Topher Field is an Australian independent journalist, Libertarian and Christian who did tremendous work exposing Covid Tyranny and opposing Vaccines Mandates during the lockdowns and in the years since.
However, in response to the success of ethnonationalists at the March For Australia, Field is pushing an incorrect definition of the “nation” as an “idea”, and arguing that we can maintain an Australian monoculture with continued mass immigration from non-white countries.
The inaugural March For Australia has initiated a crucial period for Australia, as a broad, grassroots nationalist coalition is building to oppose mass immigration. Thus as many Aussies are awakening to nationalist concepts after being redpilled during Covid Tyranny, we must get the definition of nation correct, and counter the arguments Field presents.
Let’s start with a Twitter thread in which I had a brief conversation with Field, which I will quote (mostly) unedited:
You have this completely the wrong way around.
A nation by definition is a people who share a genetic heritage, thus skin colour is an obvious indication of our shared Anglo/White genetics.
Those you have mentioned are traitors to their own people.
It’s as simple as that.
— TheXYZ_Official (@EditorsXyz) September 23, 2025
Topher Field:
Let’s have the tough conversation…
Protecting Australian Culture has everything to do with culture, and nothing to do with skin colour.
There are plenty of white people whose culture I do NOT share.
@AlboMP, @JacintaAllanMP, @DanielAndrewsMP, @TurnbullMalcolm and Julia Gillard all spring to mind.
Culture is not skin deep, but people who think racial quotas are the way to protect Australian culture are.
-https://youtu.be/XNCQqwv-pS0-
The XYZ:
You have this completely the wrong way around.
A nation by definition is a people who share a genetic heritage, thus skin colour is an obvious indication of our shared Anglo/White genetics.
Those you have mentioned are traitors to their own people.
It’s as simple as that.
Topher Field:
Who decided that a nation is by definition people who share a genetic heritage?
And how similar does that genetic heritage have to be?
Because I don’t know if you’re aware of this, you might want to sit down because this will blow your mind…
… EVERY HUMAN shares a genetic heritage, and our genetic similarities far outweigh our genetic differences. The genetic difference between white skin and brown skin is absolutely miniscule.
By your logic the entire planet should be one nation because of our shared genetic heritage.
The truth is that a nation is an idea, and it can be shared by everyone who shares the ideals of that nation.
The XYZ:
Who decides? Literally the word itself.
The word “nation” comes from the Latin word natio, meaning “birth” or “race,” which in turn derives from the verb nasci (“to be born”). The concept of a nation is directly linked to common ancestry and origin.
The XYZ:
[Thus] the human race is divided into families/nations.
We share 98.8% of our DNA with chimps. By your logic, we should also include chimps as an integral part of our nations, as we share far more in common with them than our genetic differences.
………
To reiterate, a nation by definition is a people who share a genetic heritage. The nation is an extension of the tribe, which is in turn an extension of the family. Thus the nation is a biological reality, not an idea or a concept.
Australia’s founders understood this explicitly, as the very first Act of Parliament upon the Federation of Australia was to enact the White Australia Policy into law, establishing Australia as a homeland for White subjects of the British Empire.
It is also worth breaking down a couple of the arguments Field makes in the video he shared.
Field states incredibly that he does not have an issue with Australia’s immigration intake, and he claims that Australia can maintain a monoculture while being multiracial.
This is incorrect, as culture and race are inseparable. The culture a people produces is a direct consequence of their genetics. It is why we mock such arguments with the term “magic dirt” and with memes.
If you change the ethnic/racial demographics of Australia, you change the culture.
Field and his cohost divert discussion into an argument over whether or not to just deport violent criminals who violate “Australian values” or to deport their whole family.
This highlights the logical contradiction between Field’s libertarianism and his claim that Australia is an “idea”. You can deport people and prevent them immigrating here based on their “values”, their beliefs and “ideas”, or you can be a libertarian who advocates for freedom of conscience. You cannot be both. It’s why the Libertarian To Nationalist Pipeline exists.
Most importantly, although Topher Field is a strong advocate for Christ, his definition of “nation” is un-Biblical. Another Twitter user helpfully provided extracts from Genesis as an example of the biological definition of nation repeatedly presented throughout the Bible:
Genesis, genetics, genes, families, generations, nations, race, culture, customs, land. pic.twitter.com/ljKuamwBRR
— Anglo-Saxon Protestant (@raziel2404) September 23, 2025
When Field asks “Who decided that a nation is by definition people who share a genetic heritage?” the answer is: God Himself.
The Bible is practically a nationalist manifesto which aligns completely with the biological definition of nation. This has been conclusively documented by Matthew Roebuck and Stephen Wells.
Australians should be grateful to Topher Field for his tremendous work exposing the globalist evil behind Covid Tyranny. Many souls came to Christ during this period, recognising that if evil can exist purely for evil’s sake, so must the Good, ie, God. Therefore his advocacy for Christ is deeply commended.
On these issues of mass immigration and the definition of nation he is wrong, so I published this article to counter his arguments. If Field chooses to respond in writing, I will read and respond in good faith.
