Nationalism for the Anglosphere

Australia, NZ, Canada and Britain are all staring demographic decimation in the face, now is the time to unite

Written by Elias Priestly. Find all his previous articles on the Australian Natives Association website and more of his content on 𝕏 @Aussie_EliasP

While I frequently write about Nativism, today I would like to draw attention to the need for a broader consolidation of the nationalist movement across the Anglosphere. Last year, we saw the cancellation of the 2026 Commonwealth Games in Victoria by the much loathed former Premier Daniel Andrews. This year, we have the appointment of an anti-monarchist and anti-white Governor-General in the person of Samantha Mostyn. Once again we see the spectre of republicanism attempting to haunt Australia despite its exorcism in the 1999 referendum. In this article I would like to draw inspiration from a historical movement and suggest that we need to move towards an international Anglosphere politics.

In late 19th century Australia, the Australian Natives’ Association was not the only major political force advocating for the rights of Australians and a great future for the nation. On the more loyalist and Anglophile right was the Imperial Federation League, which had been founded in London in 1884 by the “captain of industry” William Edward Forster. The IFL and ANA were not seen as incompatible groups, and Alfred Deakin notably was a member of the ANA and also became head of the Victorian branch of the IFL in 1905.

The goal of the League was, according to its first resolutions, “to secure by Federation the permanent Unity of the Empire” and to ensure that “the resources of the Empire [would be used] for the maintenance of common interests and adequately provide for an organised defence of common rights.” This interest in Imperial Federation was an extension of the movement away from the 18th century mercantilist model of Empire towards representative self-governance, which was influenced by figures such as Edward Gibbon Wakefield, a figure who was instrumental in the colonisation of both South Australia and New Zealand. While Australia’s eventual Federation followed a more moderate course between the extremes of Imperial Federation and Republicanism, there is still something to be learnt from the objectives and ideals of the IFL vision, particularly in its focus on the maintenance of the common interests and rights of Anglo-Celts across the world.

The proposal of the IFL was a federated superstate that would include the British Isles and all the Dominions of what is now called the “Old Commonwealth.” Essentially, this proposal would have joined together the white British colonies and our ancestral lands in one giant civilisation state, securing the legacy of the Empire while giving representation to the states formerly ruled from London. While a civilisation state under one central government no longer seems so suitable, I also think that completely abandoning the idea of a shared British civilisation is a mistake. Anglo-Saxonist or Anglo-Celtic race-patriotism has copped a lot of flack, and often for good reason, but as long as it is not promoted above native Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian culture it has its place as part of our shared heritage - Deakin could see that. One reason that the IFL was so popular in Australia was that its vision of a federated empire with equal representation was an appealing vision for a young nation that wanted to come into its own. Now that the colonies have come into their own and the “mother country” has sadly declined, it is much clearer that we are on a more equal footing and fears of British dominance are unfounded.

Other than our common racial heritage, we also share much of our institutional culture across Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and Canada. We all have a Westminster system of parliamentary government within a shared framework of constitutional monarchy and the common law tradition. Some of these institutions have been criticised by Australian Nationalist writers as being completely unsuitable for the future maintenance of the white race and native Australian culture in Australia - and they are correct! But it should be remembered that nationalists across the Commonwealth and in the UK itself have, or should have, the same position. The decline of the Empire and the demographic crisis overseen by Queen Elizabeth II has affected us all. These are institutions that we all need to work towards reforming and nationalists across the Anglosphere can and should work collaboratively to develop a politics that will be suitable for the preservation and flourishing of the white race.

What we need is to find the new Carlylean captains of industry, like William Forster, who have the vision to back the development of British civilisation in all of its unique forms and offshoots. There must also be a spirit of cooperation between nationalists who are naturally most concerned with the state of their own nations and those who have a more international outlook on the struggle of white Europeans across the world. A focus on the Anglosphere as a civilisation “bloc” is a reasonable position and cooperation between Anglosphere nations could lead to a helpful cross-pollination of political experience and ideas. For Christian Nationalists in particular, veneration of the saints of the British Isles and investigation of the Hiberno-Saxon golden age of English and Celtic Christian culture can help us to rejuvenate the Church in our own lands away from its capitulation to the modern woke and anti-white culture.

In our current climate, things like the casual cancellation of the Commonwealth Games and the appointment of a republican Governor-General are not the movement towards the higher flourishing of native Australian culture that people like Percy Stephensen hoped for. Much the contrary, they are just one more attempt to cut the crimson thread of kinship that draws our nations together.