On the Sydney Siege : Call for a united front

On December 17, 2014, in Commentary, by natalt

by Jack Reilly

James Kirkpatrick of the conservative US site VDare wryly predicted (in an article, ‘”Sheik” Man Monis Behind the Siege in Sydney’, 15/12/2014) that news accounts of the siege and the murders would be followed by headlines such as ‘Muslim Community Fears Backlash’. Lo and behold, he was right: right on cue, the liberal establishment media has produced a welter of ‘backlash’ headlines. The Australian media is, at present, in damage control mode: a raft of ‘moderate Muslim’ spokesmen are appearing across our TV screens, and in the following few days we shall be treated with sermons and platitudes, from politicians and liberals in the churches, the media, the trade unions, the universities reminding us that, in the words of “Sheik” Monis, ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ and not to judge an entire religion by the actions of a few. There’s the mawkish hashtag, #IllRideWithYou, put up by a mentally unstable Chinese woman of liberal persuasion, Tessa Kum, who declares that she has no ‘prejudice’ against Muslims and is prepared to ride with Muslims on public transport (the question is, are Muslims prepared to ride with Australians on public transport, especially Australian dogs?).

Australians aren’t fooled, however. I’ve heard angry comments on the siege, and Islamism, around where I work – in the Melbourne Central Business District – from people who are apolitical and not ‘Far Right’ or ‘radical’ at all. The liberal narrative is going off the rails. It’s awful timing for the liberals – the siege occurred right after a massive 15,000 number march by PEGIDA (Patriotic Europeans against the Islamisation of the West) against Islamisation and asylum seekers in Dresden, Germany, a march which was condemned by the German political and media establishment. No doubt, at future marches in Germany, the point will be made that ‘If that sort of thing can happen in Australia, it can happen, quite easily, here in Germany’.

The siege is a signal instance of multi-culti madness. One of the first images of the siege was that of ‘Australian’ Ellie Chen, a Chinese immigrant waitress at the Lindt restaurant. Not many outside of Australia knows this, but Sydney now in 2014 is a Chinese city. In many ways it resembles Shanghai in 1930 – a Chinese city with a small European population. So my first impression of the siege was that a man of Middle East extraction – most likely Lebanese (he turned out to be Iranian) – was holding Australian and Chinese people captive in a Chinesi-fied city, all in the name of Islam and ISIS (the Islamic State of Syria and the Levant). That’s symbolic of the multi-culti chaos of Sydney today.

The terrorist incidents, carried out by Islamists in Boston, Toulouse, Ottawa, Sydney and elsewhere, auger a gloomy future for the West. Islamism, and the alienation that produces ‘crazy gunman’ shooting sprees, can’t be prevented if we are to stick with the present multi-culti and liberal democratic political model. It’s quite true that this sort of thing didn’t occur in Australia in 1960 or 1970 – but we can’t turn the clock back. The social, political and economic model back then may have worked tolerably well, and certainly there were less explosions of violence brought about by alienation, but there’s no return to the model of that time. What’s needed are two things: one is ethnic homogeneity – a society which doesn’t let Haron Monis in – and greater participation by the community in the life of the nation and state, a participation which is by default barred by our present liberal and democratic political and social system. It is the opinion of this author that we need drastic alternatives to that system, alternatives resembling those of Europe and the West’s discarded past. ‘Crazy gunman’ shooting sprees brought on by popping pills or Islamism or both didn’t occur in societies such as the DDR (East German Democratic Republic) or National Socialist Germany. There, Germans were encouraged to take pride in their work and view their labour, no matter how menial it was, as being beneficial to the community and the state; German youth joined youth associations which enabled them to participate in the life of the community and the nation, and engage in healthy activities such as sports, music, camping (and what we in Australia call) bushwalking. I once saw a documentary on the Europe-based Korean Friendship Association – a communist front group which promotes cultural exchanges with and visits to North Korea – and a young Scotsman interviewed on why he supports North Korea; he stated that all the terrible social problems of the West – drugs, prostitution  and other scourges – were brought about by ‘capitalism’ and an individualistic society. He’s right.

Concomitant to this is that a revolution – a nationalist political and social revolution – is needed to bring about a new order and the demise (let’s say phasing out) of the old. How to go about it? For political activists, there’s two avenues of attack: talking points and the united front.

Firstly, talking points: these can be deployed in a wide variety of situations – with one’s colleagues, relatives, friends, and on Internet forums, Comments sections in the news and elsewhere. Some of these talking points are (and the reader no doubt can think of a few himself):

– ‘Muslim Community Fears Backlash’ – why is it that this headline always follows an Islamist terror incident? Why the double standards of the media? If a crazy gunman spree killer murders people, the call goes up for gun control and gun owners are all tarred with the same brush. The same goes if some nutcase with tenuous connections to the ‘Far Right’ does the same thing.

– This segues into another point: when was the last time we saw a Catholic or Lutheran or Scots Presbyterian terrorist incident? Why aren’t there Scots Presbyterian or Episcopalian ‘extremists’ carrying out these attacks, given that (according to the liberal narrative) the problem is not a particular religious creed but the taking of that religious creed to ‘extremes’?

– Why was the Islamic cleric and activist Haron Monis allowed into the country in the first place? This leads, naturally, to an argument for tighter border controls – not just on illegal but on legal immigration.

– Mention, casually – as an observation of ‘no great import’ – that there seem to be two types of immigrant to Australia. One type – the Muslim – makes demands to the alteration of his environment, demands that, for instance, swimming baths be segregated and that dogs be barred from taxis driven by Muslim cab drivers; the other – the Chinese – doesn’t draw attention to himself, instead he keeps his head down, ignores any ‘racism’ from Australians, works hard and before you know it, he fills the streets of a Sydney or Melbourne with Chinese-language small businesses and snaps up all the mining concessions and real estate available. In effect he ends up dominating his environment without calling attention to himself unlike all these ‘sheikhs’ and clerics. Mention these facts in a tone of wonderment, as if you are not evaluating the two types of immigrant – you are merely making an observation, that’s all.

– Conclude by saying something along the lines of ‘Things don’t look good for us’ (in the West) and that any conflict between Muslim immigrants and Westerners is inevitable. Liberal democrats may have won the First and Second World Wars, and the Cold War, but won’t win the War on Islam, especially in the Western theater (the UK, US, Australia, France and the rest of Continental Europe). Put into your own words Yockey’s thesis that the West and the Arabic-Semitic Cultures are two separate civilisations, and if members of the Arabic-Semitic ‘Magian’ Culture are present in the West in large numbers, ‘antibodies’ – Western individuals and groups who are highly resistant to the ‘Magians’ – will appear and bring about conflict. This process is inevitable. It’s at this juncture that you mention the German marches against Islamisation.

These are the talking points; now onto the question of the united front. Recently a demonstration was held, by a motley array of nationalist and Far Right Australian groups along with concerned residents, against the construction of a mosque in Penrith. The protest turned out to be a huge success, because of the large numbers of nationalists (from disparate groups) attending. A small contingent of pro-Islamist communists, anarchists and ‘anti-racists’ showed up and were outnumbered by the nationalist side; by the end, the ‘smash the state’ leftists were hiding behind the police line and begging for police help. The nationalists, meanwhile, managed to intermingle with members of the community who were by no means radical or politicised. The Penrith demonstration serves as an example of the efficacy of united front tactics. Members of the movement managed to put aside any grudges and demonstrate side by side, and mix with members of the ordinary, apolitical Australian public who felt concerns over Islamisation.

The same united front tactics are working well in Germany. The group HOGESA (Hooligans Against Salafism) managed to carry out demonstrations against Islamisation in Cologne; nationalists managed to link up with soccer enthusiasts and took to the streets in thousands. The last march, however, was banned by the police and pro-Islamist leftist counter-demonstrators organised a contingent which was at least double the nationalist numbers. PEGIDA has been much more successful. They have mobilised ordinary and peaceable apolitical Germans in the east in the thousands and consistently outnumber the pro-Islamist counter-demonstrators. No wonder, then, that the German political establishment loathes them. Politicians, trade unionists, journalists and the rest have all come out against PEGIDA.

The conclusions we in Australia need to draw from the Penrith and Dresden demonstrations are that a) we need to maintain our focus on questions (such as the Muslim question) which preoccupy large sections of the apolitical public and b) we can’t force our ideologies down peoples’ throats and that we may need to compromise – strictly for the purposes of the united front effort – and work with people we wouldn’t ordinarily associate with politically (that is, we may need to demonstrate alongside Zionists and Israel-lovers and those ‘nationalists’ and bourgeois conservatives who are against Islamic immigration but are neutral, or even positive, on Chinese immigration). The Left appears to be huge in numbers when it mounting demonstrations on, for instance, ‘Stop the War’, but if we examine such demonstrations closely, it’s the case that the crowds are made up disparate groups – trade unionists, liberal progressives, and members of anarchist and communist splinter groups. The communists in particular are adept at using an issue of concern to a broad cross-section of the Left – such as ‘Stop the War’ – as a force multiplier. If we nationalists use the same tactic, there’ll be no problem in building up numbers and putting the pro-Islamist Left in their place.

The thing to avoid is splitting and sectarianism. There is an international Trotskyite group called the Spartacist League which is famous on the Left for its refusal to march alongside other communists and leftists at these events – it spurns even fellow Trotskyites. They are notorious for taking sectarianism to the n-th degree. We nationalists should steer away from such dogmatism and need to keep in mind that anti-Islamism is merely a stepping stone, a doorway, to higher things. The anti-Islamist struggle needs to be linked to the wider nationalist struggle, but before one can undertake that process of education and consciousness-raising, one needs to get a foot in that door. United front tactics and a focus on a concrete issue such as Islamisation provide us with that entry point.

 

3 Responses to On the Sydney Siege : Call for a united front

  1. Nathan says:

    You know, I was at Penrith and it was, I admit, a pleasure to howl down the Antifa collective with the accretion of those groups. And as an AFP member I naturally don’t agree with what I perceive to be the Zionist influence of Nick Folkes’ Party For Freedom, but it was a joy to behold him wielding that mega-megaphone (sic) of his giving it to those middle class lefty tools behind their recycled banner. I admit he did a sterling job, even if I have issues with having Zionism ANYWHERE near Aussie nationalism (and I’m not just talking about him, but that character with the giant Israeli flag stomping back and forth ahead of our line, which did admittedly destroy brains on the other side). But you make a good argument, because frankly, we need the feet on the ground. We need unity among Nationalists as a matter of priority.

  2. Daniel says:

    Hi

    Decent read, can you expand on your take on possible ways to deal with groups that are outright enemies or at least ‘fake nationalists’ like civic patriots that in some peculiar circumstances end up standing around on the same side as nationalists as seen at Anti Islam demonstrations?

  3. moderator says:

    The conclusions we in Australia need to draw from the Penrith and Dresden demonstrations are that a) we need to maintain our focus on questions (such as the Muslim question) which preoccupy large sections of the apolitical public and b) we can’t force our ideologies down peoples’ throats and that we may need to compromise – strictly for the purposes of the united front effort – and work in the vicinity of people we wouldn’t ordinarily associate with politically, at least in the case of Anti Islam event’s when these types end up on the same side of the picket line vs the Anti Fa left on the other side. (that is, we may need to demonstrate with the unfortunate situation of the presence of Zionists and Israel-lovers and those civic not racial nationalists and bourgeois conservatives who are against Islamic immigration but are neutral, or even positive, on Chinese immigration).

    It seems there are 3 options at Anti Islam events

    1 Depart the Field

    once you realise there are elements on the ‘same’ side of the picket line, that include our enemies (Zionists) and wolves in sheeps clothing ( Civic Patriots and worse again the purely Anti Islam Welcome the rest outfits)

    2 Broaden the demonstration to multiple fronts

    Split your forces and start demonstrating actively against the Zionists, civic patriots and Against Islam only outfits

    3 Operate in mutual ignorance

    Ignore, don’t talk to these groups, I suppose a suspension of hostilities

    Option 1

    seems defeatist as it leaves the Anti Islam message in the hands of worm tongues and is a waste of one’s organising.

    Option 2

    if the times were such that we had large numbers and power, we could simply always demonstrate on the basis on “Non Whites OUT” at each and every type of rally and sweep them clean away, but that is not the case at present. Hence this option runs the risk that the message may be lost to the politically uneducated public who naively see what they believe to be the Anti Islam side dissolve into a mess of fighting, empowering the Pro Islam Anti Fa left . Though one could have small leaflets to hand out on the sly to white lay members of some of these groups explaining the bigger picture as to why Islamic immigration is happening in the first place.

    Option 3

    In such situations “working” does not mean co operation in any manner, but simply mutual ignorance of the presence of these people whilst concentrating on getting to work, putting the ethno nationalist (the real message) out the loudest. The public is our audience, they can number up to a few hundred at these events and are primarily there, in the case of a mosque ( as opposed to say the more abstract Anti Iraq War rallies in the CBD), to stop local development that affects their lives directly. Material, or some material, handed out on the day may or may not also be broaching Asianisation/Chinese Imperialism or Zionism or White Genocide depending on how broad any particular groups thinks the public in attendance at a anti Islam event can fathom the whole picture in one go.

    The effect on the left at a Anti Islam event of Option 3 is quite demoralising if any of the comments on the Anti Fa state supported site slackbastard can be trusted.

    http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com/?p=37187

    some excerpts

    ” Despite earlier claims to the contrary from James, the arrival of actual neo-Nazis was not met with confrontation, disavowal or even unease by the local ‘non-racist concerned citizens’.”

    ” Others refused to recognise the presence of the white supremacists, or engage with calls from the anti-racist side to denounce them, preferring to endlessly change the subject to something irrelevant but comforting like ‘ANZACs’ or the monarchy. Maybe there were a few in the crowd who weren’t entirely comfortable with associating with a bunch of swastika-lickers, but they were silent. For the moment, the nazis were allies of convenience and they were going to stand together. They were in an angry majority, with licence to say whatever they wanted and they were going to make the best use of this time.”

    ” It wouldn’t be fair to call it a love-in, but in practice, there was an integration of far-right forces on the ground. Enough integration, in fact, to keep anti-racists trapped near the entrance to the chambers for the entirety of the meeting with no clear way out. This could not have happened without this de facto collaboration. Whilst the leaders made the speeches, the foot-soldiers fanned out around us and cut off our exit route. A couple of very tense hours followed, though arguably the worst part was not the threat of violence lurking in the darkness,”

    “Whilst it’s highly unlikely that this situation will last, the fact remains that on Monday night, whatever beefs they had with one another were set aside in favour of collectively whipping up as much fear, anger and racial resentment as possible. Those who might argue for ignoring them underestimate how much that would serve to embolden them, particularly in the wake of the first time in recent memory the far-right have been able to appear in public without being quickly dispersed by anti-fascists.”

    The Anti Fa reaction aside, we note from a reading of events elsewhere and talking to contacts, it appears at the Penrith Mosque Protest in late 2014, a couple of ethno nationalist organisations in attendance operated more or less under Option 3. The above comment of someone called Nathan from the AFP is also an example.

    * It goes without saying that if these people (non desirables on our side of the picket) started attacking us, verbally or otherwise then option 2 it is. We note incidents reported on social media of some Anti Mosque events with large numbers of civic patriots in attendance telling nationalists to leave. Similar stories have occurred with EDL people in the UK informing real nationalists they should depart.

Leave a Reply

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

Please enter CAPTCHA *