Anti-racism is anti-white, whichever way you cut it. Whether you are ‘tolerating’ sustained mass immigration, or wanting to ban any event which could be construed as ‘pro-white’. Political Correctness says white people must go, and anyone who disagrees isn’t just wrong, but should be marginalized, fined, or even jailed.

It would seem the Independent member for Burnett, Rob Messenger agrees. He has launched an online petition to protest the Hammered Music Festival which is a supposedly neo-Nazi event. ⁱ You can see the flyer for the event here, http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/state-wont-stop-nazi-morons/story-e6freoof-1226241239162 . Rob Messenger and those like him should ask the real questions, What is Racism, What is Neo Nazism? If investigated honestly they would quickly find they are mere labels designed to shut down any expression of appreciation and pride in ones ancestry and heritage. Something available to all people groups, except apparently those of European descent.

What is it about such a festival that stirs people so? The possibility that there may be neo-Nazi’s listening to music? That the ideas expressed might offend the delicate sensitivities of people who would never go anyway? That it might spill into a full blown riot, something which has never happened from similar previous held events. Rob Messenger’s petition may be nothing more that Liberal authoritarianism coming to the fore. Freedom of speech is necessary for functional and progressive society, and there is no impact on others by this event.

The real danger though, as if his proposal wasn’t already against the very fundamental principles that Western society was built on, is the scope of the potential new laws. His petition states “Your petitioners therefore request the House to call on the Premier of Queensland and the Opposition Leader to commit to supporting legislative change that will ensure our state has the toughest laws in Australia which enable the banning and punishment of ‘ Neo Nazis and other race hate proponents’ activities”.

The danger is in the words “other race hate proponents’ activities”. We already know that ANY pro-white speech, or ANY speech which might solely be talking about issues facing Whites in the Western world is often construed as ‘race hate’. We at Nationalist Alternative have to deal with this label, despite the complete and utter lack of any ‘race hate’ sentiment or material. Liberalism doesn’t define ‘race hate’ (for whites) as deliberate incitement of hatred against an identifiable group, but extends this further to include any discussion of racial issues in a non Politically Correct context. We are all aware, that simple saying “Australia is full”, is in itself considered racist, despite the fact it contains no directed hate at anyone. Rob Messenger’s proposal will give Political Correctness strong legal means by which to silence dissent and remove any threats to the current Liberal social experiment that is being undertaken at the expense of the West.

We call on people to discuss this issue, and let others know of the dangers involved. NO ethnic group should face punitive measures for discussing their own well being, survival and continuation. To deliberately deny any group of people the right to preserve their heritage is akin to a directed attack against them and lays the groundwork for genocide. To deny them the speech, language and right to discuss and hold these ideas, is an attack against that group. It is in essence, doing what the ‘ Nazi’s ‘ are accused of doing, in the name of ‘anti-Nazism’.

Anti-racism is anti-white. Mr Messenger may very well be trying to score Politically Correct brownie points by making the necessary visible propitiations to the PC priests and thereby prove himself as ‘progressive’. He may very well not be aware of the ramifications of his proposal, doing this only as brainless political opportunism, but people like us must make others aware of the dangers of this type of thinking and action. It isn’t just music that falls into the sights of such kneejerk reactions, but the rights of us all to speak.

This concert is a fairly insignificant even in the scheme of things. Most Australians would have never heard of it, and its impact on others is negligible. There are quite simply no real consequences to letting these people have their concert, as evidenced by the fact that they have been held before around Australia and nothing has happened as a result. The proposed laws which Mr Messenger is agitating for though, could have real consequences for Citizen rights to speak on issues and concerns that affect their families, nation and our collective future. Mr Messenger’s ideas in our opinion reek of Stalinist authoritarianism and are a dangerous threat to a free progressive society.

ihttp://www.robmessenger.com/anti-neo-nazi-petition

1.         Political birthdays and the alternative to liberal democracy

Recently, an AFP report appeared:

BUDAPEST (AFP)—A Hungarian online news channel backed by the extreme-right parliamentary party Jobbik paid tribute to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler on his birthday, online observers reported.

The 30-second report, which originally aired on Wednesday evening on

Hitler’s 122nd birthday, praised the “German politician” for his economic and

moral contribution to his adopted country.

Hitler “rapidly relaunched the destroyed, impoverished Germany, where an

unprecedented upturn started in the economic, social, moral and cultural

spheres,” the news piece gushed.

However, it added that since the defeat of Nazi Germany, “the probably

best-known politician in history has been the principal target of a political

witch-hunt of the victorious powers,” which it referred to as “the Anglo-Saxon

and bolshevik allies.”

By itself, this is unremarkable: had Jobbik been a communist group marking the birthday of a Stalin or Lenin or Mao, the media would not have noticed. But, when it comes to celebrating Hitler’s birthday, the media sits up and takes notice. Why? The answer is, I think, significant. The political system of the West, for the past hundred years, has been liberal democracy (with a few excursions into conservative, military dictatorship, e.g., Portugal and Spain). There has been only one alternative to appear, in the West’s recent history, to liberal democracy and that is fascism. (And by fascism, I mean the ideology of German National Socialism, Italian Fascism, Mosley’s British Union of Fascists, Degrelle’s Belgian Rex movement, and others).

It is true that, at a few points in history, it seemed as though Soviet Communism was an alternative to liberal democracy in Europe, and, as we know, the communists had control of one half of the leading nations of the West – Germany – for nearly half a century. But Soviet Communism was a foreign import, and Russified to the core; fascism was home-grown. (Intellectually, of course, communism had its roots in the West, which was one of the reasons why it built up such a following in pre-war Germany and elsewhere in Western Europe). Liberal democracy has to fight to preserve itself, politically; and one of the ways it does so is by demonising the alternative, the ‘other’, which is fascism. Liberal democracy understands, on an instinctive level, that fascism is a competitor, and a dangerous and seductive one at that.  Hence the non-stop anti-Hitler, anti-Nazi propaganda which continues in the news media to this day, and the host of special anti-nationalist, anti-racist, anti-Holocaust Revisionist laws in Europe.

In contrast, not so much attention is paid to the militant Left. After the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, and China’s ‘backsliding’ into Western-style capitalism after 1979, the Left was thrown into turmoil. Now it makes itself felt primarily through hooliganism. The May Day demonstrations in Germany every year, for example, are an excuse for the militant Left (in particular, the anarchists) to go on a hooligan rampage, destroying property, assaulting police officers and causing millions of euros in damage.

The truth is that the old (mainly Trotskyite) communist parties are in decline, and the hooligan-anarchist element is on the ascendant (anarchists, for instance, threatened to disrupt the recent Royal Wedding in Britain, and assembled to do so (but were apprehended by the police in time)). With the recent riots against austerity measures in Europe, the old-style, hooligan, violent brand of Leftism – anarchism – is back, for the first time in around a hundred years.

The bottom line is, the Left will continue to be unpersecuted by the liberal democratic state so long as it does not break the law directly (i.e., commit acts of property damage and arson). The Left can continue to publish incendiary newspapers, demanding the overthrow of capitalism and the founding of a Trotskyite-style communist dictatorship; but liberal democracy tolerates this, for the simple reason that it does not see the Left as a serious competitor.

2.         The political use-by date

Fascism, on the other hand, is a serious threat. Part of this is to do with the passage of time. The fall of communism in East Germany, and Eastern Europe, was only recent, and so those countries still have fresh memories of what life in those countries was like. For the most part, those memories are not good. Communism failed because it failed to provide people with a decent standard of living. Substandard clothes, housing and other consumer items, shortages of basic necessities at state-owned supermarkets, endless queues… The problem was not so much lack of political rights (e.g., civil liberties, the right to form political parties and run in elections, press censorship) but the grinding misery and sub-standardness of it all. We see the same phenomena in North Korea and Cuba today.

In contrast, fascism never got a decent innings. German National Socialism survived for 12 years; Italian Fascism, 22; the occupation fascist regimes of Norway, Hungary, Croatia, etc., even less. Because the fascist regimes never survived the war, they never got the chance to grow old, degenerate and become decadent. An analogy could be made with the careers of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones: the Beatles broke up, in 1971, in their prime; the Stones, in contrast, are around to this day – and have produced a great number of substandard albums and played a great many substandard concerts. No wonder, then, that rock music fans only have golden memories of the Beatles.

In politics, one can outstay one’s welcome. We have seen that, recently, in the uprisings in the Arab states against regimes which have been in power for decades (Mubarak had been in power in Egypt for about 30 years, Saleh in Bahrain for about 30, Gaddafi for 40, and the Assad dynasty in Syria for over 40). One can sympathise with the Egyptian people’s impatience, for instance, with Mubarak: the best way for an Australian to think of it is to  imagine if former Australian prime minister Bob Hawke – who won the federal election of 1983 – was still in power. Hawke (despite his noxious views on Israel, South Africa, multiculturalism and the rest) was the man of the moment in 1983, Australia’s answer to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, the man to lead Australia out of the terrible recession of the 1980s and into a new period of national confidence. But, while he was fresh, and very much the man of the moment in the 1980s, as soon as 1990 came around, he was old hat. Like Thatcher, he was unable to cope with the recession his policies helped brought about, and so was toppled in a party coup. Liberal democratic parties – and the liberal democratic system – has that advantage over dictatorship: it punishes failure, and manages, by introducing new players into the political system, to stay fresh (for the most part). Liberal democracy, for example, gave American voters in 2008 the chance to expel the then-unpopular Republican Party from the White House and give the presidency to the dynamic , innovative unknown, Barack Obama. (Unfortunately, Obama proved to be just as bad as, if not worse than, Bush Jr., but that is another story).

3.         Good and bad authoritarianism

Not only have the regimes of the Middle East been long-lived, they have been extremely authoritarian (and, as we have recently seen, willing to use ferocious violence against their own people). They are as authoritarian as the Italian and German fascist states, and rely upon a secret police, phone tapping, emergency laws which override constitutional law, press censorship, arrest, detention and imprisonment for political crimes, the annulment of the parliament as a legislative body, the dissolution (or neutering) of rival political parties… The intellectual arguments made in order to justify this authoritarianism are similar to those made under fascism. The first is ‘We are at war’ argument (in fascism, the enemy was communism, in the Arab states, militant Islam); the second is that ‘liberal democracy leads to chaos’.

In such a political climate, we see the ‘cult of the leader’ emerge, just as under fascism. (The leaders, in question, are Ghaddafi, El-Fadine, Mubarak, Assad Sr. and Jr…). The leaders act according to the Führerprinzip, and, as such, are responsible for all the country’s successes (and failures). One of the reasons why so much public anger in Egypt was directed at Mubarak was because he was held personally responsible for everything that had gone wrong in the Egyptian state. (According to Hitler’s theory in ‘Mein Kampf’, in a democratic system, the political leader can eschew all responsibility and slough it off on to others, which is why the Führerprinzip is so much better).

Authoritarianism, and phenomena such as the cult of the leader, are not unique to fascism, of course. There have been many military dictatorships since WWII, and of course, communism was an authoritarian, illiberal ideology which also practised the ‘cult of the leader’ – in China and North Korea, to an insane extent. In addition, even liberal democratic states have used authoritarian methods. Yockey writes, in his ‘Enemy of Europe’, of the American occupation of Western Europe after the war:

[America] proclaimed to Europe that the Americans had come as a Herrenvolk, possessed of great understanding for political realities and morality, to liberate “Europeans” and “educate” them up to True Democracy.

Although the American occupation used the slogan “democracy”, it did not make even a pretence of introducing 19th century democratic forms. The press, political parties, every kind of gathering, every move – everything required a “Licence”. This was the substitution of a negative, mechanical Führerprinzip for the natural, organic Authoritarian State [i.e., European fascist state] founded upon the inwardly imperative principles of Ethical Socialism [i.e., European neofascism], which is the destined state-form of Europe in this Age of Absolute Politics. This was the tyranny of capitalist liberalism, using the mere methods of the European state-form without understanding their spiritual content… [Yockey, The Enemy of Europe, 'The American Occupation of Europe'].

Germany, today, is very much the same as the American occupiers left it, still operating under the same “mechanical Führerprinzip” system. In fact, it is a kind of anomaly unique in the world: a hybrid between a normal liberal democracy and a Syrian or Egyptian-style police state.

As can be gleaned from the quotation from Yockey, he seeks to distinguish between ‘good’ authoritarianism (of the European fascist sort) and ‘bad’ authoritarianism. Evola makes the same distinction in his ‘Men Among the Ruins’ (1972). He contrasts the true and good authoritarianism of what he calls ‘Tradition’ with the ‘inwardly dead’ totalitarian regimes of communism. (He makes the intriguing comment that the communist totalitarian regimes are unconscious parodies of the ‘Traditionalist’ political system: the Kim Il-Sung or Mao type is portrayed, by communist propaganda, as a divinely inspired monarchical ruler with almost god-like powers).

Both of these ideologues of post-war Euro-neofascism would, were they alive today, hasten to assure their readers that their ideal political state form would not bring about a Syria, Egypt, Libya, Cuba, North Korea or Burma. They make long and complex arguments to the effect that their state would not be ‘inwardly dead’ or ‘mechanical’. In essence, the arguments boil down to the contention that their neofascist states would be ‘youthful’, ‘vigorous’, ‘fresh’ and ‘alive’ – much like the German and Italian ones they admired. (Yockey makes frequent disparaging remarks about the age of the post-war European liberal democrats installed by the Allies – that they were older, as a rule, then the fascists and Far Right collaborationists they replaced). I would argue that yes, the European fascist states were certainly modernist, fresh, forward-moving, and so forth. But this could be either due to the fascist ideology itself, or to the fact that the fascist states – unlike Mubarak’s Egypt, Ghaddafi’s Libya or Assad’s Syria – never got the chance to age and ossify.

3.         An anecdote from Syria

An Arab correspondent in Syria, Sasha Ghosh-Siminoff, relates this anecdote regarding life in Syria in ‘The Guardian’ newspaper (‘Life in Syria’s psychological prison of fear’, The Guardian, 29/04/2011). It concerns a young man he befriended in Syria called Yusuf. It is a poignant story which describes some of the bad things that can happen to ordinary, apolitical people in authoritarian regimes:

At 26 years, he was neither engaged nor married.

Marriage is an important step in Syrian culture and an individual is not really considered a man until he is married, owns an apartment and has a job. But marriage is a tricky thing in Syrian society. Assuming the girl’s family agrees to the marriage, Syrian men need to pay a dowry of roughly $4,000. Not only that, but the groom is expected to provide an apartment for the new couple. Housing in recent years has become very costly and between the dowry and the cost of housing, many young men do not have the means. Before the current wave of protests, the Syrian government was aware of this and was in the process of building thousands of new apartments to help bring down the price of housing.

Eventually my friend confided in me a story that illustrates how the arbitrariness and thoughtlessness of the Syrian regime combines with other social pressures. For a number of years, Yusuf was in love with a girl from his village. When he finally decided to ask her father for permission to marry, her father said no and proceeded to engage his daughter to another man. Yet my friend could not forget his love so easily and continued to see her even though he had been forbidden to do so. Unfortunately, her father was an important man in the internal security services. When he found out that Yusuf was still seeing his daughter, he wrote a false report that landed Yusuf in jail for several days, where he was beaten.

Even that was not enough. Yusuf was then sent to Damascus where he was held and tortured for another 11 days – until his father intervened and convinced high officials within the internal security services that my friend was a genuine supporter of President Bashar al-Assad and the regime. As proof, he showed them a poem my friend had written about the president. A general saw the poem and loved it so much that Yusuf was released.

Now, could have such a thing have happened in Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy? According to the propaganda of the time (e.g., Hollywood movies produced by Jews, British wartime propaganda from the BBC), men were arrested all the time in Italy and Germany, for arbitrary reasons, and beaten, tortured, etc., and only released after they wrote poetic and fulsome tributes to Hitler or Mussolini. We can, in 2011, write off most, if not all, of these stories as rubbish. But, having said that: suppose that both Germany and Italy had managed to survive the war and both Hitler and Mussolini died of old age – would fascist Italy and Germany have turned into Egypt or Syria, after thirty or forty years?

The trouble with authoritarian states is that they can begin life as progressive, forward-moving (Ghaddafi was a young colonel, on the political Left, and a progressive and a reformer, when he seized power in 1969). But then, after a time, the negative side of authoritarianism kicks in. A power élite forms around the leader, and becomes entrenched, and develops a monopoly on political power and the economy. One result is that fresh young people do not attain positions of power and leadership. In order to obtain money for a house, a dowry, etc., one has to curry favour with that élite. What is more, the same élite begins to act in a capricious and self-indulgent manner. In National Socialist Germany, this process was already underway, as shown in David Irving’s (largely neutral) biographies of Goebbels and Goering. The average German, of course, in the 1930s was materially better off than the average Egyptian, Tunisian, Libyan or Syrian is now. But all the negative sides of authoritarianism of the Ghaddafi sort were becoming apparent. Presumably, over the course of decades, that negative side would have become grating – Italians and Germans may, for instance, have come to resent the vast fortunes amassed by National Socialist and Fascist leaders.

4.         Can ‘Prussian Socialism’ work?

I am unfamiliar with Jobbik’s party platform, and am not aware if there is a demand, in there, for a return to the wartime Ferenc Szalasi/Arrow Cross style of rule. (As for the German, French and Italian nationalists, in those countries, one is forbidden, by law, to endorse fascist-type dictatorship). My impression is that nationalist groups in the West tend to brandish the old fascism (and, in particular, its symbols – the SS runes, the Italian fasces, the Arrow Cross, Mosley’s BUF ‘lightning-bolt’ logo, etc.) like an amulet, as a means of warding their liberal democratic and communist enemies. The thought of a ‘return’ to the old fascism fills liberal democrats and communists with fear. And while liberal democracy has (rightly so) written off communism for dead, it still sees the old fascism as a threat.

The question is, whether the authoritarian political models – built around fascism – of Yockey, Evola, Bardèche, Thiriart and other post-war neofascist intellectuals can work, whether or not they can survive in the long run. The problem is not deciding, whether or not, if they are good alternatives to Obama or David Cameron-style liberal democracy; of course they are – almost anything is. Liberal democracy, for one, has proved to be a massive failure in one particular field: immigration. If present immigration continues at the present pace (as set by our liberal democratic politicians, all elected in free and fair elections), white people of Western European descent will be minorities in their own countries by about 2050. And then there is the question of what to do with the many millions of immigrants who already upon our soil: no amount of electioneering and parliamentary debates will get rid of them. While the recent successes of the Far Right populists in Europe are heartening, there is no sign, at present, that we can simply vote our way out of our difficulties. (And then, there are no guarantees: suppose that the French Front National, or the Swedish Democrats, were voted in – but lost the next election?).

But just because the existing system is bad is not to say that ours is any better. And fascism, and neofascism, are the only real alternatives we in the West have advanced to liberal democracy in the past hundred years. The runes and other symbols of the skinhead and National Socialist Black Metal bands are uniquely ‘ours’ – uniquely Western, uniquely our own creation. Nothing else, aside from neofascism, inspires the same level of intensity and devotion on the Far Right nationalist scene, and certainly, in the nationalist scene, our best intellectuals have been of a neofascist orientation. Without a doubt, if nationalists ever came to power, in Europe, America and Australia, it would be a revolution – driven by dedicated young men – which would blow the opposition away with its intensity and conviction, and it would be a total revolution at all levels, political, economic, cultural, intellectual. But how would nationalists prevent a nationalist state from descending into the authoritarianism, capriciousness, corruption, self-indulgence, ossification and petty tyranny of the Ghaddafi and Assad variety? Would we ever be in the situation of sending in the army to fire at our own people in the streets?

Perhaps what is needed is a synthesis of liberal democracy and Yockeyist/Bardèchean euro-neofascism – taking the best elements from each. This essay is not intended to come up with a comprehensive answer, merely to state, in clear and precise terms, the question.

Any one of following works are not listed in any order of importance nor do they represent in absolute the view of Nationalist Alternative instead we draw on large or small elements of each in synthesizing our world view.

We simply ask people approach the following topics with a clear and open mind free of previously held bias.

]]> http://www.natalt.org/2011/01/19/nat-alt-booklist-recommended-reading/feed/ 0 http://www.natalt.org/2010/06/30/nat-alt-radio-broadcast-episode-3-%e2%80%93-warning-to-australia/ http://www.natalt.org/2010/06/30/nat-alt-radio-broadcast-episode-3-%e2%80%93-warning-to-australia/#comments Wed, 30 Jun 2010 05:00:23 +0000 admin http://oneilgraphics.com/natalt/?p=524 By David Ellerton

In this broadcast David Ellerton speaks about what has been happening in Britain, and how Britain, which has close cultural ties with Australia, serves as a warning to Australia as to where left wing politics will lead. David Ellerton will explain how New Marxism (Neo Communism) and political correctness has been destroying  British culture, way of life and society. Australia needs to heed this warning from Britain. Otherwise, Australia will have the same terrible things happen here. Stay tuned for more episodes of Nat-Alt Radio coming out soon!

To listen to the audio, click here.

Video: Part 1

Video: Part 2

By Aldred Wulfric

Our ‘governments’ have abdicated real sovereignty to universal global institutions and govern us in a top down manner presiding over alienated atomised citizens in a geographical zone rather then a harmonious people in a nation/tribe.

Liberal Democracy, with its accompanying economic system of unfettered free market fundamentalism is the form of government that has enabled the above outcome and has managed to convince millions that it is democratic and representative of the average citizen.

Liberal Democracy works on the basis of rights before politics and emphasises the importance of the individual. There is a presumption that these ’rights’ are universally accepted or justified in their application across all peoples. However, Liberal Democracy fails to recognise and account for irreconcilable differences, which will lead to significant social tension. For example, ‘the right to life’ and ‘the right to choose’ or the ‘right to privacy’ and the ‘right of freedom of speech’.

Liberal Democracy would have us believe that it is a given that a set of universal ‘rights’ exist and that in addition, its proponents have ‘discovered’ what they are. The ‘humanitarian left liberals’ along with the ‘neo-conservative right liberals’, filled with missionary zeal now seek to enforce their discovered ‘rights’ across the globe. In doing this they obliterate all cultural and ethnic differences in their wake. This underlies the attempt at installing a Universalist Bill of Rights in Australia by various totalitarian humanists. This begs the question, who gets to define what are rights, and what are not rights?

The following extracts illustrate, ‘rights’, which themselves are not objective facts (like the law of gravity), but subjective and derived from alternative sources depending on the people group, context and history.

Professor of Politics, Richard Bellamy is quoted in Roland Axtmann’s book ‘Liberal democracy into the twenty-first century: globalization, integration and the nation-state” as arguing

“that rights must be related to, and rely upon, particular conceptions of human community and human flourishing as they emerge from the self-understanding of particular political communities” (Bellamy 1993: 54;1994: 429).

John Gray similarly posits that rights are

“ shaped by our judgements of the vital interests, or conditions of well being, of the person under consideration”

[Gray, John (1993). pg101 Beyond the New Right. Markets, Government and the Common Environment, London, New York, Routledge]

Gray further undermines the concept of pre existing ‘rights’ when he comments

“in political and in moral philosophy, the good is always prior to the right: we make judgements about the rights people have, only on the basis of our judgements of the interests central to their wellbeing” (Gray 1993: 102)

Understanding how even ‘rights’ themselves arise from a subjective process dependent upon the tribe and their conception of ‘good’, we may ponder on what if anything modern liberalism presents to us. One fact that is grounded in thousands of years of recorded human nature are that the concepts of ‘particularity’ and ‘diversity’ [ nationalism ] characterise humans more than the modern manufactured concepts of ‘the universal’ and ‘sameness’.

No amount of liberalism’s most effective tool Political Correctness can eradicate this. Political correctness is a euphemism for intellectual censorship infesting children’s textbooks, university curriculum’s and corporations HR departments.

Given that rights arise from the ‘good’ and that the ‘good’ arises from ‘particular conceptions of human community’ and ‘judgements of the interests central to their wellbeing’ it stands to reason that a harmonious society , one with an accepted set of relevant ‘rights’ will be one where the inhabitants share a common (homogeneous) definition of ‘good’. The ‘good’ is defined by the values and beliefs (culture), of shared purpose, lifestyles and direction, of common grounding and heritage.

In differentiated plural ‘societies’ or more accurately the socially engineered attempts at today’s multi-cultural, multi-racial society, division is rife and judgements about liberty and appropriate ‘rights’ become controversial evaluations leaving all groups alienated and unsatisfied.

Liberal democracies are characterised by a society torn and divided amongst itself. Parliament is full of ‘political parties’ constantly buffeted and influenced by competing subsets of interests, of minority groups and lobbies that never pull together in one direction. Political parties or most modern liberal ones, never represent the people but simply their donors, lobby groups and corporate backers over a 4 year cycle.

Contrast this with a homogeneous nation peopled by those with similar and shared ancestry, culture, ethnicity and subsequently a common definition of the ‘good’.

Liberal Democracy is also characterised by the central prominence and promotion of the activities of private individuals who are focused on the pursuit of peculiar interests. Hence in Liberal Democracy the individual is expected more or less to rely on the state for his liberty. The liberal state has ‘discovered’ and instituted his ‘rights’ and citizenship is mainly a non participatory condition to be passively enjoyed.

Contrast this to non hyphenated ‘democracy’, or real democracy, in the tradition reaching back to Aristotle and Machiavelli where in order to enjoy liberties; individuals have the duty to participate in politics to jointly determine the character of their community. In this republican tradition political activity is seen as essential to achieving self fulfilment and liberty can only be achieved and fully assured via a self governing form of community where citizenship is a responsibility happily assumed by the individual.

Further distinctions are gained through the following quotes

“The first [ democracy] makes citizenship the core of our life, the second[ liberal democracy] makes it its outer frame. The first assumes a closely knit body of citizens, its members committed to one another; the second assumes a diverse and loosely connected body, its members (mostly) committed elsewhere” (Walzer 1989:216)

“In the liberal tradition, rights guarantee freedom from external constraints; in the republican tradition, citizenship rights allows its bearers actively to engage with others in the public realm, to participate as citizens among citizens in a common practice in order to form themselves into politically autonomous creators of a community of free and equal persons on the basis of mutual recognition” (Habermas 1992b: 325-9)

“a community of families and aggregations of families [ the nation ] in well being, for the sake of a perfect and self-sufficing life”

A clear distinction emerges that Liberal Democracy is undemocratic and should be stripped of the use of the word ‘democracy’. Terminal problems with Liberal Democracy include;

• Liberal Democracy has an unclear, ambivalent manufactured set of ‘rights’ that have no foundation in a communal and consensual concept of the ‘good or ‘interests central to the peoples well being’ and that this results in alienation, no direction and debasement of all its competing sub groups.

• That this arises is part due to its social engineering experiments like multiculturalism and multi-racialism that render consensus impossible. .

• That its parliaments are unrepresentative and strangled by political parties who are in turn chained to a miasma of conflicting agendas and large cash donors.

• That it impedes personal liberty and grass-roots consensus by encouraging the disengagement of individuals from the political process and promotes man and women as ‘private’ individuals (atoms) who are unrestrained in their pursuits of purely self based interests. (unrestrained of course within the bounds set by LibDems main tool – political correctness…)

• Liberal Democracy rests on a flawed thesis that a set of universal human rights can act as foundational principles for any and all social or political order. The fatal flaw is due to universal rights having been illustrated as only pre-supposing not pre-existing a given way of life and hence the existence since time immemorial of different ways of life or conceptions of ‘human community’ amongst the earth’s peoples will generate in turn ‘different’ sets of rights.

• The fallacy of universal rights and the identification of the concept being only pre-supposed rather than pre-existing is best highlighted by the definition of ‘pre-supposition’ – An assumption, conjecture, speculation or something supposed without proof

Nationalism in contrast, is democratic and a natural condition of humankind.

• Has contained in its definition of politics the explicit recognition of a public dimension, the idea that the individual exists on a level beyond mere private concern and personal rights but also communal or group duties.

• Builds engagement by welcoming and indeed expecting citizenship to include participation in society beyond private pursuits.

• Empowers the individual by their active involvement in governance.

• Upholds the right for all peoples in the world to unite in their various homogeneities to self govern and institute rights that are not invented or transferred but find foundation in a common heritage, culture, lifestyle, spirituality and ethnicity. What Aristotle called the common interest or ‘good’ and this good in politics is justice.

• Society is far less divisive, combative and alienating and allows for the full expression of one national form/culture/spirit moving in unity.

• Government that emerges is therefore representative to a much higher degree as it is based on mutual recognition in regard to the common good of the nation it is selected from.

• A globe full of these national forms (nations) each dominant only within its own land and society whilst respecting its neighbours complete independence, truly ensures a deep diversity worldwide compared to a globe where every continent has enforced multiculturalism/racialism and over time one cosmopolitan city ‘with great shopping districts and a China town’ is much like the next regardless of which continent it is on.

Nationalist Alternative @ the Internet Censorship Rally, Perth, WA

By James Smith

Members and supporters of Nationalist Alternative WA attended the stopthefilter.org, internet censorship protest held in Perth at Forrest Place on Saturday the 6^th of March 2010.

The rally was a public relations disaster for the assorted communist groups who were attempting to hijack a public censorship rally for themselves whilst censoring others.

This activist report also details the unsuccessful attempt by ‘Resistance’ and the Socialist Alliance to force opposing viewpoints from a rally held to represent all of our concerns. Our banner which was just one element of our attendance was displayed prominently for a decent period of time and new contacts were made whilst leafleting, gaining signatures and promoting the spirit of the rally.

Why did Nationalist Alternative attend? We like the majority of Australians do not wish for a nanny state to dictate what we can and can not view, read or experience online. Nor do we buy Kevin Rudd’s “thin edge of the wedge” excuses for why.

Nationalist Alternative attended the rally in good faith simply as one group opposed to censorship of the internet, we had our censorship article uploaded on our site, signed petitions, walked petition boards around the crowd to obtain signatures and handed them back to the organisers. If a rally is the sum of its disparate parts we like the individual members of the public and other groups with or without a political basis such as “Anonymous” or the Socialist Alliance were simply another participant.

We embrace true free speech which is the entire spectrum including those views we at Nationalist Alternative may vehemently disagree with. If a viewpoint or concept or vision is flawed then through debate and open discussion it will become obvious.

Those that seek to: outlaw, make illegal, introduce oppressive legislation with jail terms in the hope that they can scare their populace into restricting their thoughts, provide no platform, physically harass, alter history books and curriculum’s and censor the ideas of others onlydisplay their own intolerance. Ultimately it is a personal fear that their own agenda and beliefs are flawed and the public will realise so when presented with articulate opposing views.

One of the most hypocritical streams of pseudo ‘alternative’ opposition in Australia is the tired and bedraggled assortment of Trotskyist, anarchist and communist groups who are not ‘left’ at all but proponents of a future totalitarian system like George Orwell’s 1984 nightmare. Say goodbye to individual and national rights, environmental concerns, diversity, a balance of private enterprise and state ownership, private property rights etc. Their opposition to the current liberal democratic censorship courtesy of labour and liberal governments is purely selfish and deceptive so they themselves can gain ‘the upper hand’ and imprison Australia with their own nanny state and iron control.

Fortunately their delusions are limited to 1^st year arts students and a small bitter rump of older members too proud or dogmatic to admit they are wrong. Their complete failure in Australia over the decades to ever gain a significant foothold leads many to believe the state today continues to allow them to run a muck publicly as ‘useful fools’ which explains the low levels of arrest or police attention these often violent thugs and their organisations receive.

Why ‘useful fools” ? what better way to ensure the continuity of the corrupt liberal democratic internationalist system then to present to the public a delusional bunch of fellow internationalists the communist clowns, as their only opposition? Of course people will be happy to stick with what they consider the ‘lesser of two evils” – hence change never comes and the oppression continues.

With most public issues, socialists around Australia attempt to hijack and control them all and force people to view it through their sole prism of understanding. The socialist attempt to monopolise political speech and action, so as to be seen as the only alternative to the status quo. Whether it is gay rights, or the rights of indigenours peoples elsewhere, the socialists oppose and attach any other political stream which speaks up on these issues, even if they are in agreeance.

Evidence of the apathy these fools cause on the general public is illustrated below. What follows are a few quotes from members of the public commenting on forums after attending the rally.

“What a disappointing rally.

The majority of speakers talked more about socialist talking points than the internet filter. We were filmed at all times by a spook from resistance.org, and the organisers were the worst hypocrits ever.”

“I’ve seen large amounts of socialist propaganda everywhere lately, why don’t these people go and live in a socialist country to see what it’s like before trying to enforce this crap on us.”

“Those Socialist Alternative guys are really annoying. They are like the westboro baptist church of Australian politics. Whenever people try to organise to protest a genuine issue these idiots turn up and try to brand it as a “socialist” demonstration.

They are the worst at Uni.

Pro-tip for SA: If I actually wanted to talk to you I wouldn’t look the other way and avoid eye contact at all costs.”

What you see in the below video is these “useful fools”, in action. After obtaining signatures for the petition, listening to various speeches we decided to unfurl our own banner to add to the diversity of outlooks present at the rally. No different to the ‘Resistance’ group which had a huge red banner beside the stage proclaiming their name and slogans related to their own beliefs without any direct connection to the actual rally.

Within about 10 minutes a few rabid socialists ran up to the second level to DEMAND we withdraw our banner and presence from this public rally. Grabbing the fabric banner and trying to rip it unsuccessfully they resorted to holding on as tightly as possible in order to cause an assault charge by the waiting police on our members if we were to pry and twist their little fingers and arms from the fabric.

Readers will be amused by the deranged women in red whose foul language and death threats “kill these 3 kunts” is obvious. Note also the attempted headbutt of a NatAlt camera man which only left her forehead imprinted with a lens cover. Contrast this to the calm, stoic and non violent behaviour typical of NaAlt supporters who simply endured this all too common scenario whilst not falling into the violence trap.

The state was of course happy to allow this violence to occur, due to the already mentioned “useful idiots” concept. It is often the case the police intervene only when nationalists rightfully defend themselves. Such is the straitjacked situation of the average decent policeman who more often than not, privately acknowledge their support for uThe police or at least their political masters are clearly more interested in ‘defending the peace’, rather than ‘defending free speech’ and take the easy option of taking action against the few victims, rather than against the more numerous (for now) violent perpertrators.

Embarrassingly for the Socialist Alliance, during this banner scuffle the speaker on the stage looked up and noted

“it looks like there is some censorship occurring right before our eyes”

>

After their unsuccessful attempt, despite our members being outnumbered at forcing us from the rally we continued down to the groundlevel handing out our “political correctness is ruining Australia” leaflets and conversing with the public. Many individuals in the crowd were disgusted at the attempt by the ‘socialists’ at censoring another group at a censorship rally of all things.

One of the excuses obtained by a roving citizen journalist after the banner incident from the lady in red was that

1. Our banner was unrelated to the protest.
2. Discussions on immigration and its effects on water, congestion, the environment and our culture was not something to be discussed anywhere.
3. They decide the spectrum of allowed free speech

To which we answer the following

1. What could be more in the spirit of a NO to censorship rally than the presence of various groups and individuals with different viewpoints who whilst united in opposition to censorship also present their various concerns!!  It is exactly ‘freedom of speech” in action at a rally calling for the same thing.
2. Why then did she not pull down the huge red ‘Resistance banner” next to the speakers stage you see above which also had zero direct connection to the stop-the-filter rally. This banner simply proclaimed their name and slogans related to their own beliefs.
3. Is it not a fact that Socialist Alliance members canvassed in large numbers the entire public attempting to sell their magazine, hand out their leaflets up and down the 100m line of people queuing up to sign the petition ??
4. Our good faith attendance is proven by the following
   1. Researching and uploading an article on internet censorship on our website and also advertising the rally
   2. Signing petitions and walking petition boards around the crowd for the organisers obtaining further petitions.
   3. Handing out our “Political correctness is ruining Australia” leaflets which directly relate to censorship given that PC is the academic concept used by the government to justify many of their laws and proposals.
   4. Standing quietly and calmly not interjecting speakers nor accosting any other attendees at the event.

Editors Note

This is not the first time that the far left have hijacked an internet censorship rally to try and kickstart their own socialist revolution.  An internet censorship rally in Melbourne in 2008 saw other groups whose members were sporting nothing more than apparel with their logo being ejected simply for joining the rally.  Members from the Electronic Frontiers Foundation Australia had little choice to to accept this gross violation due to collaboration with the bullyboy Socialist groups.  Unfortunately, computer user groups and other digital rights groups are not aware as to how their cause is hijacked and manipulated for socialist ideals.

In another incident a group of ‘young liberals’ people Nationalist Alternative have core idealogical disagreements with, neo-conservatism being the first, setup a table at Latrobe University during the orientation week. Given it is a public asset this is an opportunity for ALL beliefs to represent their views in calm conversation and debate. The Socialist Alliance tore down on their table, spitting in females faces, pushing the table and leaflets over and physically hounding them off the campus.  If their were no Liberals on the day then the Labour table would have been next and if no labour presence then the greens. All people we have fundamental misgivings about but still maintain the right for them to join the public debates, counter protesting is one thing but outright censorship is another.

Nationalist Alternative call on organisations fighting for digital freedom and for free speech to carefully consider any ‘help’ from such groups and consider how events such as the one in the article not only make those who fight for free speech seem hypocritical but how it also hurts the cause.  Bad publicity (such as people being censored at such a rally) will set back the cause and portray important causes such as this in a more negative light.

It is highly likely most communist and socialist groups if in power would follow China in setting up a giant ‘intranet’ across Australia rather then an open internet.

Nationalist Alternative will continue to support freedom of speech both on the internet and in the public domain.

By John Harper
Newport is an inner western suburb of Melbourne, back in July of 2008, activists of Nationalist Alternative, were notified by several supporters who lived and/or are living in the area and had received leaflets, to become involved in the local campaign to make the Council more accountable in regards to its planning decisions, whether for a new concrete carpark, shopping mall or otherwise. As Nationalist Alternative are strong supporters of the idea of local people having a say regarding the future of their own community and in proposed developments, we decided to investigate further.

The planning decision in question was :

a
The building plans for a large mosque on Blenheim Road, Newport that could fit hundreds of people.

(see artists impression of the mosque above).

An organisation/s of concerned citizens had formed due to the noticeable negative impact this development will have on the surrounding area. With proposed prayer times ranging from 4:20 AM to 11:10 PM and the prospect of increased traffic, noise and competition for the limited number of car park spaces planned for the area, anyone, even politically correct liberal progressives can see the significant change such a building would bring.

Nationalist Alternative attended meetings, donated funds towards hiring legal representation for the action group and spent evenings volunteering services for the resident activist groups, including distributing their leaflets, advertising their meetings, and collecting signatures and donations and providing moral support.

NatAlt was able to build good relations with the group and with certain key members. As many of the residents are politically inexperienced and often don’t appreciate the deeper underlying issues, it was encouraging to hear people express their thoughts and show us that people are not apathetic and do have an awareness of changes occurring within their community.

The council has a greater obligation to the community aside from ensuring that buildings meet zoning laws and construction requirements, but also in being sensitive to the needs of the community, the culture it has and the wishes of the residents as to the type of community they would like to live in. Developments must therefore take into account the impact they have on the culture, the way that these developments will alter the surrounding area and the suburb in terms of demographics and how such changes will impact on the lifestyle of residents.

Outrageous but not surprising were alleged comments by a councillor, when it was put to him by a resident group member

“have you read and reviewed our submissions to council opposing this development?”

to which was answered

“No”, but you are invited to come and help turn the sods of dirt on the building site with the local Islamic community”.

So to residents, it was as if the decision had been made already and the council was just going through the motions. Unfortunately a few months later in 2008, the council voted to approve the development. Despite overwhelming resident dissatisfaction with the proposal, the council appeared committed to continuing the development, a fact not lost on the disaffected residents.

In response to this, NatAlt chose to lend support to one resident from a action group who chose to be a candidate. NatAlt distributed a flyer advertising the councils decision and detailing how the council appeared committed to approving the mosque regardless of the residents wishes, or without any concern to how this would impact the area. Not only was the flyer one to inform residents, it was a call to kick the incumbents out and an endorsement of the community activist who was running for council.

Despite the sensitivity of the issue and the propensity for people to be critical of community members who express concern over such developments, NatAlt recieved negligible opposition to our efforts. We will continue to play an active role in this issue and help represent the understated and often ignored wishes and concerns of the local community.

Lessons for Nationalist Activists – Relevance and Flexibility

Illustrating the relevance, particularly on a local level, of workingwith Australians on issues that are of importance to them and their dailyconcerns we note the following words of some nationalist activists on the scene:

“We participated in our own door knock down many streets close and far to the development and whilst most residents did not want to become directly active, nearly all to a tee asked us to dispense with disclaimers and other information and just ask them “Mosque? Yes or No”, to which 9.5/10 answered a resounding NO.”

We could have attended and simply hit the area with purely abstract political material,replete with esoteric political though straight out of a European think-tank and dressed in the black bloc look of our fellow nationalists in Europe from where we in Australia adapt the look. (and utilize for different ends as per other images on this site). However in light of the above, in this instance, Nationalist Alternative worked and dressed normally, both as non aligned residents attending meetings and leafleting on the issue along with local residents as well as in our own capacity.

We supported and pushed the demand that council consider more closely and with greater sensitivity the needs of the residents, planning AND Cultural impacts and not blindly push forward developments (Of any nature mosque or carpark or shopping centre megaplex) that will have a negative impact on the community.

Residents have the right to make their voices heard, demand more accountability from indifferent and often major party dominated councils and to have the opportunity to exercise our democratic right to influence the development of our suburbs. Our people demand and require a greater input on the future of our own community, both locally and as the Australian nation.

Below leaflets used in campaign.

First page.

2nd page