Adam Piggott

Gentleman adventurer

There is no such thing as a Greek-Australian.

A couple of weeks ago my article on Senator Anning’s maiden speech to parliament was cross-posted over at XYZ magazine. In response to the Senator’s statement for a popular vote on the matter of immigration, I had this to say:

We are also in complete support of the Senator’s proposal for a popular vote on the matter, as long as voting is restricted to those born in Australia to white Anglo-Saxon parentage going back at least three generations.

To my great pleasure someone left the following comment:

Huh? Three generations? Anglo-Saxon?? Strictly speaking, Anglo-Saxons refers to only people from Britain, so Scottish and Irish don’t count. You know your proposal would exclude a lot of Europeans and their descendants who migrated post WW2? A lot of Greeks, Dutch, Italians, Polish, Irish, Scottish and more recent arrivals from Serbia, Croatia, the Balkans, Eastern Europe would be caught by your rule. And what of the Jews eh? I’ve met and made friends with plenty of young patriotic Aussies of various non-Anglo-Saxon European extracts and are only second generation as their parents migrated in the least 20 to 40 years. Also what of people of mixed Anglo-Saxon and something else heritage? Will they be excluded from voting?

I love this comment as it neatly sums up all that is inherently wrong with our “great” multicultural experiment in Australia, an experiment upon which the Australian people were never consulted.

Strictly speaking, Anglo-Saxons refers to only people from Britain, so Scottish and Irish don’t count.

My bad. Allow me then to redefine the parameters that I originally set out. All persons from Great Britain, that is the Great Britain of Anglo and Celt stock that sent its undesirables down to this Great Southern Land.

You know your proposal would exclude a lot of Europeans and their descendants who migrated post WW2? A lot of Greeks, Dutch, Italians, Polish, Irish, Scottish and more recent arrivals from Serbia, Croatia, the Balkans, Eastern Europe would be caught by your rule.

Precisely. All of those nationalities mentioned plus many more are not Australian. They are Greek, or Dutch, or Italian, or whatever else they may be. The term Greek-Australian along with all others of its ilk is nonsensical. A Greek can no more be Australian than an Australian can be Greek. As an Australian I lived and worked in Italy for over 10 years. I speak the language fluently, but the idea that I could declare myself to be an Italian is positively ludicrous.

Perhaps our commenter feels that these nationalities deserve to be Australian because they are of white stock. By that token a person of Nigerian extraction deserves to be an Ethiopian as well. Or perhaps a Chinese person deserves to be Japanese, (hint – that would go down like AIDS in a gay bar.)

This is why the idea of white supremacy or white nationalism is ridiculous. It makes as much sense as Asian nationalism which makes exactly no sense at all. I am an Australian nationalist. My country was built by our forefathers for their progeny but our elected representatives have spent the last 60 years giving it away to the rest of the world on an ever increasing scale, a scale that has gained an almost unstoppable momentum all of its own. As was planned and intended.

This is Helen Kapalos, chairman of the Victorian Multicultural Commission.

A couple of years ago in Melbourne I had the displeasure to attend a business breakfast where she was the guest speaker. Born and raised in Australia, she spent almost her entire speech proudly declaring how much at home she felt when she first visited her native Greece, a view which she repeated in this interview:

But Helen herself wouldn’t see Greece until she was 18, when it entered her life in a kaleidoscope of love and colour. She formed an instant connection with relatives she’d never met before.

“It reconciled a part of our identity, it gave us a stronger sense of who we were, and our place in the world.” she said.

Of course it did because this interloper’s place in the world is Greece, not Australia. Unlike the immigrants who came to Australian before WWII, subsequent arrivals have not had to assimilate to the same extent, a process which became weaker over time and which now does not exist at all.

Helen travels to Greece every year, and the nation’s hardships haven’t gone unnoticed.

“The most heartbreaking thing for me has been to witness I guess, the broken spirit of the Greek people,” she said. “Even within my own family, it’s been a heartbreaking thing to see.”

I wonder how she would feel if her native Greece that she holds so dear was overrun by foreigners? It’s one thing to have your spirit broken due to calamitous economic events. It’s another thing entirely to not exist as a nation in its own right anymore.

Here is the honor role for HMAS Sydney, lost with all hands in WWII. The vast majority of the names are of British origin. Because that is what our country was. Those are the men who fought and died for Australia. Men called Smith, and Hill, and Andrews.

The traitors who implemented the multicultural policy did so with the knowledge that they had to go too far to make it work. They had to bring in so many foreigners that being someone other than a descendant of a native Britisher would become the norm. In this way they knew that ordinary Australians would grow up to accept the gross cultural injustice which was perpetrated upon them as being perfectly acceptable. And in this way it would be impossible to reverse.

Nothing is impossible. But the longer it continues then the worse will be the butcher’s bill.

There are a few foreign names on the honor list for HMAS Sydney. Schmidt and Schultz stand out for whom they were fighting against. A nation can always absorb a very small number of immigrants. Such an activity is advantageous as long as those permitted to join are of a similar ethnic background. Such was the case in Australia up until the early 1950s when the floodgates were opened.

On consideration I am against the idea of a popular vote on the matter. The reason is that the left will seek at all costs to demonise anyone campaigning for what they consider to be the wrong side, exactly as they did with the gay marriage vote. Furthermore, if the left lose then they will feel no obligation to uphold their side of the agreement and the right will be too weak to make them stick by it. But a win to the left would see the reverse of the situation. Heads I win, tails you lose.

And what of the Jews eh?

What about them? They have their own nation now. Time for them, and for many others, to go back.



Friday hawt chicks & links – The sick sick sick edition.


The science that cried wolf.


  1. Allen

    My original forebear in America was not British. That colony was subsequently conquered by the British, so in a way the Brits were the invaders. Be that as it may, there are certain rights to conquest. His descendent was required to swear allegiance to the British Crown. Subsequently, another choice had to be made when the American Revolution came about, are you a loyalist or revolutionist? Those choices came with hard consequences.

    In the case of that Greek woman, she’s just a transient. No skin in the game, no loyalty, nothing. Those type of people are essentially parasites. When one host is exhausted they expect to move on, and they don’t really care if more of their kind ride along.

  2. PB

    I’d be all for excluding Jews from much of Public life in Australia. They have only a loyalty to themselves and their own kind above all else. Everyone else is fair game for exploitation, to them. They are a Nation within, and they seek to make it a crime for us to notice their treason.

  3. JohnC

    The sad part is that even immigration of Anglo Saxon and Celtics of the modern UK would not be the same as the descendants of the British, Irish & Scots who left for Australia in the 18th and 19th century. Like the Boers of South Africa after so many generations, they would their own. To move from the UK in a wooden boat taking months by sea to a place that only has no buildings, farms, or other modern tools (17th century) but also add the weather and different people who don’t share any of the history and culture of Britain or Europe. The people who stay in the UK would have a slightly different sets of Genetics and over time develop differently. The only ones similar would be New Zealand and Americans (US and Canada).

    What I am saying is that you can not save Australia now by importing people Europeans, Asians or even I am saying from the UK since they are different people but only by having babies. Immigration now can not be the solution.

  4. I guess the real question is, how long do you have to be in a place before you can consider yourself of that nationality?

    The Anglo-Saxons themselves were immigrants of Germanic origin (with some south east/central Asian thrown in, there is evidence of the Huns intermingling with the Germanic immigrants too), just as the Celts were immigrants from central Europe and northern Africa. Yes, this was sometime between the 5th and 11th century, but Britain has been a recognised nation for a very very long time. There were also Jews in Britain as early as 1070, most of Asian origin. The protestant french immigrated in the late 1600s along with thousands of Indian scholars, lascars, and other workers (who were mostly Bengali and/or Muslim), some of whom settled down and took local European wives, due to a lack of Asian women in the British Isles at the time. In the 18th century there was also a small population of Africans, yes they were often servants and slaves, brought over forcibly, but they eventually became a free part of the British population.

    By the time Australia was settled by “Anglo-Saxons” and “Celts,” Britain was an old nation, it had, had its share of immigration and these many different cultures, nationalities, and whoever blew in from various periods under foreign rule, had become part of what is really a mongrel mix.

    So…after so many years are they really still Anglo-Saxons and Celts or are they a collective group referred to as “British”? How long did they have to be in Britain to call themselves British? First generation, second generation third generation, thirtieth generation? I guess if we go by your argument, anyone that has been there for longer than three generations is British, which means they certainly aren’t Anglo-Saxon or Celt.

    Australia was officially settled by “Anglo-Saxons” and “Celts” in 1788 and therefore, as a nation of 230 years old, we are relatively young. Is this current period of immigration a period of growth, or are we really losing our nation of white “Anglo-Saxons” and “Celts?” Or were we not really “Anglo-Saxons” and “Celts” to begin with?

    Also….indigenous people?

  5. Dave


    I guess you are from the school of thought that believes ‘but but the Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese etc etc’ built Australia?

    Did you not read the honour roll Adam posted? The absolute stunning lack of diversity is related only in so much as to which part of the British Isles you came from. Or as I like to respond to clowns who go on about Italians building Australia, “which Italians were those? The one’s shelling us at Tobruk and bombing London, or the Italians we had locked up in internment camps in Australia”?

    Did the Anglo-Saxons ‘immigrate’ to the British isles, or did they came, saw and conquer? As in, did they arrive, then imitate the Britons, or did they bring their superior intelligence, habits, customs and martial skills with them and impose their vision on the Britons?

    Had the Anglo-Saxons not arrived, would Britain have become the largest empire in history, the creator of the modern world etc etc? Would Australia exist?

    Not a chance.

    They are a distinct breed of human beings, that likely due to the isolation on the British Isles, developed very unique traits that have not been replicated by any other ethnic group.

    Your diversity BS is exactly that. I love how you claim an infinitesimal number of foreigners in Britain somehow are responsible for its greatness. Alfred saw your diversity, and then went about ethnically cleansing the invaders. We call him the Great today, because the viking DNA of modern Britain is virtually extinct. He cleaned house, just as a future Alfred will across the anglosphere, and we will build statues to the one that achieves this.

    Pro tip. To be an Australian, Alfred the Great by default is a personal hero. One of OUR PEOPLE’S great figures. There is a long list to be sure in the over 1000 year glories of our history. OUR history. New Zealand’s history. Canada’s history. America’s history.

    If you visit Westminster Abbey and look upon the tombs of the great men of our past and do not feel any connection or bond, you are not Australian. Full stop.

    As for Aborigines, they are just that. Aboriginals. They are not Australian. Australians are the descendent of the Anglo Saxon/celtic settlers of what we now call Australia. If trends continue and China claims the continent through force or through demographics, it will cease to be Australia. They will name it something that reflects the Chinese nature of the landmass they now own. If by chance I was to survive like the Aboriginals, I would still be Australian, but I could not be whatever it is that the Chinese call the place.

    Its really not that complicated.

  6. TJ Smith

    Nice article with a few comments:

    Other European ethnicities are not the problem IF they are assimilated. If they are not assimilated its because of the diversity/multicultural nonsense. And whose fault is that? Its the fault of the native Australians not forcing them to assimilate because of “diversity” and the agenda of the special group that you are not allowed to name.

    Years ago the goal was to assimilate and be like everyone else. Merge in and be done with it. My family migrated from Europe almost 100 years ago, we are now European mutts. Not for one second would I say that I am German, Polish, Irish, Italian, etc… we are products of HERE. We have NOTHING in common with those Europeans. We are Australians, thats it.

    This woman whom is Greek-Australian. If you love Greece so much, than go back where you came from. Get out. You are that hung up on being Greek than you are not really Australian anyway.

    The diversity/multicultural rot was beset upon Australia by primarily one group. I am not going to name that group because many websites will get their panties in a knot about it. Than you will anti-group. Getting hostile about it does not change the facts about it.

    That same group today controls Australian academia and the media just like in the US and Canada. Again mentioning the fact that the same group controls the media will just get you labeled anti-group.

    Until that group is named and control is taken from them this will continue until Ango-Saxon Australians and all the other whites in Australia become a minority. Their goal is the same as it is in other countries which is to reduce you to a permanent minority in your own country.

    Sounds far fetched right? Well look around you at all the non-whites among you. Do you like it? Did you ask for it? I am betting you didn’t get to vote on it and it was imposed on you without asking you.

    Now the question becomes, what can be done about it.

    • Dave

      Have to agree TJ. I saw through the Hanson hysteria of the late 90’s, understood what the globalists were trying to achieve (thanks Brian Whilsthire on 2gb for his many red pills to a teenager), but I never actually looked deeper than ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’.

      It has taken some time for me to acknowledge this, but the evidence keeps coming back to the same conclusions you have reached.

  7. It’s been my experience that when someone starts a linguistic argument with the words “strictly speaking” they don’t actually have an argument, they just think they can undermine yours by veering off into tangents about definitions.

  8. Vic

    yeah agree

Comments are closed.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén

%d bloggers like this: