This makes as much sense as claiming that office towers make the housing crisis worse (because they could be used for communal accomodation), that public parks cause land shortages, and that unused solar energy causes high electricity prices. There is a virtually infinite supply of habitable land in Australia (mostly withheld from public use under the nativist supremacist title) where every person willing to take responsibility for their own life could build a tiny house following instructions off YouTube without even needing a building permit, for the price not exceeding 6 months of the minimum wage (including professional quality tools). There is no housing crisis; there is a mass impotence crisis and a racist land exlusion crisis.

Civilisation puts people in a situation where they have to interact and this requires a new kind of skill that ancient tribal cultures did not possess: to resolve conflicting beliefs and reach understanding on the basis of what all humans have in common. The stress of civilisation is a creative stress, associated with the existential challenge of having to work together to close the gaps in meaning between different cultures. For some traditional cultures this can be extremely difficult, since they were conditioned to think only in their own cultural terms, isolated from others for tens of thousands of years, while others had to interact with cultural ‘aliens’ for thousands of years.

Children as young as 12 will be allowed to discriminate against and invalidate their parents’ gender to punish them for their acquiescence to the removal of the right to free medical consent from future generations.

The WHO pandemic treaty is a confidence trick. There is no need to fight it if you can demonstrate its absurdity. https://michaelkowalik.substack.com/p/emergency-powers-and-the-who-pandemic

Is WA government genuinely supportive of Nazi ideology (nativist supremacism) or are they using reverse psychology to defat this evil? The most astounding aspect of the situation is how many people still fail to recognise the essence of Nazism and are happy to support it under new guises, vicariously, by the proxy of other races. https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/furious-wa-farmers-fear-sweeping-new-aboriginal-cultural-heritage-laws-will-hold-us-to-ransom/news-story/6886462f8ef6f2dac076d86a6704cea0

The fantasy of meeting the extraterrestrials and trying to understand them is psychologically fascinating, possibly a projection of how human cultures meet and try to understand one another, buy they happen to believe some opposite dogmas, make opposite claims of rights and end up killing one another. Then one day some guy named Aristotle figures out the essence of differences between sense and nonsense, truth and logical error, and he realises that all thinking entities, all cultures, even hypothetical aliens, are necessarily subject to these rules or they could not think at all (hence the name: the laws of thought). Then Kant realises that all thinking beings have the capacity to resolve their disagreements about values and facts without violence, simply by thinking about the point of dispute according to these fundamental rules. But we are still unable to do this reliably. So the irony of making alien contact is that ‘what if aliens believe something opposite to our convictions’ what if we fundamentally disagree about values and facts, what do we do? We cannot win through violence against a technologically superior civilisation, so the old go to option of empires is out. We can only reason. The Alien is a perfect symbol for the oldest human problem, that of disagreement about values and facts.

All Aboriginal people who are employed under the Aboriginal heritage law, or those who advocate it, are as morally culpable as those who supported nativist-supremacist laws in Nazi Germany. In fact, all Aboriginal people have the moral duty to resist the heritage law, the native title, and the voice, but there is regrettably only a handful of outspoken Aboriginal critics of these racist policies. https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/2891

Tribalism is the foundation of nativist supremacism, the essence of Nazi ideology, which emerges when tribal norms are challenged by other cultures. The tribal mindset is primitive insofar as it is not aware (or refuses to accept) that there is a higher level of social connection and affinity than familial relations, race, tradition or culture. At that higher level, which is the meta-structure of meaning itself, reducible to the laws of sense, the universal conditions on the basis of which meaning can be generated by reflexive, social relations independent of culture or genetics, there is humanity as such, and humanism (understood in the Kantian sense) as the antithesis of tribalism. Modern history can be reduced to the conflict between these two forces, one dying a natural death but still unleashing its inherent commitment to violence as the ultimate arbiter of values and facts, and the other learning how to mitigate this primordial irrationalism without negating its own commitment to humanity by becoming violent itself.

Australians, especially aboriginal Australians, must find the courage to publicly speak out against the supremacist acknowledgement of the “original owners” whenever it is witnessed. If you do not speak out, if you do not inform the ignorant person making the acknowledgement that they are endorsing nativist supremacism, the essence of Nazi ideology, you are tacitly acquiescing to it. I wrote to a number of government departments, explaining that I am a first generation migrant and their ideology precludes me from ever fully belonging in this country, that they implicitly designated me and my descendants as second-class citizens, in perpetuity, with lesser rights and a lower social status than what they consider to be the Original people. I never got a reply, but they can no longer pretend that they do not know what they are doing. https://t.iss.one/NormalParty/1731

Another useful article on the occult roots of nativist supremacism in Nazi Germany, with emphasis on the mythology of the Original, Root races being created by God, while other races were regarded as not God’s creations. https://www.museumoftolerance.com/education/archives-and-reference-library/online-resources/simon-wiesenthal-center-annual-volume-3/annual-3-chapter-9.html

The snippet is from the manifesto of the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation. Any kind of “holy mandate” tribal-nationalism is classified as Right Wing extremism, as racial supremacism - a core feature of nazi ideology. They also claim to be your rulers. Beware.

OPEN LETTER: Welcome to Country, Acknowledgement of Original People. 

I submit that any references to Original People, First Nations, or any statement implying that Aboriginal Australians as a race or ethnicity have a special social status or value, is an expression of nativist supremacism, a core feature of Nazi ideology. I will provide evidence to make this analogy explicit and plead for you to discontinue reinforcing these harmful ideas, not only because they are an implicit endorsement of the ideological foundations of Nazism but because they preclude all migrants and their descendants from ever fully belonging in this country. The sense of racial exclusion is pervasive and insurmountable. There are no possible conditions that could make nativist supremacism morally acceptable; if something is wrong in principle then it is wrong for everyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason.

Crucially, my approach is not merely to critique nativist supremacism but to replace it with a higher sense of unity: All humans share the same ancient ancestors, we are all related, we are all the original owners of the Earth. Reason unites us.


1. The Nazi Analogy

The ideology of Aryan Nazism has evolved as an indigenous rights movement, in alleged harmony with God (German Nazis believed that Aryans were one of the 7 original, root races created by God). "Nazis, driving Social Darwinism to an extreme, understood their ideology as the application of natural law (Schwenkel 10). In this sense, it was logical to observe the practices and history of Indigenous peoples (Naturvölker) to draw conclusions about “natural” human behavior (Mühlmann 89). The solidarity, mutual aid, and group cohesion of Indigenous peoples, for instance, could serve as a role model for the group cohesion of the Nazi Volksgemeinschaft (the community of the people); and this opportunity for propaganda overrode notions of white supremacy that were foregrounded on other occasions. This example not only demonstrates the Nazis’ emphasis on the community over the individual, but it also shows the bond Nazis assumed between the cultural understanding of the Indigenous peoples and the Germans’ own supposed indigeneity." https://journals.openedition.org/elohi/553

Another useful article exploring the esoteric roots of nativist supremacism in Nazi Germany, with emphasis on the premise of Original, Root races being created by God, while other races were regarded as not God’s creations. https://www.museumoftolerance.com/education/archives-and-reference-library/online-resources/simon-wiesenthal-center-annual-volume-3/annual-3-chapter-9.html

In comparison, I present an extract from the manifesto of the Original Sovereign Tribal Federation, an Indigenous activist group at the forefront of the nativist sovereignty movement, which is prolific on social media. "Man’s Ancient customs state, that flesh and blood man was divided by the Creator into nations and tongues. The Original nations, a creation of the almighty Creator, were Crowned by the hand of the Creator and granted the ownership and custodianship over Terra Australis by him. Proof of this dignity is the acknowledgment by all the Nations of this planet, that we are the unquestionable first and Autochthonous Nations of Terra Australis. We the Original Tribes, by divine right, are the Creators' assigned owners and legal guardians of Terra Australis and have been since time immemorial. Autochthony, being our Holy mandate - the divine testament of our inheritance - the confirmation of our Royal rule of this, The Creators land Terra Australis." https://web.archive.org/web/20230616232942/https://ostf.weebly.com/ostf-declaration-of-sovereignty-and-nationhood.html 

Any kind of “holy mandate” tribal-nationalism is normally classified as right wing extremism. 


2. Black and Red Flag, and the esoteric Sun-symbol

The Black and Red flag is a common Nazi symbol, signifying the connection between ‘blood/race and soil/land’ (analogous to Aboriginal interpretation of the same colours, in identical arrangement), and is still in use by contemporary neo-Nazis. 

“Red and black are the colours of the Bandera Wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. The flag symbolizes blood and soil, and was adopted by that organization in 1941, along with an explicitly totalitarian program. The black-and-red banner is a symbol intimately connected with the most radical Ukrainian right-wing tradition,” Per Anders Rudling, a historian of nationalism: https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/chrystia-freelands-deep-seated-ties-to-ukranian-nationalists-reveal-a-double-standard 

See also https://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/ukrainian-far-right-party-upstages-fifa-with-visit-to-zurich-headquarters

The next exhibit is a black and red flag, bearing the logo and initials of the NSB (National-Socialist Movement) in the centre. "The colours black and red were the favourite colours of the NSB. The same two colours were popular with the National Socialists in Germany and represent their Blut und Boden theories." https://trc-leiden.nl/collection/?trc=&zoek=2020.3726&cat=&subcat=&g=&s=24&f=0&id=%2041431

It is notable that the specific orientation of the Nazi swastika is an ancient symbol of the sun (https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/how-why-sanskrit-symbol-become-nazi-swastika-svastika/), and is still interpreted as such by resurgent Nazi movements: “with our thought and soul given to the black and red banners, with our thought and soul given to the memory of our great Leader, we raise our right hand up, we salute the Sun…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dawn_(Greece)


3. Permanent Exclusion and Collective Imputation of Guilt on Migrants, Past, Present and Future

According to Reconciliation Australia, the demand for "reconciliation" extends to all non-indigenous people. No distinction is made between non-indigenous entities that historically benefited the most from colonial exploitation vs settlers who were themselves chiefly exploited, between entities that committed crimes vs those who respected indigenous people as moral equals. The most glaring omission in this discourse is what do post-colonial migrants, many of whom escaped democidal regimes, have to reconcile about with indigenous people? The expectation to “reconcile” devalues and arbitrarily stigmatises all migrants and their descendants. The said omissions suggest that the term "reconciliation" is a misnomer, used in bad faith; the implicit purpose of the exercise is too secure an inalienable, superior moral entitlement for the native race. This is inconsistent with the professed purpose of national unity and equality. "A reconciled Australia is one where our rights as First Australians are not just respected but championed in all the places that matter…" writes Kirstie Parker – Board Member, Reconciliation Australia. Mutual respect for human rights and reciprocity of moral obligations is not enough to satisfy "reconciliation"; a commitment to the priority of the native race and culture is demanded from every other race and culture. The stated criteria of reconciliation are self-centred, arbitrarily discriminatory on the basis of race or origin, inconsiderate of differences between non-indigenous histories, and therefore also supremacist.


4. Beyond Native vs Alien

“It is a deeply human trait to identify with a homeland or a home tribe, to differentiate ‘us’ from ‘them’ and to vilify outsiders as enemies (Culotta, 2012; Davis, 2009), but whether this innate tendency to draw boundaries between in-groups and out-groups and then to discriminate across them is helpful or harmful when applied to other species is questionable. The incendiary allegation is that the concept of nativeness itself ‘really amounts to a form of racism, almost an ecological fascism’ (Trudgill, 2001, p.

680), and that pro-native policies are xenophobic, redolent of Nazi horticulture (Brown & Sax, 2004, 2005; Coates, 2011, 2015; Gröning & Wolschke-Bulmahn, 2003; Katz, 2014; Peretti, 1998; Theodoropoulos, 2003). In environmental discourses, human and biotic communities are conflated in myriad ways, especially in relation to the intertwined and co-rooted ideas of nature, native and nation (Head & Muir, 2004; Smith, 2011; Warren, 2011). All three rely heavily on the fiction that these concepts are given, not constructed (Biermann, 2016), and all have close linkages with identity (Fall, 2014a; Olwig, 2003). As Antonsich (2020) shows, ideas of nativeness and alienness have developed in conjunction with the nationalization of nature and the naturalization of nation, with consequent conflation of ecological and political nationalistic narratives. Framing alien species as immigrants has been a common metaphor since Elton (1958), and there are undeniable rhetorical parallels and cultural/psychological entanglements between anti-immigrant and anti-alien species discourses, each being framed in terms of native purity being contaminated by illegitimate newcomers (Caluya, 2014; Frank, 2019; Inglis, 2020; Stanescu & Cummings, 2017b; Subramaniam, 2017). Such parallel arguments against alien people and non-human alien species are mutually reinforcing (Sinclair & Pringle, 2017). Explicit comparisons between ‘foreign’ species and ‘othered’ humans are not only commonplace but have become integral to biopolitical governance, exemplified by President Bush’s relocation of staff responsible for invasive species management to the Department for Homeland Security after the 9/11 attacks on the USA (Steer, 2015) and Australia’s ‘Safeguarding Australia’ policy which aims to protect the nation from terrorism, crime, invasive diseases and pests (Caluya, 2014). Branding invasive species as security threats to the ‘pure’ homeland (e.g. Simberloff et al., 2020) reinforces the nativist foreigner-as-threat imagery which pervades the invasion biology literature (Fall, 2014b; Katz, 2014; O’Brien, 2006; Subramaniam, 2017). The selection of the date of European colonization as the defining temporal threshold of nativeness (e.g. 1492 in the USA, 1788 in Australia) embodies a further subtle form of racism by implicitly classing indigenous peoples as sub-human, belonging to wild nature not human civilization (Head, 2012).” https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1140055153

I hope this communication will help you understand the moral problem and correct the misguided endorsements of nativism.

I was informed in response to the above discussion that there is a flipside to the problem of nativism: invasive migration. On one side you have social stability being disrupted by mass immigration with supremacist ambitions and propensity for violence; on the other side you have migrants being denied equality forever, irrespective of how they behave, because the natives declare themselves superior. The problem is actually the same on both sides: it is tribal supremacism, either as a migrant or as a native, and both are equally wrong. Nativist supremacism is wrong for reasons explained above, with a strong historical precedent, but the problem can be extended to any in-group identity. The moral wrong of migrant supremacy does not negate the moral wrong of nativist supremacy; they are both moral problems. The solution lies in the middle.
Being immersed from birth in a culture/tradition results in a great ‘sense’ of familiarity, but it is not coextensive with the capacity to generate meaning. Echoing the same behaviours for thousands of years may feel like a profound connection, but it is only involuntary conditioning; even animals can do it. The distinguishing property of rational consciousness over animality is the capacity to begin from incompatible states of conditioning, develop a common language, resolve irrational/inconsistent elements by utilising the universal laws of logic, and generate common meaning.
The most irrational aspect of every nation, ethnicity, tribe or identity group is their culture. Once you strip away the culture, down to bare humanity, all people can be reasoned with.

There is a profound difference between the kind of human unity I am advocating, accomplished by communication and creation of common meaning, exercised in good faith and without ideological impediments (this is actually an objective condition of consciousness, always already in place but merely denied by our irrational impulses and dependencies), and the kind of unity of obedient drones that social engineers may seek to accomplish by deception and force. Culture is an impediment to both, because it is an imposed dependency, not a moral choice of the individual. Conformity is always irrational and immoral, because it delegates the authority to think and make moral choices to others. The desire to impose conformity is itself a supremacist ideology, but also an expression of the fight/flight instinct. Social engineers seek to control others only because they need it to control their own anxiety. Rational, moral humans are inherently free, and have the courage to be free, to take full responsibility for our individual moral choices, and only this freedom truly unites us as a kind, and only this is a source of our moral status as humans.