TRANSCRIPT:
Harry Cummins:
Well, my name is Harry, Harry Cummins, and if you're from North Queensland, you might've heard of Cummins & Campbell, which was the family firm employed about 400 people in Townsville. And my father was one of the lost generation who only wanted to live in London and New York, and he'd lived in all of those places. And so in 1970, he took us to live in London when I was nine years old. So it's not my fault that I've got a British accent. I'm a stolen child. I'm one of the stolen children.
Anyway, and I did lots of different work in the UK. And one of the things I did was I worked for the British Council. You may have heard of it. It promotes British culture internationally. And I worked in Russia and I worked in Columbia and in, I worked in Georgia and various other countries, not ‘Georgia on my mind’, but Georgia and the Caucasus and various other places.
And then because before that I'd worked as a freelance journalist for The Times and The Independent and the Daily Mail, I was appointed their senior press officer in 2000 and in the year 2004, what happens in all these institutions, these government organisations, is that you become aware that there is a permanent ruling class. Well, in Britain, probably there is in Australia, there certainly is in most Western countries.
And they have this ideology and it's all, everybody is like they come from the same cookie, cookie cutter. It is just like being in the Soviet Union and the Nomenklatura all share the same ideology.
And one of the facets of this ideology, which is what I found most bizarre, is that there is this Nazi Soviet pact between the left and Islamism and extreme Muslim immigrants, and they always will protect and further the aim of these people, I don't really know why, because they should be antithetical.
It makes me laugh when you hear on the radio or the news here in Australia when they talk about, oh, the only people who object to these terrible marches, these very nasty marches by Muslims in Sydney and Brisbane are the extreme right. And there isn't a single Muslim in the world who isn't further to the right than most of Hitler's cabinet. They are very antisemitic, they're very homophobic. They're very misogynistic. They are so far to the right, it’s not true, but they are embraced by the left.
And what happened was that British Council set up a think tank called Keeping In Touch, I think it was, and it commissioned a number of its global Muslim contacts to write for this. And it wasn't like a blog or a vlog, it wasn't something that was simply people maundering on. It was something that they paid them to do.
And then they checked the things that they had actually written and they approved them. And this thing, this stuff was pretty strong. It was very violently antisemitic, it endorsed terrorism. And it was very hostile to Britain, to America, to Russia, to China, to India, and to what they called the fascist Jewish state. And I said, we can't put that out. I mean, obviously they had said as a sort of disclaimer that ‘the British Council does not necessarily endorse the views here’, which means it does not necessarily not endorse the views. So it was a very, very incendiary thing to do. I said, look, you just can't do that. You've got, in my capacity as press officer, you've got to take that down. And they said, no, no, this is freedom of speech. And I said, well, ‘what would happen if I were to do that? I as the press officer was to do that?’ I mean, basically you are putting our name to this incendiary material. And they said, well, you're completely free to do that.
So what happened was that I got in touch with colleagues of mine at the Sunday Telegraph and they commissioned me to write four articles about my concerns about what was happening in the UK at that time, where whereby pressure was growing and growing on people who are not Muslims to conform to Islamic ideas, to Islamic ways of being.
And what you soon find about Islam is that, first of all, it's got a completely different value system than any other religion because what is regarded as evil by other religions like Christianity is regarded as good. Rape, murder, lying, especially Taqiyya, all these are virtues. All these are virtues in Islam, not sins, unless of course infidels do them to Muslims and not vice versa.
But the other thing is that unlike every other religion in the world, it primarily concerns itself with non-Muslims, with their conquest because it's not a religion. A religion is an attempt to conquer a parallel or future world for man, Islam is an attempt to conquer this world, politically, for Allah, who is, he's not Jesus or Krishna or Guru Nanak or Buddha or Confucius or some innocent flower child sitting under a Yum Yum tree. This is something very, very, very different.
So the first article I published, they were all published in the July of 2004, which was just over 20 years ago, it was Dr. Williams beware of false prophets. And I didn't choose that wonderful title. It was actually chosen by the sub editor, but it was about how disturbed I was by the way, in which as in the early Islamic conquests, religious leaders were betraying Christ and His people by endorsing Islamization.
For instance, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, called for Britain to recognise and to legally enforce Sharia law, which when you think about it is a bit like given that it treats non-Muslims like dirt, it's a bit like the chief rabbi of Israel demanding that the President of Israel make the Nuremberg laws enforceable in Israel. So it is basically an extraordinary thing, especially because the Archbishop knew that all over the world, millions of Christians are suffering under Islamic law. And of course he got his way.
Archbishop Rowan Williams in conversation with Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin at the Mohammed Masjid Park Complex in London. (2010)
He and a man was then an MP, now the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, had pushed and pushed for the recognition of Islamic law, which was not like, well, this is a private agreement between you and me. Sharia courts were set up under an amendment to the Arbitration Act by Gordon Brown's Labour government in 2008, which gave them legal force for very, very big things like things to do with inheritance and life and death and things like that.
And Dr. Denis MacEoin wrote a booklet for Civitas about this one year after it went into effect and found that almost every single one of the judgments of Britain's now official Sharia courts in that first year alone were serious criminal offences. Because for instance, Muhammad said that women are only worth half of a man. And in fact, regarding Sharia law, the Ulema in Saudi Arabia have recently said that a Hindu woman is worth only one sixth of a man.
Goodness knows what Jewel is. I'm sure she would be worth hundreds of men. (audience laughter)
But anyway, so basically these are very serious criminal offences because even if the women in these communities agreed to be discriminated against like that, they become then criminals in British law. If you agree to be discriminated against, then not only the person who discriminates against you, but you become a criminal. So basically I was taking issue with the archbishop about that.
And then lo and behold, how history repeats itself, there was a law to make any criticism of Islam a criminal offence. And we escaped from this by a tiny, tiny, tiny margin because the House of Lords torpedoed it by talking it out. But it very nearly became law. And I criticised this on the basis that Islam is an ideology and you should be able to criticise an ideology. And to say that it's a race is completely absurd.
It's not a race, it's a choice. And basically nobody else is getting this.
The Hindus don't want it. The Sikhs don't want it, the Buddhists don't want it, the Christians don't want it. And the only reason why the Muslims are demanding it is because Muhammad said anyone who criticises Islam has to be killed or put in prison. And 58% of all British Muslims want anyone who criticises Islam to be put in prison.
And so we escaped that, but that was the second one. It was called We must be allowed to criticise Islam.
And the third one was the most pertinent of all. It was how the Islamic block vote had corrupted the major parties and how they were all bidding for this vote and prostituting what they said that they were, what their ideals were. Even, pathetically, the Conservative Party who never has got and never will get more than 5% of the Muslim vote. They're all dashing after it. And you can see now where that has led.
In the fourth article, I took issue with this woman, this sort of nepo baby, this daughter of a senior politician called Jenny McCartney, who had attacked me all through it from a conservative point of view, saying how evil I was and all this and pointing out there were only 2.3 million Muslims in Britain. So it really didn't matter though I had pointed out in the third article that that was 100 times more Muslims than there had been 50 years previously. And now in 2025, there are 4 million Muslims in England alone.
We can't count the ones in Scotland and Northern Ireland and Wales because they're all under radical regimes, which have again formed this curious Nazi Soviet pact with Islam, which means that they're so trans obsessive that they say that anyone who says that they're a woman, if you, Sir, would say you're a woman and you put it on the census, then you are a woman.
And so the government in London won't accept the census, but if you did count all the Muslims in the UK now it would be 5 million. In other words, it would be twice the number as when I was speaking.
But anyway, I wrote these under a pseudonym and the whole of the or left-wing press exploded, especially the BBC. The BBC did these constant attacks on whoever this person was. And the Guardian newspaper started a campaign to find out who I was, and they asked anybody who knew to expose this person knowing that I would be killed if that happened probably. But saying that they would expose this person. And of course I was exposed and I was sacked even though for this crime of offending against Islam, that was the actual thing that was put on my farewell, my congé, I was sacked for offending against Islam, which is not actually a sackable offence.
But what really intrigued me was that I was the subject not only to this huge media consensus and to possible hate laws such as are coming in Australia, but to the ferocity and the malignity and the violence of this very, very powerful community because the most extraordinary thing to me was that they were pretending that the Muslims had to be protected from me.
And actually there are dozens of people in hiding in Britain who have been put under sentence of death. There's this gentleman who simply showed children a picture of Muhammad to explain what the thing that happened in France was about. He's under police protection though the police also held a trial of him with Muslim community leaders. So the police are not going to protect you really. They're going be protecting the, and of course you saw it also in the way in which hundreds of thousands of girls were raped and mutilated and nothing happened.
Muslims were completely protected. They were completely protected. Nobody, nobody wanted to intervene at all.
So the problem that I see with it is that as I pointed out in the book, the authorities invariably respond to the misery caused by Muslim disruptors, not by repelling or expelling them, but by resorting to unprecedented forms of universal repression, which mostly impact the innocent natives robbing them of their ancient rights, rights that were never meant for foreigners in the first place.
As a strategy, It is also somewhat irrational, like trying to heal a leg infested by leeches, not by removing the parasites, but by cutting the limb off at great harm to oneself so the invaders feeding on it can survive and thrive.
So basically you get this incredibly dangerous scattershot repression. I was with a dear friend of mine, a senior academic who lives in Maroubra, which is sort of like the Cleveland of Sydney. And we were having lunch on the day after a Jewish synagogue had been bombed and no, I beg your pardon, I stand corrected, a Jewish kindergarten had been bombed. And the Muslim or whatever group who did it said, ‘well, it's not fair. We were trying to bomb the synagogue. We didn't mean to bomb the kindergarten.’
Anyway, so basically what he said to me is that what has happened in the last five years since the pandemic is that Maroubra, which is a lovely suburb, was or used to be 80% Anglo-Celtic, 10% Italian, 10% Christian Arab, and now it's almost entirely Chinese from mainland China and Muslim. And that's happened within five years.
And so that is the reason why the synagogue was bombed, and we all know it. I mean, I'm not knocking The Australian newspaper, I think it's a wonderful newspaper and it's on our side, but not last weekend, but the weekend before that, they had about 50,000 words on this crisis, and the words Islam and Muslim were never mentioned.
So you can't actually get anywhere if you've got cancer, and I've recently had cancer and I've come out of it, but I had bladder cancer and I had to have three operations and dozens of procedures. But if they had said to me, ‘well, Harry, what we're going to do is you're going to, we're just going to pretend that this is something that is a figment of your imagination and we're going to cure you of bladder cancer by rubbing tea tree oil on your temple’, I would've died.
So if you won't even say what the problem is, then you're going to die basically. And Australia, although it is light years behind Britain in horror, it is on the same road. I can just see the same things happening and above all, I can see the Muslim community doubling and tripling and quadrupling. And when they're very nice it is under the rules of Taqiyah. At the beginning. But when they've sensed their power, they open their hand and then the demands come in.
Anyway with regard to the book. So the book really is my attempt to understand what happened and also to analyse it.
I mean, there are loads of books like this about the devastation of the West by uncontrolled immigration, especially from hostile cultures. You've got Reflections on The Revolution in Europe by Christopher Caldwell, which is of course a famous echo or paraphrase of Edmund Burke's great Reflections on the Revolution in France of 1792. And you've got all those wonderful books by Douglas Murray like The War on the West and The Strange Death of Europe.
But the problem is all they do is say, well, this is what has happened, and what you need to do is to look at why it has happened, what are the intellectual roots of it? Otherwise, just like a doctor, you're not going to be able to cure the cancer and you've also got to say what to do about it, and that's what they never say. So what I do is I analyse it intellectually and I say what to do about it. And what the book basically says is that we in the West have been formed by Christianity, a universal religion whose focus is the other world.
It also notes that those in power in the west today enforce on us a new religion of sharing everything we have with our political enemies, which is very unlike the unlimited spiritual inclusion that our Lord Jesus Christ advocates. This new religion is what G K Chesterton called Stupid Christianity and that we call Wokery. And this very anti-Christian religion says that societies like those in Australia, the UK, Europe and America, must love, welcome in, house, and turn the other cheek to all mankind just as Jesus Christ does.
As a result, our societies face being broken by their enemies as Britain would've been in 1940, had its people heeded Gandhi's Gospel-inspired advice that they show compassion to Hitler by capitulating to him in the middle of the Battle of Britain.
Our leaders who are seldom Christian assume that ‘stupid Christianity’ can be compatible with the survival of Western states, which must of necessity be based on the exclusion of enemies as every non-Western society is.
You'll be familiar with the great Australian novelist, Patrick White, the only Australian to win the Nobel Prize for literature. Patrick White in his autobiography, Flaws in the Glass, also known as ‘claws in the arse’ (audience laughter), said that the very first thing that any young person must do if he or she wants to be a successful artist is to learn how to, as he put it, ‘slam the door’ in what he called ‘the destroyer faces’ of one's friends and loved ones. Otherwise, you just spend your life in the Tingalpa Hotel, drinking Fourex and having a good time and never getting anything done. And this book says that the first thing Western societies must do to ensure their survival is to learn how to slam the door in the destroyer faces of their avowed enemies.
It seems like common sense, doesn't it? But if we look at democracies in Australasia, North America and Western Europe, it has never actually happened except for what has occurred in the last two weeks in Trump's America.
If they wish to survive, western countries should adopt instead of Stupid Christianity, the inclusive racism that has been perfected and disseminated by the West's two great enemies, Islam and China. Inclusive racism acknowledges that only those who are the same as us will ever be satisfied with equality with us.
Those who are different from us will never be satisfied with mere equality. They will seek supremacy over us and they will often seek it by pretending to appeal for equality. They will weaponize our conscience . In order to subdue us, they will pose as our victim, because, despite what Clausewitz wrote, it is ‘morality’, not ‘diplomacy’, which is ‘the continuation of war by other means.’
So basically the Muslims and the Chinese have created universal empires by claiming that their respective gods Allah and Tian have sanctioned the political conquest of mankind by the Han Chinese and the Arabs, and those who, by embracing Islam, have become Arabs. Once a certain number of what the Muslims call infidels and the Chinese called barbarians were conquered in the Middle Ages, Islam and China became politically and spiritually inclusive.
Outsiders, as long as they repudiated the community into which they were born - a process the removal of rights from that community incentivized - could be enrolled as Arabs and Han Chinese. Then they could be equal. In Chinese and Islamic society, there is no equality outside the relevant chosen people monoculture.
Each of these monocultures has become universal by virtue of the determination of the two chosen peoples to politically castrate integrate or annihilate the rest of mankind. The Muslims and the Chinese force the outsider to alter himself in his own invaded land, and are therefore able to dissolve and absorb both him and it.
And this may be racism, but it is inclusive racism.
My book says that instead of acting as if western rights should apply to all, westerners should behave as the Chinese and the Muslims do, and force the outsiders like immigrants to alter themselves - not in their invaded place of origin, which has always been China and Islam's policy - but as the price of entering a Western society. Only this can ensure the survival of the western homeland. It is the western homelands that have created so-called universal human rights.
Contrary to what we are told, these rights did not create the western homeland. Our homelands would exist without the rights, especially if only outsiders were denied these rights. The rights would not exist and do not exist much beyond the world's most famous Western homelands.
Henri Bergson, the great philosopher, wrote that human beings were designed for very small societies.
Human rights were also designed for very small societies. Indeed, the very term human rights, like the word multiculturalism, is a contradiction in terms. Circumstances always conspire to ensure that human rights can never be enjoyed by one group of people unless they're denied to another.
Why on earth then should one follow our leaders' practise of sacrificing one's own people on the altar of defending the interests of an intruder, an intruder that as we see with the mass rape of little girls in Britain may be a human rights abuser as well.
It would be hard to imagine a more successful and attractive example of a western homeland than the commonwealth of Australia. Globally, competition for Australian citizenship and the right to settle in Australia - even for a short period - is intense. We note moreover that this Mecca of mankind is entirely the creation of the continent's Anglo-Celtic colonisers.
What does modern Australia owe to the indigenous people or to the non-Europeans who have sought its shelter, precisely because it is a European outpost? Settler colonial societies like Canada, New Zealand and the United States provoke exactly the same question, and let's stop this bullshit about settler colonial societies because every society on earth is a settler colonial society.
Every Muslim country in the world was stolen from someone else. Every Muslim country in the world is an apartheid state, so let's remember that when these Muslim immigrants on the streets of Sydney say ‘we've got to destroy the colony’. They come from Islamic colonies. They were colonisers. They raped and looted the whole of mankind for a thousand years, so they should shut up.
The Australian ruling class is today confronted on one side by a broken aboriginal remnant, which exists only by virtue of elite handouts and a preposterous elite ideology, which is certainly not aboriginal in origin.
On the other side, there are millions of global aliens willing to offer anything to be allowed to enter the paradise to which it alone holds the key. How strange then that the country's rulers have made European Australia, the contrite and cowering servant of both these supplicant groups. How startling that it is precisely the promised land’s gatekeepers who seem so contemptuous of Australia and Australians as they have always been traditionally understood.
Is it not astounding that all the world has heard for years from this Mecca's elite is that Australia is a racist destroyer whose existence is hard to rationally defend given what it did to the incomparably more advanced and humane stone age culture that preceded it? This is what Paul Keating, the prime minister between 1991 and 1996 said in a speech to aboriginals or so-called aboriginals. We know the sort we're talking about! The ‘genocide’ of the aboriginals has resulted in there being 16 times more aboriginals than there were in the 1788!
Anyway, we'll call them aboriginals for now. This is what he said in a speech for aboriginals in the Sydney suburb of Redfern in 1992. Keating said.
'As I say, the starting point might be to recognise that the problem starts with us non-aboriginal Australians. It begins, I think with that act of recognition, recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the diseases, the alcohol, we committed the murders. We took the children from their mothers'.
You know what happened to me? I was taken away from Australia too!
'We practised discrimination and exclusion. It was our ignorance and our prejudice'.
Never has any state in history been so desired and admired by those outside its borders, hence the tsunami of migrants. And never has any been more damaged and disparaged by its own elected and unelected rulers.
Of course, this problem is not unique to Australia. For decades, much of the world, especially the western world, has done nothing but reproach the west for racism, slavery, genocide, and imperialism. Only the west is denounced, despite the fact that racism, genocide, slavery, and imperialism have always been normal and ubiquitous among homo sapiens. Almost all of the world's peoples have been responsible for these forms of injustice and almost all have been their victims.
History has seen invader groups usurp and then annihilate, oppress or assimilate less advanced or robust communities on their own territory at least a thousand times. No invader, but the white man has ever displayed moral qualms about it.
In reality, and contrary to its own narrative, the west did not invent imperialism, it invented anti imperialism. It did not invent colonialism, it invented anti-colonialism. It did not invent racism, it invented anti-racism. It did not invent genocide, it was the first civilization to define, diabolise and criminalise it. And the west certainly did not invent slavery either. In fact, it was the unspeakable British empire that was the first power on earth to abolish slavery within its own borders and to suppress it beyond them.
Moreover, what is so shocking about the current obsession with the long dead western forms of slavery, genocide, et cetera, is that few who invoke them have anything to say about the racism and slavery and imperialism and genocide that still flourish unpunished in the Islamic world and China whose value systems do not condemn them.
The western indictments of Western imperialism that are cited as proof of the West's unique criminality are actually a proof of the uniqueness of its altruism as the west is the world's only self-critical civilization. That indeed is why only the west is attacked! Because, as I keep pointing out in this book, only that which criticises itself can be criticised.
So what should we do? Above all, we should ignore with contempt, the words racist and racism and anybody who uses them against us. The 19th century thinker, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon once observed that, “whoever says ‘humanity’ wants to deceive you”. A contemporary thinker, Josef Isensee, recently amended this to, “whoever says ‘globalisation’ wants to deceive you”. Whoever says racist also wants to deceive you.
The word racist is frequently deployed by ethnic group X to shame and so disarm and conquer ethnic group Y when, had Y really been the racists community X accuses them of being, they would never have been capsized by so sanctimonious an accusation. Accusations of racism are sanctimonious because as I said before, contrary to what Clausewitz wrote, it is morality and not diplomacy, which is the continuation of war by other means. Whoever says white privilege, for instance, wants to deceive because their own goal is almost certainly black privilege.
As the philosopher Vilfredo Pareto wrote:
‘The sentiment that is very inappropriately called equality is fresh, strong , alert precisely because it is not in fact a sentiment of equality and is not related to any abstract truth as a few naive intellectuals still believe , but because it is related to the direct interests of individuals who are bent on escaping certain inequalities not in their favour and setting up new inequalities that will be in their favour, this latter being their only concern.’
A sentiment of equality, for example, is unlikely to be the chief concern of those who say they want in the interest of justice to decolonize a western country or its school or university curriculum.
Their aim is obviously to colonise and not decolonize that state. This is particularly the case if they're immigrants, ie. colonisers or the descendants of colonisers or the western abettors of non-Western colonisers, ie. locals who share the hostile agenda of so many of those from beyond the west who so mysteriously do everything in their power to enter or remain within a western society they do nothing but condemn.
Meanwhile, giving the creators of our civilization their due, or ‘white supremacy ‘, is said to be a scourge unique to the west. However, if it really existed, nobody in western countries would be allowed to discuss, let alone denounce white supremacy.
The reality of course, is that it is almost obligatory in Western states to proclaim one's belief in the existence, depravity and ubiquity of white supremacy, even when it clearly doesn't exist. The way Britain prioritises Muslim migrant child rapists over its white natives hardly suggests that white Britons are supreme.
In China, the Islamic world and Africa, on the other hand, challenging the undisputed supremacy that is very clearly enjoyed by the dominant local ethnic group or tribe is rare indeed because very dangerous. What the endless anguish over white supremacy in the west is actually proof of is black supremacy in our craven western civilization.
Anyone who seeks to join a Western society, be they migrants from the non-Western world or indigenous people in the societies colonially created by Westerners in Australasia or the Americas should logically want to become a westerner. As most seek to join for financial gain, why should they not be prepared to abjure their old identity in return? On what grounds but their submission and assimilation dare the West grant them admittance, much less citizenship? Surely they must adopt the views and the heroes of the Westerners, even - indeed especially - if these clash with those they defended in their old community? Though, how could the esteem in which the West has held a figure like James Cook or Cecil Rhodes displease those who are themselves colonisers?
Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much.
