The point of this essay is to highlight the wrongheadedness, disingenuousness, vacuousness, and absurdity of the academics of New Zealand who lack interest and dedication to decisively look at what it is that We on the Right are about. When reading it would be beneficial to refer to two leftist academics from England, Eatwell and Goodwin, who offer a critique of liberalism through a lens that considers a broader view of nationalistic and identitarian political philosophy than any New Zealand academic has ever conceived of. As such, it is worth mentioning their four key points of discussion that one would do well to mull over.

Interpreting Eatwell and Goodwin


First and foremost, distrust is a vital element of the theory put forward by Eatwell and Goodwin because groups have real and legitimate interests that are not being met. Just as there is a distinction between countries, there is a distinction between the groups that create them. White identitarians are particularly distrustful of the system, as the authors suggest in their book that National Populists are, because our interests in our own countries are being curtailed by self-interested elites in the government and other institutions. The point of a government, the state, is to look out for the interests of its nation while the nation upholds abides by the social norms and traditions the government helps to ensure. When a government fails to represent the people, they achieve distrust among them.


Destruction refers to the breaking down and annihilation of primary and secondary identities. Our identity, the identity of the people who created the country we live in, comes at the behest of foreign peoples, and our group’s interests fail to be maintained. Instead, the amalgamation of hundreds of foreign groups with no substantial collective identity is catered to simply as individuals within an economic zone, or in many cases as foreign groups that are perceived to have legitimate interests in countries that are not their own. Of course, this is typical of a liberal society that seeks, by its nature, to weaken group identities by globalising and mixing them, whenever and wherever possible, and then economising them. This destroys unique identities held by racial-cultural groups.


The third point ties in naturally with the previous two. Deprivation of whites in Our countries occurs through a process of decline in standards and ways of living. As the adage goes, you import the third world and you get the third world. This truth is explicit in the now-multicultural Western countries of the contemporary era. Labour value decreases, infrastructure wavers, inflation occurs, state funding runs thin, culture is weakened, and surrogate activities prosper in order to accommodate the masses of foreign bodies that bring their own unique identities to host states. This fact ensures competition between host cultures and imported ones, leaving an already suppressed host on the back foot, deprived of sustenance.


White identitarians, who are most often engaged in political and philosophical ideas that surround governance, are no longer aligned with the political parties that claim to represent their interests. Although in New Zealand the MMP system proffers minor parties, the major parties (as well as the minor ones) fail to address the concerns of voters. Each major party will most often agree on big issues and merely get caught in the weeds on secondary or trivial issues of no substantial consequence when compared to vital ones. Naturally, liberalised representative democracies are destined to face this reality because their philosophical underpinnings lack a basis in reality. The representatives are ironically named so due to their inability to represent the people from the country in which they maintain Office. Thus de-alignment occurs and spreads throughout innumerable facets of society.

Uninspired and Oblivious: The Ivory Tower of Vacuity

The attitude associated with academics profiteering monetarily and socially – by climbing rungs on the economic and social ladders – by means of attacking and condemning innate feelings of nationhood and ingroup preferences is a quintessential case of an overarching point in modern liberalism, individualism. The individual-mindedness of our contemporaries plays straight into the hands of global corporations and other multinational interests. It forwards the notion continuously propagated by corporate bodies that it is the individual consumer who is most vital, most important; the global citizen, he who fits in anywhere and everywhere because his only discernable identity is rooted in shallow consumer habits; the global citizen has a penchant for individual vice and surrogate activities, and them alone.

Academe By Another Name

It has previously been said that the objective of a university is to foster inquiry, education, philosophical openness and to be a protector of reason. Contemporarily, however, as we will discuss in greater depth going forward, this notion of enlightenment is not a reality. In reality, and in a particularly acute form as far as white identitarianism is concerned, these traits are unreservedly not based in fact. This brings us to our first major point: deprivation. Deprivation, as it relates to Eatwell and Goodwin’s conceptual theory, will do well to help explain the ludicrous expectations of New Zealand’s not-so-profound academics.

In a recent meeting that surrounded the notion of terror and terrorism, our group was implicitly referred to by numerous speakers, including institutionalised academics and governmental bureaucrats. In this meeting. a lecturer from the University of Auckland spoke of his concerns regarding the threat he perceives to be coming from white identitarians. This was, or is, that white identitarian extremism represents New Zealand’s biggest terroristic threat. The crucial point of this statement is that it lacks any semblance of in-depth interaction with or study of the ideas behind the existence of groups like Action Zealandia. One reason for this is that every interaction, reading, or conversation that is realised between such people and ideas that relate to white identitarianism is framed in such a fashion that it is always construed as being negative, resentful, genocidal, and the (increasingly and tediously expanding) list goes on.

There may be a number of reasons for this lack of inquiry and reason. One may be that such academics have figured it all out, found that contemporary liberal dogmas and social progressivism are the end of history, and need only outrightly dismiss alternative political and philosophical ideas. This, however, seems unlikely given that leftist academics elsewhere, such as Eatwell and Goodwin, have done a far better job — even if lacking in a metaphysical depth – in comprehending what white identitarians, in our various spheres, generally think. As such, it seems to me improbable that New Zealand’s intelligencia have their I’s dotted and their T’s crossed on the subject. Anecdotally, as far as New Zealand’s major universities go, we can confirm this is very much the case. If a superficial understanding is sought, Auckland University’s Politics and International Relations department is the place to go as far as White Identitarianism is concerned. One perhaps brief but both cynical and pessimistic answer may be that these actors simply do not care; they have ulterior motives for which We merely offer a means for them to progress, as individuals, financially, socially, and career-wise. This refusal to address the root concerns of people and groups they claim to be so concerned about may prove essential in understanding why the latter could very well be closer to the truth than the former.

In the all-too-short lecture at the Terrorism Meeting, the lecturer suggested that there was a range of grievances that could potentially lead lone individuals to commit acts of violent terror. Naturally, the lecturer did not air any grievances that may or not be held by such actors, but he did make an interesting point about individuals. He said that individuals were more likely to commit these egregious acts of violence. Perhaps We at Action Zealandia can expect thanks from the likes of such academics if this is, in fact, the case, because our mere existence must, then, surely aid in the suppression of violent terror (if we are taking this theory as gospel, that is). Although I will go into greater detail on the horrendous nature of a culture that caters to individuals as a point of moral reasoning as this article progresses, I can say here that the primary goal of Action Zealandia, any political and philosophical jargon aside, is to build a community of decent, respectable people. There is no future for depressed, resentful individuals who wallow in their own misery at the struggle Our people face. The future is in people who are defined by considered thought and vital action. Seeking to harm or even murder those that are not like you, or who disagree with you, is no way to create a healthy future. In the past, we have penned articles on this very subject.

There is a reason why Our members volunteer for various organisations, attend community groups and church groups, provide support to others, maintain jobs, undertake further education and continue to play a plethora of roles in the society that we more often than not disagree with. We are not, as the theorist Benedict Anderson suggested, imagined communities, but rather a living, thriving, and substantial force of will. As stated on our website and in our articles and podcasts, time and time again, We seek to build a positive community that reflects the values and ways of existing in the world that is healthy, forthright, and perennial in their conceptual tradition. We are not perceived to be a part of a group, we are here, and we have a shared history, traditions, ancestry, and future. The meek, ironic, and uninspired lecture proved, once again, that the New Zealand Academy fails definitionally.

Bald Heads and Banal Boneheadedness

In an earlier publication by two University of Canterbury educators, the case of the vacuous, uninspired academic grows ever-stronger. Beyond suggesting absurdities like Brenton Tarrant represented the rise of the alt-right, or that white identitarians solely exist because of their individual economic situations, their lackluster and ill-informed presuppositions failed to expand further than any tedious, rung-out liberal commentator could have. However, one hopes that Our future work may not prove to be an exercise in futility.

Indicated in their work was that the rise of immigration of Muslim immigrants and economic migrants has caused a surge in Islamophobia, suggesting that immigration is the root cause of this issue, completely misconstruing the reality of the situation. There are two significant points that should be highlighted here.

The first is that Muslim immigration is not a root problem. Mass immigration that has occurred in the Western world for decades now is one of the symptoms of a much greater problem that broadly liberal dogmas have; that is that within this conceptual understanding of the world there are no people, there are no traditions or history, no standards worth preserving or social mores worth adhering to, there are simply individual consumer units. People as cattle and cattle that consume. Numbers that equate to corresponding numbers. If mass migration is not the root problem, then certainly Muslim immigration is not either. What Muslim immigration is, however, is a particular identifier of disparity between ethnocultural groups. The vast differences between a cultural group that’s starting point begin at submission in an entirely totalitarian sense, as in dictatorial in each and every aspect of one’s life, flies in the face of the Western Tradition. It is clear, to illustrate this particularly salient point, that Enlightenment values loosely espoused by today’s liberals did not stem from the all-encompassing Islamic doctrines of the Quran and Hadith.

This brings us to point two, addressing the roots of the problem. The liberalisation of existence is the mechanisation and rationalisation of every aspect of existence into catering to the maximisation of the happiness of the individual consumer. Do not confuse Bentham’s greatest happiness principle to mean good health and wellbeing going into the future, because in existence under a neoliberal system the primary focus is on those fleeting moments of happiness; those whims of least importance; the trivialities that leave one unwhole, wondering why the void in their soul remains just so — a void. Happiness is defined by consumption, and consumption is defined by consumer identities that are bought and sold; participation in subcultural identity groups is dictated by fiat currency rather than a rootedness in something unique. Everything is to be rationalised economically in order to mechanise the human experience. No concrete identities of yesteryear associated with a people’s origin story, no community or national traditions, no history or ancestry, only consumption groups defined by their lack of definition. They aren’t connected to anything other than quantitative variables such as currency and consumer units.

This consumption market under neoliberal ideals maintains specific ethics that ensure, and this is the vital point, that the economic aspect remains paramount. As such, the ethics associated with this consumption market only exist to bolster the economic element. One of the clearest examples of this type of ethics is slogans such as diversity is our greatest strength, one particular phrase that has been espoused ad nauseam. Betraying this obnoxious phrase is akin to committing a grand crime in this era, as it hinders the humanitarian progress all set to be achieved by replacing people and cultures with a philosophy of decline, that views whimsical happiness as paramount for every individual within a society as if superficiality is the height of existence. Something so completely unsustainable that the word utopian hardly touches the sides of its monumental void.

To conclude this section, it is worth mentioning for those who’ve felt it lacking that the clear disparity between liberalism broadly speaking compared to Islam as a philosophical concept is, for all intents and purposes, on opposite ends of the political spectrum. The hypocrisy of liberal-minded individuals in their espousal of multicultural visions in including a totalitarian ideology in their worldview as a point of necessity is beyond laughable. With that said, it is not for me to consider delving into as it does not come close to bearing witness to the overarching point, which is that quintessential liberal dogmas fail to take into consideration the importance of people in the enormity of cultures; they remove ancestry, wins, losses, heartbreaks, histories, traditions, social mores, religions, time, and spirit from the equation. A man apart from his culture-soul is no man at all. In liberalism, there exists an autonomous computing device that meanders up and down the depths of an endless, meaningless void. The personification of the deprivation of man.

Art for Art’s Sake

“In the morning, when you rise unwillingly, let this thought be present: I am rising to do the work of a human being. Why then am I dissatisfied if I am going to do the things for which I exist and for which I was brought into the world? Or have I been made for this, to lie under the blankets and keep warm? But this is more pleasant. Do you exist then to take pleasure, and not at all for action and exertion?” Marcus Aurelius, Book V.

Academics have suggested that those of us on the Right feel as though society has rejected us; that we have become disillusioned by society’s progress due to liberalisms’ flagrant abandonment of culture of the perennial kind, a culture associated with a group’s traditions and its defining institutions of thought and worldview. Because Liberalism perceives all of man to be good, equal, and harmonious it takes for granted the preexistence of goodness, equality, and harmony in society. There, liberal democracy in Our era is unequivocally and definitionally flawed. When Rousseau penned The Social Contract his account for democracy to succeed rested on the society in which it existed to be small and poor in order to govern by the people, for the people. Representative democracy orchestrated by an amalgam of people from dozens of ethnocultural groups, all with competing interests, is definitionally antithetical to the abovementioned axiom. A people is a nation; a distinct group with a shared history, ancestry, culture, and traditions. By the people does not refer to a representative of tens of thousands if not millions, it is specific to direct address; by the people, for the people. Thus, a globalised multicultural society organised under a Mixed-member proportional system, allegedly democratic, is a far reach from the conceptual theory. Especially when it could be argued that the threshold for minor parties to participate rests at a level beyond that which transgressive parties can achieve, therefore maintaining the contemporary hegemony of ideas in parliament.

As we were, and as such academics were, born into this state of decay, one could instead suggest that society has been disillusioned by liberal ideology in practice rather than the theory offered by our resident academics.

Under liberal dogmas, every sphere of human activity and interaction exists to serve itself. The whim of the individual is just that. There is no rootedness in a people or their traditions, and if there were it would not be allowed, because liberalism dictates that anything authoritative that overshadows the realm of individualised society is morally corrupt due to the fact that it potentially limits an unspecific individual’s freedom to act on a whim. Thus we have art for art’s sake; the existence of every single individual human is entirely divorced from anything outside their own whimsical soliloquies and undertakings, and there is not a thing that bears significance in stature provided such individuals’ impulses do not hinder anothers’ ficklessness. Where man was previously defined by the great works of art, architecture, writing, and theatre of his culture, he is now cultivated by a culture that worships conspicuous consumption in his quest to share pictures of brunch and fanciful vehicles.

To disagree with such a worldview that liberalism offers us is to be described by academics as “radical”. One needn’t wonder why rates of depression and suicide increase annually when the orthodoxy that the poor souls resided under offered nothing greater than the height of liberal consumerism: the devolution to individual whim. To want more, to want to be connected with your people and cultural traditions and ways of living that improve wellbeing, rather than existing to fulfill transient wants of individual whims, is to seek something better. Something that isn’t defined – regardless of class – by consumption habits, but by commitment, sacrifice, honour, self-worth, and loyalty to one’s group.

Unrepentant Fiends & Spicy Memes

This brings us to the oversimplification and unwillingness of academics to consider and compete with the primary concerns that racially aware people, such as identitarians like us, bring into the public domain. The reality of liberalism is that it offers nothing of substance to a host people. In fact, if followed to its logical conclusion, it will achieve the absolute opposite of substance, a particularly nefarious abyss previously discussed.

It would appear that academics such as those who choose to criticise us publicly offer no rebuttal and very little substance to the conversation that surrounds concerns of primary identities as far as identitarians see it. It is the modus operandi of those whom the neoliberal dogma thoroughly flows, that a healthy unwillingness to engage with or even breach the field of interacting with concerns associated with primary identities. What is wholly acceptable, conversely, is espousing tenets of an ideology that offers no group that isn’t based on a fanciful consumer identity the opportunity to exist in adherence with something meaningful. Why is this, one wonders? Could it be because liberal academics in the social sciences are provided with far too comfortable an existence for their discerning selves to wish to give it up? Perhaps it’s the case that disingenuousness and the often outlandish lies that are placed on identitarians provide the enlightened and cultured ivory-towered individual great opportunity to flesh out their nest egg. The government grants and institutional stipends flow nicely, as we all well know.

In order to achieve the necessary vacuity to attain support from the appropriate crowds, a judicious academic need only cite instances of internet culture and memery framed from a particular perspective for full effect. It is through this means that they, along with media institutions and other political players, are able to craft moral panics that benefit their careers to the umpteenth degree. As with any movement, culture, subculture, and the like, there are elements of it that push the boundary of appropriate and inappropriate, funny and offensive, stupid and sly; having the ability to laugh at and simplify complicated issues is something that the majority of people do in order to maintain sanity. And this is very much the case for people who are interested in politics, philosophy, and metaphysics; and particularly in the technicised age of seemingly exponential speeds of information gathering and sharing. Off the internet, however, there are groups made up of people like me, people who want to see a better place that offers our children a positive, healthy future. A future that doesn’t exist attached to materiality, but one that provides deep and meaningful experience in life. That is one of an organic system of thought and action, placing an emphasis on the natural world, natural order, our traditions, social institutions, religion, fervency, family, creativity, community, and culture-spirit and soul. It is not Our concerns that parasitic academics highlight, though, it is the memes of anonymous internet users on globalised websites that concern their attention; going on to link to people like us to atrocities they suggest were or are created by people who interact with internet-based entertainment subcultures.


In reality, there is no future in a globalised, multicultural country in which a neoliberal utopia is realised. The myth that diversity is a country’s strength is an absolute evil when one considers the drastic effect mixing divergent groups has on host nations. We are not imagined communities; we exist and we are striving to do something positive for our people. Liberalism and the liberal mindset maintained by the aforementioned academics ushers in the decline of unique cultures and peoples by their very definition. The stupidity of these academics in their un-realisation that they, and those like them, are the very people that create and mold the depraved, rootless individuals who commit atrocities is the ultimate irony. As they fester, housed in their – ironically – insular institutions, they fail to address or even consider the evil that they help ensure continues to exist by being what they are, uninspired and oblivious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *