Australian Prime Minister Says He Doesn’t Know What An Australian Is
If he doesn’t know what an Australian is, how can he govern in our best interest?
Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has admitted he does not know what an Australian is, suggesting there is no distinction he’s aware of between Australians, migrants, and refugees.
Speaking at a press conference, the Prime Minister said:
“I wonder what the distinction between Australians and migrants is, because I’ve never seen that used before in a country like ours. You know, we have people who are in senior positions in our government, in business—you know, some of the giants of business in this country came here as refugees and as migrants. Are they seperate from Australians?”
In other words, according to the Prime Minister, “Australian” means everyone and everything in general—and therefore, nothing in particular. It’s not a specific people, it’s not a heritage, and it’s not an ethnicity—it is something that anyone from anywhere can simply “become” with the right paperwork.
Of course, this is nothing new to the Anglo-Celtic sphere. Across the world, we’re all being fed the same slop—where citizenship and ethnic identity are being intentionally conflated and confused. You are no more British, American, Irish, Canadian, or Australian than the migrant who received citizenship five minutes ago.
Vivek Ramaswamy made a similar claim last month when he contrasted the United States with other nations. Ramaswamy suggested that while one may live in France, Germany, or Japan, citizenship can never make a person truly become French, German, or Japanese. America, he argued, is entirely different. Anyone can arrive from anywhere and become fully American.
It’s probably safe to assume that Albanese has adopted a similar philosophy. I’m yet to hear anyone argue that Japanese citizenship is all it takes to make a man “Japanese.” But as I argued in response to Ramaswamy last month, this notion uniquely carves out a supposed exception for Anglo-Celtic nations without any explanation of how that works.
It is to strip the labels “Australian,” “American,” and “English” of any inherent ethnic meaning. The terms are now so inclusive that they cannot refer to any ethnic group in particular. What Albanese is effectively claiming is that either “Australian” has no real historical, national, or ethnic meaning beyond paperwork, or else he’s suggesting that citizenship in Australia can somehow transform biological identity in a way it clearly cannot. Neither option is coherent.
As I argued then:
The idea that nations founded by the Anglo-Celtic people of the British Isles are uniquely exempt from the normal relationship between people, culture, and nationhood is a relatively modern invention. It gained traction in the post-World War II period, alongside broader efforts to undermine nationalism, and redefined Western nations in purely civic and universal terms.
What this does is dissolve the distinction between a nation, as a particular people, and a geographical, legal jurisdiction. If anyone can become fully “American” in the same sense that no one can become French or Japanese, then “American” ceases to describe a people at all. It becomes a label with no fixed substance. “American” is open to anyone and anchored in nothing, except a geographic location.
What’s more, it reduces a country to the property of the world, belonging to no particular people group, subscribing to no particular religion, and living by no particular culture. When anyone and everyone can become something, that thing is without meaning or limit. And that is, of course, the end goal of the “melting pot” that is Globalism: No nations, only global citizens—people assigned to specific regions, like economic widgets—and nothing more.
What’s more disturbing is when this kind of people-denying rhetoric is voiced by the Prime Minister of the country to which those people belong. As Sam Bamford of the 2 Worlds Collide podcast aptly noted: “If you clearly can’t define Australian, you’ll never be able to protect its people, culture and history.”
He’s absolutely correct. This is no small admission from the Australian Prime Minister. If he doesn’t know what an Australian is, how can he govern in our best interest?
Not that anyone was particularly convinced he was.