn’t really pass academic rigor and the “conclusions” are really just assumptions, possibly based on the researcher’s own biases.

A self-selecting sample of Australians who live in Perth, attend fireworks displays, and agree to an interview are hardly representative of all Australians. The researcher, Professor Farida Fodzar of the University of Western Australia, specialises in race relations, a field of sociology/anthropology that sets out to imagine racial conflict and racist motivations where there are none. If there were no racism, she’d be out of job, after all.

Furthermore, none of the questions actually ask about racist views. Fodzar and the media are equating patriotism with racism, which is incorrect. Patriotism is the love of and devotion to one’s country. Racism, in this context, is intolerance of others based on their race. Patriotism has nothing to do with racial intolerance in and of itself, though one who is patriotic may be intolerant of those who are undermining the country they love, regardless of the race of those people.

Let’s break down some of the findings of the study which were reported in the above linked article:

Professor Fodzar said the team found that of the 102 people surveyed on the day who had attached flags to their cars for the national holiday, 43 per cent agreed with the statement that the now-abandoned “White Australia Policy” had “saved Australia from many problems experienced by other countries”.

She said that only 25 per cent of people who did not fly Australia car flags agreed with the statement.

Under the “White Australia Policy”, which was non-official government policy until after World War II, non-Europeans were barred from migrating to Australia.

It’s no secret that multicultural/multiracial societies have serious problems resulting from conflicting values and lifestyles. It’s not outrageous that some people might think that the net loss from the conflict caused by racial and cultural diversity outweighs any potential or imagined gain. However, such views do not necessarily make one “racist”. And indeed, it’s entirely possible that many of those who believe that the White Australia policy was a good policy were direct beneficiaries of it themselves.

The survey also found that a total of 56 per cent of people with car flags feared for Australian culture and believed that the country’s most important values were in danger, compared with 34 per cent of non-flag flyers.

If a flag-flyer is a patriot (and if one isn’t, why fly the flag?), then a concern for preserving Australian values is legitimate and expected. The values of yesterday are not the same as the values of today and anyone with open eyes can see them changing right before us. A patriot who loves his country and sees it changing into something unrecognisable will be understandably concerned and upset.

But this doesn’t make one a racist. The implication of the word “racist” is usually that the racist is white. It’s rarely spoken, but always assumed. In fact, a non-white Australian could just as easily be concerned about the decline of important Australian values as much as any white Australian. But even if the person in question is white, race still isn’t necessarily a factor. Most of those leading the drive to destroy traditional values are themselves white, so here it is a conflict of ideology, not race.

Thirty-five per cent of flag flyers felt that people had to be born in Australia to be truly Australian, compared with 22 per cent of non-flag flyers.

Again, not a racist view. Australian immigrants come from every corner of the globe, with the United Kingdom leading the top of the pack. The question here is one of supposed dual loyalty or lack of loyalty to one’s adopted homeland, but not one of race. In America, people who hold this view are called racists and the accusers get away with it because almost all immigrants to America these days are non-white and it makes a convenient red herring in the immigration debate. But despite an end to the White Australia policy, Australia still has significant European immigration and a quarter of Australians are foreign born.

Twenty-three per cent of flag flyers believed that true Australians had to be Christian, while 18 per cent of non-flaggers agreed with the statement.

This is just an example of how non-academic this study is. Not only does Christianity have nothing to do with race, but a 5% difference in opinion may well be covered by the margin of error. We’re not told what that margin is, but considering the sample is small and non-representative, it’s likely that the margin of error is 5% or even higher. We don’t know, but this point seems to be thrown in only to denigrate Christians.

An overwhelming 91 per cent of people with car flags agreed that people who move to Australia should adopt Australian values, compared with 76 per cent of non-flaggers.

This is a statement that even the Australian government endorses. In order to be granted permanent residency or citizenship in Australia, one must sign a declaration promising to adhere to and uphold Australian values. Refusing to do so is grounds for denial. In fact, most governments of the world that allow mass immigration at least pay lip service to integrating immigrants. In order to integrate, it necessarily follows that one must share things in common with one’s host population. In any case, the vast majority of both flag flyers and non flag flyers agreed that immigrants should adopt Australian values.

Only this could be said to have a slight tone of racial or cultural superiority, but it’s unfair to assume that racism is the motivating factor in those holding this view. It’s not inconsistent with the idea that immigrants should try to fit in with an Australian way of life and some may rightly believe that the ways of some immigrants are totally opposed to Australian ways.

Neither are we given any information on the people who agreed with that statement. Some of those who agreed with the statement may themselves be migrants who have made a great effort to adapt to the Australian way of life and expect other newcomers to do the same. One cannot simply assume this belief is based on racism, as people may have a wide variety of reasons for thinking migrants should assimilate.

It does not even mean one is opposed to immigration. In fact, many of these flag flyers might be so enamored with the Australian government’s immigration policies that it has inspired deep patriotism and pride in their country. If the question of whether or not one supported immigration in general was asked, it wasn’t reported upon.

Fodzar is simply engaging in Australian-bashing for publicity’s sake. Her research is shoddy and her conclusions appear baseless. Her conclusions about “racist” attitudes come from a whopping 102 people, about whom we have been given no demographic information. She went into the study with preconceived notions and came out with useless data that serves to validate what she and her ivory-tower colleagues already believe, while they look down their noses at ordinary people who aren’t as “enlightened” as they are.

Flying the flag of one’s nation should be considered a positive thing and patriotic attitudes should be desired from the populace for any number of reasons. If Fodzar (who was born in Brunei) is offended by patriotism for her own adopted country or views it with negative connotations, perhaps she should reconsider her citizenship.

I have always enjoyed Rousseau’s writings, despite the fact that, on the whole, I tend to lean towards Burkean conservativism and Burke held Rousseau in very low regard. I have to depart from my usual agreement with Burke on this. While there is much of what he says that I disagree with—for example, his romanticised belief in equality—his writings do contain several nuggets of wisdom and the seeds of nationalism, including his conception of the ‘general will’.

In his writings, Rousseau asserts that humans can never return to the state of nature because socialization has corrupted us beyond the point of no return. Therefore, as the best way to ensure our preservation, he believes we ought to enter into a social contract. Rousseau’s ideal society, under the social contract, would be one governed by the general will, not private wills. A large, multicultural society is not compatible with Rousseau’s social contract and prevents the general will from ever coming to fruition.

Rousseau argues that the purpose of society is to create circumstances under which nobody is oppressed. Ensuring our freedom and survival is what makes giving up our natural liberties (doing whatever we want) worthwhile. Outside of society, people are not equal and people are competitive. Those with advantageous qualities exploit and oppress others in order to fulfill their own private interests. Rousseau seeks to end this kind of slavery through a society where the general will trumps these private interests.

The general will, in other words, is the public will. It is not, however, a compromise between private wills. It is not ‘majority rule’. Instead, it is the transformation of private wills into a concern for the common welfare of society. The general will views each individual impartially and, although it does not have to be unanimous, it must be something that everyone could conceivably agree to in principle as being beneficial for everyone. It should reflect the high-order interests of the population, satisfying our rational goals and desires, not our whims driven by short-sighted appetites. This is what makes us free. When the laws coincide with our wills, we do not feel coerced; instead, we feel free because we feel like we are doing what we wanted to do anyway. We cannot be truly free, he says, when we are enslaved to our passions, compelled to fulfill them, and therefore the law should be designed to help us master our passions so that we can truly be free.¹ Rousseau is talking about positive freedom, as opposed to negative freedom, which is what most people today conceive as freedom.

But governance by the general will is not possible in a large, multicultural society like the United States. Because the general will is not something to be imposed upon society and it is not something that should benefit one group at the expense of another, a consensus seems impossible without breaking either of those criteria. How can 300 million religiously, ethnically, and culturally diverse people ever all agree what is best for society when their conceptions of high-order interests are often dramatically different and in many cases completely opposed to one another?

First, to address the issue of size, Rousseau believes that a small state is best. He idealizes the city-state (the Geneva of his era, in particular!) and the type of community he envisions is one that is small enough where everyone knows everyone else.² Indeed, he states “it is always an evil to unite several towns into a city, and that anyone wanting to bring about this union should not expect to avoid its natural disadvantages”.³ In his view, for example, France was far too large for people to govern themselves effectively in this manner.

A small state is desirable for a few reasons. As a state becomes larger, its administrative levels become deeper, which is not only expensive, but also results in poor and ineffective governance.⁴ Today, large nations have made the existence of small city-states nearly impossible and communities lack autonomy because modern government tends to be highly centralised. The government becomes very dispersed, with laws coming from politicians whom the people never see and to whom they cannot relate.⁵ In order to fill all these many political offices, we elect representatives and cluster them in cities (usually just one large city in particular) where, via majority-rule, they make laws that apply to all of us, regardless of circumstances.

This has a significant impact on the amount of involvement each citizen can have in formulating the general will. Although Rousseau is not necessarily opposed to legislators⁶, he is opposed to deputies or representatives⁷, which is the more appropriate term for our elected officials. We essentially pay someone else to go make laws for us so that we don’t have to worry about all the different considerations that go into making a law or fulfill the legislative duties we all ought to have as citizens. Consider, for example, the number of people who express little or no interest in politics and the high level of political ignorance as demonstrated by numerous opinion polls. How can the general will ever be the end result of this? It can’t. Rousseau says as much: “[U]nder a bad government no one wants to take a step to get to [the assemblies], since no one takes an interest in what happens there, for it is predictable that the general will will not predominate, and that in the end domestic concerns absorb everything”.⁸ When people do not care about government, then the only thing left to care about is private interests; and with politicians concerned only about the pursuit own private agendas, such conditions are never conducive the emergence of the general will, let alone the attainment of freedom. Rousseau says that the moment we elect representatives to take over our duties of citizenship, we are no longer free.⁹

Second is the issue of diversity as a hindrance to the general will. Diversity of any kind has the tendency to lead to the creation of different factions and interest groups. Humans naturally divide up into groups because group membership plays an important role in self-identity¹⁰, and we have a natural tendency to prefer people who are like ourselves¹¹. It is also natural for us to dislike those who are different from us and practice beliefs or lifestyles we find objectionable or odd. Rousseau does not believe that it is possible for people who are intolerant of each other ever to live in peace¹². He states this specifically of religion, but it can certainly apply to any type of difference between people. As people self-segregate and begin forming exclusive groups based on race, religion, or ideology, these groups can easily become political interest groups who use the institutions of government to advance their own group’s interest at the expense of the general will and sometimes to use their greater numbers and louder voices to oppress those not in their group. Laws are then made that benefit one group at the expense of another (affirmative action is but one glaring example of this); however, the general will would dictate that the law view everyone impartially and not accord special privileges to any one person or group. (In fact, one could argue that in Rousseau’s ideal city-state, there would not be enough difference between people to warrant the formation of competing groups in the first place.)

One might first be tempted to suggest that we simply apply the law evenly to all, but Rousseau states that different peoples with different customs cannot share the same form of government and the same laws.¹³ He believes that laws should be uniquely tailored to the people they will be given to, reflecting their customs and values. A multicultural society, under the same government, cannot achieve this. Conflicting cultural values can only result in compromise at best and conflict at worst, neither of which is the general will.

The solution, then, is for societies to be homogenous. The more homogenous a society, the more likely they are to share similar values and goals. This homogeneity maximizes agreement with the general will and also makes citizens more likely to think in terms of what is good for the whole of society as opposed only to what is good for them individually. And when new laws are necessary, their “necessity is universally understood. The first to propose them merely says what everybody else has already felt; and there is no question of intrigues or eloquence to secure the passage into law of what each has already resolved to do, once he is sure the others will do likewise”.¹⁴ Homogeneity allows citizens to think in tandem and trust that the others are looking out for everyone’s best interests.

According to a study by Robert Putnam, outlined in his book Bowling Alone, the greater the diversity in a society, the less likely people are to trust each other, the less likely they are to be involved in the community, and the less likely they are to participate in politics.¹⁵ But the general will requires active citizenship and a concern for one’s neighbors and it cannot exist if the people are apathetic and distrustful of one another. Naturally, because people seek out others like them, the result is what Rousseau calls “partial societies” who each have their own will, distinct from that of the general will.¹⁶ Certainly diffidence and a lack of concern for the common good are going to make the existence of a general will impossible, which will also make freedom impossible.

Freedom, for Rousseau, is being able to live the way we want without being a slave to our appetites. When the general will reflects our high-order desires, we are free. It is when the high-order desires of different members of society conflict that freedom is no longer guaranteed and the law becomes oppressive, as individuals, groups, and politicians seek to advance only themselves, often at the expense of others. One is never free when one has desires against the general will, but one is also not free when one is oppressed.

Unfortunately, the modern doctrine (a.k.a. the ‘Bob Dole doctrine’) that demands we must all be intolerant of the intolerant not only prevents the kind of open discussion necessary to come to a consensus, but also seeks to deny certain groups of people their right to live according to their own values. Rousseau would probably say that people should be able to live their own lifestyles away from people who support values and beliefs they find objectionable. I can think of one example that might closely illustrate this principle: the Amish, who have removed themselves from the larger society and opted to pursue their salvation away from the corrupting influences of the modern world. Rousseau would probably not only support their right to withdraw their consent to the current “social contract” (if it can indeed even be called such anymore), but would also encourage others to do the same if they find they can no longer support the arbitrary and oppressive government under which they currently live, because they would then form their own smaller societies based on their general will.

The problems of a large, diverse state are numerous. Excessive bureaucracy and administration leaves the populace feeling alienated from their government and politicians who are out of touch with the concerns of their constituents. This has the effect of reducing political participation on the part of the people, leaving the door open for politicians and interest groups to use the institutions of government to further their own ends without regard for the welfare of society as a whole. Diversity reduces social trust, causing people to withdraw from their communities and feel as though they don’t have a voice, as different groups vie for power over the others in an attempt to advance their own interests at the expense of everyone else. We all end up as slaves, chained to each other in mutually parasitic relationships, where the powerless must rely on the goodwill of their masters and the powerful are dependent on the complacency of the masses.

The general will can never exist under such conditions, and neither freedom nor equality can be found within modern society. The latter is a system that has locked in inequalities and even gone out of its way to create new ones for the purpose of exploitation. It has robbed men of their high-order desires and left them at the mercy of their whims. Rousseau did not believe a just society could exist on foundations of inequality and oppression and he would no doubt find ours to be as unjust a society as ever there was one.

Few would expect the ultra-egalitarian Rousseau to make an argument against multiculturalism, but his views on equality were nothing like those of the modern Left. While the Left would have us believe all human beings are basically interchangeable, Rousseau acknowledged human differences in abilities and talents. It is for this reason he is sometimes criticized by a minority of the academic Left as having laid the groundwork for dictatorial governments by providing “justification” for one man to rule over another. This interpretation is wrong. In all of Rousseau’s writings, he advocates for the exact opposite: true communism as opposed to Marxism.

Rousseau was not concerned about natural or physical differences between men. He accepted them as a reality and never argued from the perspective that “might makes right” nor did he ever accept that argument as a valid justification for one man subjugating another. The inequalities Rousseau was concerned with were moral inequalities (that is, primarily differences in social status). The two things are not connected in his mind. While natural inequality is a given, he believes moral inequality is artificial and it is that which he seeks to avoid in his conception of the ideal society, hence his preference for a direct democracy over other, more stratified forms of government.

It is because of this that many Leftists do tend to claim Rousseau as one of their founding ideological fathers, agreeing with his theories on property rights and equality. But Rousseau is not incompatible with the nationalistic Right and in fact his ideal society really is only achievable in the kind of societies that nationalists want to see. The Left often fails to see this, in their belief that all humans are physically equal. This makes their vision of an ideal society impossible and naive. Their view of human nature is fatally flawed.

While Rousseau wasn’t correct on everything, he did understand that radically different types of people cannot live together in peace. Although he could not have envisioned the type of multiracial societies we have today, he was certainly in a position to understand the deep-seated conflicts between competing cultures (consider as an example the ongoing enmity between the English and the French). A society that strives for coexistence between groups with nothing in common or even active hostilities can only do so through force and subjugation (see Lothrop Stoddard’s The French Revolution in San Domingo). The Left has always had to resort to these means in pursuit of their Utopia because what they want goes against human nature. Even Marx knew that people wouldn’t “come quietly”.

Rousseau would disapprove of his ideals of equality being used to justify multiculturalism and he would condemn our experiments thus far as abject failures. He would object to our governments on the basis that they promote passive, lazy citizenship that naturally results in oppression, but he would probably also recognize that our ‘melting pot’ society leaves us unable to form a general will, as there are too many competing values for there to be any consensus. If Rousseau were alive today, I believe he would be on the side of nationalist Right, not the Marxist Left. 

References

1. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. (1987). The Basic Political Writings. (Donald A. Cress, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett. (Original works published 1750-1762). p 151.

2. Ibid. p 26.

3. Ibid. p 196.

4. Ibid. p167.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid. p 162-165.

7. Ibid. p 197-200.

8. Ibid. p198.

9. Ibid. p 199.

10. Smith, E. R.., & Mackie, D. M. (2000). Social Psychology, 2^nd Ed. Philadelphia: Psychology Press. p 205.

11. Ibid. p 214-215

12. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. (1987). The Basic Political Writings. (Donald A. Cress, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett. (Original works published 1750-1762). p 226.

13. Ibid. p 167.

14. Ibid. p 204.

15. Leo, J. (25 June 2007). Bowling With Our Own. Retrieved 24 April 2008, from http://www.city-journal.org/html/eon2007-06-25jl.html

16. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. (1987). The Basic Political Writings. (Donald A. Cress, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett. (Original works published 1750-1762). p 156.

It’s a question one cannot avoid asking or avoid hearing in this movement: Where are all the women? Females are noticeably absent, save for the wives who get dragged along to events by their husbands. Being female myself, people often ask me why I think this is or what can be done to change it. I don’t consider myself an expert on the subject, but since I have been asked about it frequently, it is a question to which I have devoted some thought.

The main factors that I believe result in a lack of female participation are a generally hostile atmosphere in the movement, minimal or non-existent social acceptability, and an excessively political orientation.

The overall hostility towards women is, in my view, probably the biggest factor. Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not a bra-burning feminist nor do I hate men. In fact, some of my best friends are men (all of them are, actually except for two) and I don’t approve of the way modern society tends to build up women at the expense of men.

But there are a LOT of bitter men in this movement. I’m sure you know the type: The ones who blame women for all of society’s problems, as well as for their own personal problems; the ones who view women as little more than baby-making machines and are resentful of women who do anything besides raise children; and the ones who think women are inferior to men (intellectually or otherwise) and therefore have nothing useful to contribute.

I can’t say if these people are in the majority or not, but it doesn’t matter. They are so vocal that one cannot avoid hearing them and any woman who encounters this, particularly one who is on the fence, is likely to be put off by it, if not driven off completely. No one wants to participate in an activity where they are being put down, denigrated, and criticised at every turn. Most people’s participation in anything is contingent upon feeling valued by other members of the group. This kind of anti-female language that is so prevalent does not make women feel as though their contributions toward activism will be valued, nor does it give the impression that this movement has something better to offer the average woman than does modern society.

But it’s not just men! I’ve encountered some pretty hostile language from other women, too, who believe that any woman who isn’t having a million babies and keeping house for her husband is a radical feminist. That is also extremely off-putting and sends the message that any woman who wants to be involved in this movement is expected to give up her own dreams and aspirations and focus only on having a family. However, having children is not activism. It is important and necessary, but it is not activism. Most women were born with a uterus and a brain and we are capable of using them both. Currently the face of this movement is entirely male and until there is a noticeable female presence, it will fail to mainstream.

That leads me to the next factor, the lack of social acceptability. Contrary to popular belief, women are not all that left-wing. In fact, women tend to become more conservative as they get older and have families. There are a lot of right-leaning women out there. And they are not participating in our movement. Why?

Most people do not seek out ostracism. Participating in this movement, especially openly, means having all sorts of unpleasant labels attached to one by default. Guilty by association. Many of our men may not have a problem with that and feel that they can “go it alone”, if they must, but women aren’t hard-wired that way.

To date, very little has been done to mainstream the movement. It has remained on the fringes, primarily attracting fringe individuals who cannot find social acceptance in other circles. This is starting to change, slowly. When women can join this movement without fear of ostracism and loss of their entire support network of friends and family, they will flock to it. It’s not that women don’t care. It’s just that there is not much in this movement as a movement (as opposed to a set of personal beliefs) that is worth potentially placing in jeopardy one’s reputation, livelihood, or physical safety.

This goes back to what I said about offering women something better than does modern society. Promising a woman that her only reward for participation will be becoming outcast in regular society is not particularly enticing (especially if it comes with a rigid enforcement of gender roles). But if and when the movement mainstreams, it will be in a better position to offer something more attractive and beneficial to women. Men can afford to hold to impractical ideological principles like multiculturalism and diversity, but women will almost always break ranks when it is in their or their children’s best interests.

Lastly, current means of activism offer very little that is of interest to the average woman. Most activism is centered on political activism. Conference, rallies, blogging, etc. are not activities that appeal to women, on the whole. Women generally are more inclined towards social causes.

Political causes are largely a man’s game. Politics requires a level of confrontation and competition with which many women are not comfortable, either because of their own gentler nature or because they have been socialised not to be aggressive in that manner. I get the impression sometimes that men expect women to be as enthusiastic about political causes as they are, not realising that by offering no other options for participation, they get either half-hearted efforts from the women who do participate or they attract Sarah Palin types who think they are honourary men and are generally an embarrassment to the movement. The remainder of the women just sit on the sidelines, not knowing how they can help and feeling generally useless and left out.

There is no organisation in this movement that focuses on the social problems of our people and no one coordinating efforts to solve those problems. It’s not that we don’t think political causes are important. We know they are, but they don’t engage our sensibilities. We derive a lot more satisfaction out of helping someone in need than in writing letters to our senators and the results of social activism are usually more immediate. I engage in political activism because it is essential, but I much prefer opportunities to help our people directly and in a tangible way.

Social causes are something women are historically very good at taking charge of and turning into a success. Our movement could benefit a lot from organisations whose focus is on helping people and the existence of such organisations would attract more women by offering them activism options that are interesting to them and give them a chance to utilise the talents they have. Women tend to be community builders and would excel at providing a framework in which we can offer services and support to our people.

Additionally, having groups whose purpose is to help others can put a more positive spin on the movement, helping to debunk the myth that we are all just haters. Any serious political movement should have an arm whose purpose it is to improve the community and the lives of the people in it.

So how do we put this into action and start attracting more women?

First, negative attitudes about women have to change. Make the movement more welcoming to women. Get rid of the He-Man Woman Haters Club- it is toxic to our movement and serves only to feed the stereotype that we are made up entirely of older, reactionary men who are living in the past.

Second, get those new women (and the older ones, too) involved in social activism for our people that engages their sensibilities and makes use of the talents that come naturally to women. Put them to work as the new face of the movement and they will not only attract more women, but also more men, increasing our overall numbers and the amount of talent available to us.

Once these things have been achieved, mainstreaming this movement will come much more easily, but until then, we will continue to have very little political power and our influence will remain limited. Women are essential to the success of this movement. Anyone who is serious about the future of our people should be making it a priority to reach out to women and make them feel welcome.

When a chubby man in a Phoenix diner offered to buy me dinner, I had no idea of who he was or of the consequences of chatting with him for another hour. The internet rumours, the blogs, the newspaper articles, the phone calls at all hours of the day and night, the death threats, the mace, and more . . . none of it was on my radar screen. I had been driving all day and I was starving. Club sandwich, please, and hold the tomato.

I assumed him to be a customer of the diner who was simply curious about what was going on, especially as the antifa protesting outside had drawn everybody’s attention. It's not unusual to encounter curious bystanders while on a book tour. The result of that conversation was not one, but three, sleazy articles about me.

The man was a journalist, though he did not disclose it to me until afterwards, when someone confronted him. As it turned out, he had come at the invitation of the antifa.

Call me naïve (which I certainly was), but I tend to take people at face value. There is something about two-faced people that doesn’t compute with me. How could this person be so nice to my face and then turn around and write nasty articles about me? Did I really deserve that? I had been kind to him and remained courteous even after his admission to having engaged me under false pretenses. I couldn’t understand where the rabid hatred had come from.

Yes, David Irving is controversial and I was aware of that (though when I first got involved with him, my awareness of that was marginal), but until this point, his enemies had left me out of the fight. Some people might say I should have expected that not to last, but I was new to it and no one ever warned me of what I might be getting myself into. I don’t think I could have been reasonably expected to anticipate it given my limited knowledge of such matters at the time. And because I would never stoop to such tactics, the thought that someone else might do it, and do it to get to me somehow, never crossed my mind.

Eventually, I learned that almost all journalists are like this. Oh, a few I’ve talked to have been okay, but at the end of the day, most of them are subject to their editor’s demands. The story that gets printed is never the story you gave them in the interview. A sensationalised story sells better than a balanced story, after all. After David Irving’s emails were hacked, the UK’s Daily Mail ran a story on me (complete with my copyrighted pictures, which they had stolen and used without permission) based on snippets of these emails, which they twisted in order to create a story where there was none. Not once had they attempted to contact either of us for clarification prior to going to press. It’s just another example of how the media makes the news, but rarely reports the news.

It is thanks to journalists that the antifa came to know of me. They targeted me initially because of my association with David Irving. Because they had decided that they don’t like David Irving, they declared me guilty by association, playing judge, jury, and executioner. That I look “sufficiently Aryan”, as one newspaper described me (was it supposed to be an insult?), is apparently further evidence of my guilt. Were I a dark-complected Latina, like David’s previous assistant, I doubt they would had paid nearly so much attention to me. But my genes dictated that I be born with fair skin, blonde hair, and blue eyes. Mea culpa.

As anyone else who has been the target of Left-wing hatred knows, it is more of an annoyance than anything. I am not easily offended. Posting on the internet that I should be raped and murdered does not make me cry myself to sleep at night. Leaving me voicemails saying that I am a “racist whore” does not drive me to overdose on Prozac. I roll my eyes and I move on. You see, I’m a busy person. Unlike antifa who are usually unemployed and unemployable, I don’t have time to sit around being offended. And I don’t have time to be offended on behalf of anyone else. The antifa, on the other hand, seem to spend their entire day feeling offended by the existence of people who think differently than they do, but who otherwise don’t bother them. I cannot imagine a greater waste of life, nor can I understand what motivates them to exist in a state of perpetual outrage.

The antifa don’t understand the real effect of their efforts to “name and shame” me. Sure, I got a few prank phone calls and I lost some friends, but that’s trivial stuff. What they have given me is a wider platform and greater networking opportunities.

By publishing my telephone numbers, the antifa caused me to receive numerous calls from fellow pro-white advocates who were concerned for my safety and well-being. I made several new local contacts and I expanded my network of friendly faces across the country. The phone calls I got from concerned strangers far outnumbered the ones I got from people who wanted to tell me they hate my guts even though they don’t know me.

By publishing my email address, the antifa also facilitated the involvement of several people new to the movement who write to me asking how they can get involved. Most of the time, I can direct them to someone in their area who runs an active group.

Additionally, by outing me, the antifa have made it easier for me to be active in the pro-white movement. I don’t have to worry about anyone finding out about me. This means I can take on a greater role in organisational and street activism. I can start an openly pro-white business. I can write articles and sign them with my real name. I can more easily network because people can Google me and know that I am genuine in what I do.

Had I not been outed, I would have continued my quiet existence and avoided any real involvement for fear of being discovered. I neither regret nor relish having been exposed. It is what it is and I can’t undo it. Yes, there are some things that are better accomplished by people who remain in the shadows, but there are also things better accomplished by people who have gone public. We need both kinds.

So this is my advice to anyone who finds themselves targeted by the enemy: When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. Look for a way to turn the inconvenience into an opportunity to help the movement. Do not be intimidated.

If you spend any time on Facebook, you may have seen someone you know post the following copy-and-paste status message, which seems to have been making the rounds at least since the Arizona immigration law went into effect:

Your car is Japanese. Your pizza is Italian. Your beer is German. Your wine is Spanish. Your democracy is Greek. Your coffee is Brazilian. Your tea is Chinese. Your watch is Swiss. Your fashion is French. Your shirt is Indian. Your shoes are Thai. Your radio is Korean. Your vodka is Russian--and then you complain that your neighbor is... ......an immigrant? Pull yourself together! Copy if you are against Racism!

Let's just address a few basic problems with this.

First of all, my car is a Toyota, but as you can see from the VIN, it was actually made right here in the USA. In fact, we make Toyotas here in Indiana. And that pizza we had last week? That was made from all US ingredients, too. I’m pretty sure at least the cheese was from Wisconsin. I think the tomatoes were from California, though I realise some don’t consider that part of the US anymore.

With that out of the way, let's talk about what Stanley Fish calls 'boutique multiculturalism'. I read his article on the topic back in my college days and it has remained a favourite of mine ever since. Fish is a Leftist of the highest order, but he's an intelligent Leftist, so I do rather enjoy what he writes, even when I don’t agree with all of it. If you can find it, read it; I highly recommend it.

Boutique multiculturalism, as Fish defines it, is a superficial fascination with the Other: ethnic food, weekend festivals, and high-profile flirtations with the Other. Boutique multiculturalism is exactly what all this global consumerism nonsense in the Facebook status message means. Purveyors of this superficial brand of multiculturalism appreciate, enjoy, sympathise with, and 'recognise the legitimacy' of cultures other than their own. But they always stop short of approving these radically different other cultures at the point where it would matter most to the strongly committed members of the other culture. We may, for example, say that Jews should be allowed to practice their religion in our countries, but we certainly don't approve of kosher animal slaughter or of women being forced to shave their heads and wear wigs. But hey, that dreidl game is really fun! At the point where the boutique multiculturalist finds another's cultural practices inhumane or irrational, he withdraws his respect and appreciation. For this person, multiculturalism is just a matter of lifestyle.