The freedom of Australians to speak freely, particularly those of European/white heritage (the founders, builders, the people who comprised 98% of those who fought and died in two world wars, creators of the country that is so appealing it attracted thousands of migrants and currently still the majority demographic of ‘Australia’) is under threat, again, from Liberalism’s zeal to end any debate on multiculturalism in the name of ‘anti-racism’. A national debate is raging over a panels proposed change to the constitution, though one would hardly know it, as the public is taking very little part in the debate. The argument is about a 300 page report which contains proposed changes to the constitution to move racist sections and a recommendation to add a clause prohibiting racial discrimination.ⁱ

The report was delivered to Canberra by Melbourne lawyer, Mark Liebler, (former President of the President of the Zionist Federation of Australia and apparently the National Chairman of lobby group: Australia Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) ) ⁱⁱwho Co-Chaired the Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. In a letter which was submitted to Parliament, Leibler writes

“When it was approved one hundred and twelve years ago, the Australian Constitution established the rules for governing one of the most prosperous, peaceful and democratic nations in the world. However, the Constitution understandably reflects the values and beliefs of the time it was drafted. The Founding Fathers deserve our gratitude and respect. But their perspectives – including those on race – were of the 19th Century, not the 21st.”

Mr Leibler doesn’t elucidate why perspectives have changed, very few Liberals ever do. It is merely to be taken for granted that 19^th Century views are to be discarded, and that the ‘view’ of the 21^st century conflicts with our nations constitution. This is a common line exploited by the left, the “It’s 2012, not 1812” argument, one hollow and meaningless. An argument which is supposed to impress upon the reader the modernity of their views in contract with their opponents archaic views, without ever having to explain why it is that the supposed modern views are to supplant the old ones.
Leibler and his story continue

“But racism casts a shadow over many lives, including my own. It was racism and its off-shoot Nazism that caused my parents to flee Belgium in 1939. It was racism that saw my maternal grandparents murdered in Auschwitz. Racism turns your life into a lottery. To stay or go becomes a matter of life or death. Racism reduces your ability to control your life’s destiny or make decisions for yourself.” ⁱⁱⁱ

Leibler puts the specific so called ‘anti-Semitism’ of the German Nationalist Socialist regime under the racist umbrella, an umbrella which now includes anyone who might oppose multiculturalism, high immigration or who might simply wish to preserve their racial and cultural heritage whilst reserving the right for all peoples around the globe to do the same. In doing so, Leibler downplays the specificity of the ‘anti-Semitism’ of the German Nationalist Socialist regime, and attributes this to broad racism. This is indeed incorrect, as the Nazi preoccupation with the Jewish question was disproportionately greater than their preoccupation with racial purity, and other ‘racist’ ideals.

Hypocrisy? What if modern day Jewish concerns about intermarriage and assimilation within the Jewish community were construed as racism? Many Rabbi’s and Jewish leaders around the world openly talk of the need of preserving Jewish identity, of preserving their race or culture or religion et al. For instance recently a Likud MP in Israel Danny Danon (Likud) put a proposal to Australian Jewish MP Michael Danby re sending African migrants from Israel to Australia. Danon was quoted in the 2011 Jerusalem Post article as saying

The arrival of thousands of Muslim infiltrators to Israeli territory is a clear threat to the state’s Jewish identity,” Danon told The Jerusalem Post.

“The refugees’ place is not among us, and the initiative to transfer them to Australia is the right and just solution.” ^iv

One of the most hypocritical examples of double standards on issues of on the right of demographic survival of an ethnicity/nation is by Mark Liebler’s brother Isi Liebler. In a Herald Sun article titled “Multiculturalism not for Israel – Leibler”

Melbourne – Jewish leader Isi Leibler, a staunch defender of Australian multiculturalism, says the policy has no place in Israel.

“This is a country which was set up and created as a Jewish country for the Jews,” he told a Jerusalem newspaper.

Mr. Leibler has previously said that multiculturalism in Australia was something that “we are all proud being part and parcel of…

Mr. Leibler said post-Zionists were pushing a universalist agenda in schools aimed at eliminating Jewish nationalism and creating a multicultural state. “ ^v

Many in the Jewish community openly discuss that in order to preserve their identity, intermarriage with gentiles must be eschewed. In a 2010 article titled Jews in the Lucky Country by Isi Liebler which appears to be mainly aimed at a Jewish audience he promotes Australia as one of the better countries for Jews who live outside of Israel.

If there were more Jewish communities like Australia’s, the future of Diaspora Jewry would be far more secure than it is now… Australian Jewry is frequently depicted as a role model for other Diaspora communities… it is dominated by painful memories but is also a forward looking Zionist community.” ^vi

The article lists what it considers positives such as Jewish dayschools and other institutions but also and notably the positive fact that intermarriage is currently relatively low

Intermarriage while growing is much lower than in other Western Jewish communities…. Of course, all is not rosy. The younger generation, like its global counterparts, lacks the passion of its forbears…

The level of intermarriage, while low compared to the US and most European countries, is growing… Yet notwithstanding these emerging challenges, if there were more Jewish communities like Australia, the future of Diaspora Jewry would be far more secure than it is.” ^vii

Would Mark Leibler consider sentiment opposing intermarriage and multiculturalism amongst his own Jewish community and indeed his own brother Isi racist?

I doubt it.

But what if it were a White gentile (non jew), expressing the same concerns. What if it were, instead of an Israeli Jew expressing the desire of maintaining Israel as a Jewish state, a White gentile expressing a desire to keep their nation White? Unfortunately, caring about our survival as a distinct people is considered racism and some in the Jewish community, who facing their own possible extinction through assimilation , who should understand and empathise with this sentiment the most, are most keen to denounce and portray this thought as racism.

What is racist is to deny the existence of race or ethnicity, to deny or hinder directly or indirectly the right of a race/ethnic group to survive as a distinct sovereign people living according to their own culture, values and beliefs as a majority in their own land who at the same time extend that right to all other peoples.

Further on the double standards – if so much of what Liebler has helped put forward for constitutional change in Australia helps the Aborigines then why is he not pushing for the same in Israel for the Palestinians? Liebler’s bio talks about him being involved deeply with Jewish issues and Israel related organizations so he must have the time.

Tony Abbott seems to be concerned about the ramifications of adding such a clause. Abbott says “We want this to be a unifying moment, like the 1967 constitutional change, and if something is put up which is going to end up substantially distorting the traditional rights and freedoms and protections that we’ve had in this country, well I think that could be a problem. I would want to look very carefully at the legal ramifications of putting anti-discrimination provisions into the Constitution.”

We at Nationalist Alternative are more than concerned. The Liberal party, while voicing ‘concern’ would never take a Politically Incorrect position, and defend the right of a race of people to speak in defence of themselves, their culture and their right to remain a majority in their own land with laws written by us for us to ensure our survival as a people. We at Nationalist Alternative however do defend these rights for Australians and for all the peoples of the globe.

Tony Abbot scratches the surface with his comment about the threat of these constitutional changes ‘distorting the traditional rights and freedoms’ Australians enjoy. Totalitarian liberalism and its proponents already attack and attempt to legislate away the freedom of association and speech rights of Westerners to discuss matters of ethnic/cultural survival handing them constitutional power to do so will simply usher in a Stalinist state. Recent domestic political history in Australia demonstrates this with the appalling media treatment of the grassroots political party One Nation. However a particular nasty incident occurred in July 1998 that was known by some as Lieblers List.

The Australia-Israel Review somehow obtained the membership list of the newly formed patriotic party One Nation, and published the names of 2,000 One Nation members and donors along with a provocative front cover that implied in our opinion that they were some sort of criminals saying “Gotcha! …. Thousands of members revealed”

Given the publicly known physical violence that has already been directed against One Nation supporters publication of the list could only have been seen as intimidation. This blatant act left ordinary mum and dads, elderly and humble Australians from all walks of life, many participating in politics for the first time, subject to potential threats, harassment and intimidation from multicultural left wing thugs who already attacked One Nation meetings.

The newspaper article titled ‘Anger as One Nation members named ‘had the following quote

Mr William May, of Ashfield, said he did not think his membership was anyone’s business.

“It is discrimination against people who have different political views to them and a lot of these people are elderly, like myself, who have worked all of their life and a lot of them have been in World War II,” he said.” ^viii

What is particularly chilling is that Mark Leibler was the chairman of the Australia-Israel Jewish Affairs Council, the magazine’s publisher back in 1998 That’s right ! The same man who in 2011-12 has Co-Chaired the Panel on Constitutional Change that this article discusses. Liebler was quoted in The Daily Telegraph 1998

the decision to publish the list of members and donors was in the interests of “political transparency”. ⁸

We wonder if he would have the same attitude to transparency if a group obtained and then published in full or in part the membership lists of various Jewish advocacy groups.

The Sydney Daily Telegraph published the astonishing news on July 9 1998 under an angry banner headline that shouted LEIBLER’ LIST. “The presentation associated with the list invites vilification” the newspaper editorialized and “The McCarthy-like imputation is that these people in some way transgressed, their beliefs — like those of communist sympathisers in the United States in the 1950s — are deemed to be a danger to the state.” ^ix Interestingly a cartoon in The Sydney Daily Telegraph compared what was named by some as ‘ Lieblers List’ with the Nazis of 1938. What is also notable, is how Leibler can sit idle and take part in harassment against people because of their political beliefs. Harassment which has led to physical violence, persecution and public ‘shaming’. The very activity that Leibler should know very well, doesn’t accord with a free and open society. Yet here he sides with those that would persecute and attack someone based on their beliefs. Irony or hypocrisy?

Anti-racism is anti-white and any modern form of ‘anti-racist’ action has an anti-white component to it that makes such actions abhorrent. The issue isn’t about Aboriginals or Torres Straight Islanders, but that reliably, without fail, anti-racist action always, always goes beyond ending direct racial discrimination and violence, to controlling thought and speech which may be construed by a hyper sensitive and paranoid individual as possibly being racist, or leading to racism. Even if the sentiment isn’t racist at all, all a white Australian has to do, all any White Anglo or European has to do, is discuss in a frank manner their belief that their race too like all others, has a right to self preservation, and every Liberal, every Politically Correct zealot will automatically construe that as ‘racist’, despite the lack of any racist sentiment. Every anti-racist anti white will take anything less that complete support and devotion to the multiracial experiment as an evil that must be stomped out.

Given the disregard for our right to be concerned about our future and McCarthy like tactics illustrated above along with the anti free speech legislation (vilification laws et al) already in place and growing. We ask the people of Australia to consider this carefully and to reject any changes to our constitution which could effectively outlaw any position against Liberalisms desire to create a melting pot in ALL and ONLY white countries. Not only is the potential for organisations to be deemed ‘illegal’, for advocating for and supporting our race/culture/ethnicity, just as other groups such as the Aboriginal and Jews are free to do, but it has the potential to make YOU criminally liable for what you say, even if you just said that immigration levels are too high.

i Deadline shifts on referendum.<Patricia KarvelasThe Australian January 21, 2012
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/deadline-shifts-on-referendum/story-fn59niix-1226249860843

ii>http://www.abl.com.au/ablattach/leibler.pdf< or

http://www.jafi.org.il/NR/exeres/FA8BC582-E6DF-4FC8-9F07-A907FD618422

iii >Leibler Panel Calls for Constitution Change.January 20, 2012 by J-Wire Staff

http://www.jwire.com.au/news/leibler-co-chairs-panel-on-constition-change/21978

ivDanny Danon: Send African migrants to Australia. By Lahav Harkov
 06/30/2011. The Jerusalem Post
http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=227332

Multiculturalism not for Israel – Leibler. By John Masanauskas. Herald Sun.September 27, 2000
http://globalfire.tv/nj/03en/jews/purejews.htm/a>

viJews in the Lucky Country – Isi Leibler visits Australia By J Wire staff. September 25, 2010

http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/jews-in-the-lucky-country-isi-leibler-visits-australia/11837

viiJews in the Lucky Country – Isi Leibler visits Australia. By J Wire staff. September 25, 2010

http://www.jwire.com.au/featured-articles/jews-in-the-lucky-country-isi-leibler-visits-australia/11837

viii Anger as One Nation members named. The Sydney Morning Herald. July 10 1998.
By Greg Roberts,Andrew Clennell And Nick Papadopoulus
Also here http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/98/07/articles/Leibler100798.html

ix The Daily Telegraph. London July 10 1998
Or

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/98/07/articles/Leibler100798.html

So where do people get political opinions from? Who are the people who champion particular political schools of thought? What should be obvious is that people make a living and many in the mainstream media, and even alternative media get paid for creating political dialogue. What is also basic knowledge, is that people will only pay for something they want to pay for.

The obvious conclusion to this is that the vast majority of political discussion generated by the media, is created because someone PAID to say it. It is a fact that is too obvious for many people to notice.

The Internet is an exception, which is why both the Government and Big Media are attacking the free flow of ideas and speech.

So when a major “Conservative” columnist, who repeatedly complains about left wing bias in the media, doesn’t ask questions as to why he is still paid, then he either doesn’t care, doesn’t see the problem, or is a sell out. To be a Conservative in mainstream media, one must first accept that one will play by the rules that the mainstream media demands, which usually, almost always, means accepting Political Correctness, if not in heart, then at least in word. To be a Conservative in the mainstream media, one must be what the left consider “Respectable” or “Reasonable”, which means, almost always admitting that Progressivism is the ideological destiny of the west and that this destiny is beyond negotiation.

“Respectable” Conservatives are the Washington Generals to Liberalism’s Harlem Globetrotters. The Washington Generals were a ‘stooge’ Basketball team, created to help showcase the Harlem Globetrotter’s basketball skills and to play the role of an opposition team so there was some semblance of a basketball game occurring. They were never meant to any serious competition, just a bumbling, seemingly incompetent (yet still knowing the game) band of players whom the Harlem Globetrotters would regularly defeat.

How do you set up such a rigged game? Easy. Pay for it. Pay for both sides. As our state religion Political Correctness has virtually a monopoly over the media, it can ensure that only people who adhere to it maintain paid jobs as commentators. Just in the same way that the Harlem Globetrotter’s games were staged, as there was a particular outcome which was demanded, political debate between “Respectable” Conservatives and Liberals usually occurs in political arenas where Liberalism writes the rules, and dictates the standards.

But it is important to realise that it is not the exact same people who might campaign for hate speech laws, or push for multiculturalism who pay for conservative commentators, but these people generally share an acceptance of PC, of perhaps a varying degree. It is not a conspiracy where a shadowy cabal select all media spokespeople, but it is simply the end result of strong, one sided political pressure and activism which has resulted in a social and legal environment where this political school of thought shapes and sets the tone of debate. As “Conservatives” have to abide by this, only respectable ones make it. Many who disagree with Climatologists regarding Global Warming are aware that peer pressure and selective bias can lead to only one side of the debate being accepted, with any real opposition simply being booted out and only faux opposition being published and respected by the scientific community. It is also interesting to note that there is a notion of being a “reasonable” conservative, but few, if any leftists ever worry about whether they are a “reasonable” liberal or “reasonable” progressive.

“Respectable” Conservatives therefore can’t really and usually don’t oppose Political Correctness. They barely have the courage to properly call out Marxists as the lunatic relics, who may be motived by hate, from a bygone era that they are and never, ever give support for any real opposition to Political Correctness. They usually lead the charge against people who don’t agree with their anti-white agenda masquerading as “anti-racism”. The conservative moment has lost ground, precisely because “Respectable” Conservatives, always, in the end, make the proper propitiations to their PC masters and Liberalism always, in the end, defines what non-PC speech is allowed.

A good example is the Melbourne based Herald Sun columnist, Andrew Bolt. The left hate him, but most importantly, they don’t fear him or the commenter’s on his blog. Such is the state of “Conservatism” and “anti-leftism” in Australia, that a self styled leading conservative and champion against Political Correctness cannot bring up any other reaction than smug self righteousness from the left, and does not much more than give the left the opportunity to take part in patronising, insincere ‘pity’ for Bolts wingnuts. Some progressives may indeed ‘fear’ conservative rule, such as having Tony Abbot as Prime Minister, but it’s hard to find any substance behind this fear. This one one of the few areas which I actually agree with the left here, many of his commenter’s are indeed gutless and pathetic, but for a different reason. However, I disagree that they are ALL misguided, as among his commenter’s and fans are diamonds among the rough and many of these people are aware that they are diamonds amongst the rough.

Unfortunately, some are more astute and have realised that Andrew Bolt’s opposition to Liberalism is half baked and perhaps hasn’t even been placed in the oven at all. Some of these followers wonder whether he is actually not just another liberal himself, another PC stooge. This author has no doubt though, that Andrew Bolt, like many other mainstream Conservatives genuinely believe, at least to some degree, what they write, and they try to keep within the law. Unfortunately I believe Andrew Bolt underestimates just how little freedom of speech we have in Australia and because he has taken the “Respectable” position, he doesn’t realise that in the pursuit of Tolerance, he will be less and less tolerated until he is no longer tolerated at all.

For these people, there are unfortunately no other mainstream spokespeople they can follow or read. For many Australians, they know what we at Nationalist Alternative know, that the ‘melting pot’ future is not some inevitable result of progress or the result of Western predestination, but merely the deliberate attempt at a minority of liberal ideologues to re-engineer Western societies, a re-engineering in which there is no race. As they plan this for all and only white nations, it obviously means just the white race must go. Some might rightfully call this genocide. They are also finding that that the conservative movement has failed to prevent the encroachment of anti-vilification laws and as such, risks losing the very right to voice its position at all.

Andrew Bolt is a good lesson, a good example to demonstrate why mainstream “respectable” conservatism just doesn’t cut it, any why Liberalism always wins in the end. Most, if not all social changes in the past 50 years have been towards Liberalism, with perhaps questionable “regressions” in the economic arena.

When Bolt isn’t acting as a representative of the Liberal party, or whining about environmentalism, which accounts for 90% of his writings, he rants against Political Correctness and Liberalism, and the Liberals obsession with race based politics.

A column titled “At least our Macedonians are free” ¹, was a rather trite diatribe against Macedonian “hate speech” against Greeks. His column was a rant against Ms Noreen Megay of VCAT not finding any reason to pursue this “hate speech” further”. He starts by saying “IS it a rule that you have to be Anglo-Saxon to be a racist? “. A fair enough point, if you ignore the fact that ANY white person who objects to ANY white nations becoming a melting pot is labelled a racist, not just Anglo-Saxons. “Respectable” Conservatives are never allowed to bring this up.

What is ignored, is the fact that we have one European group who identify themselves as Macedonians, launching a tirade against another European group, Greeks, and Political Correctness doesn’t care about racism AGAINST whites, hence why Noreen Megay of VCAT didn’t find any wrong doing. Its not because it was committed by Macedonians, but its was against Greeks, who are Europeans are fair game, just as any other Europeans are far game. Just ask the Germans and Austrians.

But Andrew Bolt never makes this point, or CAN’T make it, because anti-white racism is the unstated holiest of holies in the religion of Political Correctness, and no “Respectable” Conservative can ever point this out or draw attention to it. I would also be willing to bet London to a brick, that if any white person ever wrote anything about a non-white ethnic group in a manner that these ‘Macedonians’ wrote against the Greeks, he would be leading the light brigade against “racism”. There would be no excuse, no recourse. The wrath of VCAT will rain upon them, reminding everyone else against the dangers of ‘racism’.

Bolt then complains about Noreens argument that the audience wouldn’t find the Macedonian text offensive by saying “I wonder how this argument would apply to Nazis or Ku Klux Klansmen”.

Later in the article it is unclear as to what Andrew Bolt was complaining about, whether that ‘Macedonians’ weren’t punished by leftist “hate crime” laws, or that Anglo-Saxon’s can’t get away with violating them. He ends the article with “Do you have to be Macedonian to be free to speak? Are only Anglo-Saxons racist?”. Very non-committal, we would expect nothing else from a “Respectable” conservative.

So given that he is PAID by a media which is supposedly left wing, and that the left support anti-white racism and totalitarian style “hate speech” censorship, it’s not surprising that he rarely calls out the “hate speech” laws as unjust restrictions on freedom of speech and thought, and never mentions the double standard of “racism against whites=OK”/”whites not tolerating multiracialism=pure evil”. He does stand up and take note, when they personally affect him, or when he feels they interfere with his version of Liberalism. You can’t rail for freedom of speech for all, and remain ‘respected’ by liberal intellectuals. So Andrew Bolt doesn’t. The very hate speech laws which are designed to keep a liberal monopoly on speech regarding immigration and multiculturalism get off scott free here, despite the fact he has a direct vested interest in removing them.

This is the anatomy of pretty much ALL conservative attacks against the left. Starts with a whine about liberalism not being applied correctly. In this case, Noreens decision NOT to follow up on supposed “hate crimes”.

Then afterwards, as always, a sly nod to the anti-racists (who are really just anti-white), that he is still with them. Bolt’s comment “I wonder how this argument would apply to Nazis or Ku Klux Klansmen” does just this. It lets the leftist intellectuals know that he too, is as obsessed with “Nazis” and “KKK” as they are.

Why “Nazis”, why “KKK”? Because this is the language that the left use against any Westerners, such as Nationalist Alternative, who might dare point out that mass immigration into Western countries might be destructive to Western culture and incompatible with the continued existence of European ethnicities in these nations. This is the language of ‘anti-racism’, so if you talk the talk, you hope people think you walk the walk. But despite the fact that the German Nationalist Socialist regime were bombed into dust over half a century ago, and that the KKK is defunct, and that neither exist in Australia aside from a few comical, hard to take seriously ‘activists’, it’s still the language du jour of the left, and it’s how Bolt can hint that he is still on the liberal train.

The article ends with the statement “Good on Megay. But the question remains: Do you have to be Macedonian to be free to speak? Are only Anglo-Saxons racist? “. Good on you Andrew Bolt, you tireless crusader against Political Correctness! Thank you for making your position against totalitarian hate speech laws, invented solely for the purpose of suppression of discussion about the dire failures of liberalism so clear. You care enough about it to mention it, and leave people guessing as to whether you actually are with liberals here or not.

But it’s not just Bolt who displays this half hearted “I’m a conserative, but don’t worry, I’m still with Political Correctness” attitude. Commenter “Hillbilly of Hobart” writes, with the usual explanation about how great multi-racialism is….

Terms like racist and denier have become the weapons used by those who know their position is weak.,to try and shut down any rational debate on matters where people have raised valid and legitimate concerns.

I am proud of Australia’s successful past record in immigration which on the whole has allowed mutually beneficial integration and assimilation of people from over 120 different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds.

That has only been possible by having an orderly system where quotas have been determined on the basis of ability to provide adequate infrastructure and support in all areas and having a fair and proper assessment process to determine the suitability any applicant.

This is sadly quite typical. Why someone feels the need to keep telling everyone how they are for multi-racialism and diversity is beyond me. Why go to a conservative website to read this, when you can go to a liberal one? Well, you actually find conservatives bending over MORE than liberals, to show how tolerant they are and how accepting of a melting pot future. It’s really nothing more than conservatives trying to prove they are still PC, if not the ‘left wing’ type. Not that professing Tolerance is going to protect you anyway.

Even Andrew Bolt seemingly praises former Prime Minister Howard of all people for increasing immigration. In this blog post, “Howard shared those boundless plains”².

But no article sums up Andrew’s spineless “opposition” to Liberalism and its agenda against the West than this blog post, “Europes changing face”³. Posting pictures of French soccer teams of old and of modern teams, one aspect is striking obvious. In the early 20^th century, Frances soccer team was white, it was French. Now it is predominantly black. Andrew Bolt posts these pictures with not much more than this statement “May I please point out to hyperventilating commenters below that to notice is not to condemn – or applaud.”.

OK, he’s not specifically applauding it, which is one step better than some Liberals, who see this as a victory of progressivism over white homogeneity. But he doesn’t condemn either, essentially being neutral. Passive neutrality in the face of change is acceptance of the change. It is remaining neutral in the time of crisis, an evil in itself, one that Dante considered worthy of the innermost circles of Hell.

So lets see here, Europe’s “changing face” is the result of mass immigration and assimilation, a deliberate policy of liberalism, not the result of tolerance or genuine dislike of racism. Tolerance is demanded after multi-racialism has been forced upon the population, to ensure that it proceeds orderly without opposition.

But conservatives are silent on this transformation, because speaking against such a demographic transformation will always be construed by the left, as “racism” against non-whites. Liberals state, quite clearly that any desire to maintain the European character of France, for example, is akin to racism against non-Europeans. This isn’t true at all, and merely a propaganda tool by the left, but conservatives simply won’t challenge this rather easy to debunk fallacy.

Why the Left demands “Tolerance”.

It was revealed that the British Labour party in the year 2000 concealed plans to make Britain more multiracial by allowing in more migrants, partly to force multi-racialism and partly to rub the noses of the right in it. Many leftists openly admit that mass immigration should be forced to destroy white homogeneity and some revel in the idea. Andrew Neather, a speech writer who worked in Downing St wrote about a policy paper form the Performance and Innovation Unit

“Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

“I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.” ⁴.

The Labour party tried to backtrack, but unfortunately this attitude is quite typical of leftist ideologues. This attitude is behind all Liberal governments, including France. In France, this is so open that the current President Sarkozy has said that the French people must change and that there will be dire consequences if they don’t intermarry. ⁵

But no “Respectable” Conservative is allowed to bring this up, to directly confront the Left with it. No “Respectable” Conservative would be allowed to keep bringing this revelation from the British Labour party to reveal how “Tolerance” and “Diversity” are used in a hateful manner against the British people. This is a revelation of significantly greater importance than the “Climategate” e-mails, and it’s content far more damaging and direct and far less ambiguous about the true motives behind multi-racial immigration, yet mainstream conservatism simply ignores this fact. This should ring alarm bells.

The “Respectable” Conservative counterpoint.

So with the fact that European nations are run by anti-white leftists, it is disheartening to hear that the only opposition to Europe’s gradual decline and genocide is from “Respectable” conservatives.

We wouldn’t expect Andrew Bolt to stand in defence of the destruction of Britain’s and Europe’s heritage by Liberalism and neither it seems, do many of his followers.

Jaycee of Melbourne writes,

“From Mr Bolt’s notes…

“May I please point out to hyperventilating commenters below that to notice is not to condemn – or applaud.”

As an individual, I found the comparisons interesting…nothing more. “

Of course. Genocide is “interesting…nothing more”.

Jarrod writes the following, in a response to a comment about the 1936 German team being homogeneous.

“Mon 03 Mar 08 (11:46am)

Unfortunately so!!

I think that the photo’s are a good reflection of a nation (France) who is open to globalisation, and who treats it citizens regardless of colour as French.

It’s a bit disappointing to see that Italy has not followed this trend. It appears that Italy may still be stuck with an out-dated version of nationalism – exclusion, regardless them having a lot of African immigrants. “

Again, ANY white homogeneity is denounced as evil by liberalism. It is a problem that must be remedied. This evil problem must be remedied by mass non-white immigration and assimilation. The solution to the “white problem”, is to remove whiteness. Jarrod, just like all “respectable” Conservatives agree with Liberalism here. What is even more interesting is that both Liberals and Conservatives will tell you that they have never heard of anyone talking about ‘whiteness’ being a problem that must be solved by mass non-white immigration and assimilation. This would be like a Global Warming sceptic saying they’ve never heard of “Climategate”. Go figure.

Why don’t his readers realise he is not a conservative?

Perhaps the most baffling aspect of Bolt’s blog, or any mainstream conservative blogger, commentator or pundit, is why people who actually are against Liberalism and Political Correctness follow them?

These conservatives complain about a left wing bias in the media. These SAME conservatives then get paid by the very same media they accuse of being Leftist. Said media wont pay anyone who writes columns which actually threaten the holy established religion of Political Correctness, so all opposition to Liberalism must play by their rules to be published. Because the commentator is playing by their rules, by virtue of being employed by them and seeking ‘respect’ from liberal intellectuals any opposition that he is allowed to print, they can’t be true opposition. The readers then go on thinking that this conservative movement is the one that is going to get rid of the twisted religion of Political Correctness. Because of this, the readers mindless repeat left wing slogans and enforce liberal ideas with the same zeal as the left, perhaps even more so, because they must prove to the left at every moment, they aren’t ‘racist’, which really means just doing what it takes to get leftists to stop using it as slander against you.

They must still prove to the left, they are “Respectable”, that they are “Intellectual” and that they too agree that white countries should be open for everyone. Saying “I’m not a racist…” just doesn’t cut it with the left any more. You have to prove it, and intermarriage is a good way of showing the strength of ones faith in anti-white, anti-racism. But no matter what you do, if the left are the ones who define the rules, they can simply rule that your speech, your opinion is ‘hate speech’, or ‘offensive’ or simply ‘illegal’ and be done with you. They define what ‘racist’ is, which really is just anything they don’t ideologically agree with.

This is the sad state of conservative, mainstream right wing politics in the country. You simply cannot critique multi-culturalism if you accept the basic premise that all white nations MUST become multiracial. If you accept this, then what recourse do you have against hate speech? How can you complain about ‘Macedonians’ writing slander against Greeks, when you accept Liberalism’s anti-racism, which is in reality an anti-white movement?

Because “hate speech” laws are a necessity to ensure that white people accept giving away their heritage and future, what right does someone who agrees that white people must accept this future have, in even questioning the laws which make this possible and prevent this program from being thwarted? And even if you don’t accept if, if you agree, that in principle, Western nations should head towards Liberalism, then who are you to argue against Liberals as to how its done?

Never deal with the devil, you will always lose.

On the 28^th of September Andrew Bolt was found guilty of racial vilification. His “crime” was questioning whether white looking Aboriginals would really be considered Aboriginal. As we live in a country which does NOT have freedom of speech, and therefore does NOT have freedom of thought, I am not permitted, lest I be found guilty in front of a judge, in sharing my opinion as to whether Andrew Bolt’s statement was reasonable or not. The law it appears, requires us all to believe that he was unreasonable. So sayeth the judge.

Some might see this and think “Well, doesn’t this prove that paid conservative columnists are not in bed with the left, as they too are punished by leftist, communist inspired “Hate Crime” laws? No, it doesn’t. It is important to remember that there isn’t a grand conspiracy here, that News Limited doesn’t secretly hold meetings with Socialist Alliance members and Anti-Racist organisations to elect a puppet as a columnist. Conservatives are chosen out of free will, but the system, public expectations and requirements of the vocal, and seemingly powerful leftist activist class is enough to ensure that only “Respectable” conservatives are given a voice. Anyone who they do not consider “Respectable”, such as Pauline Hanson is hounded into submission and destroyed. Even the two major political parties in this country will unite to ensure this happens. Dissenting opinion simply doesn’t survive, and by a process similar to natural selection, only “Respectable” Conservatives get any mainstream voice and get treated as being legitimate political voices, at least until someone decides a change is needed. They can serve the function of acting as a pressure valve to real dissent, a way of diverting anti PC opinion to an ineffective outlet.

There is no love for “Respectable” Conservatives like Bolt from the left, and simply because one ensures that they still have a PC outlook, doesn’t grant one immunity. Any totalitarian religion needs to become more and more intolerant of dissent if it is to consolidate its power. Those who preach Tolerance become more and more intolerant, especially of anyone who doesn’t fit their definition of Tolerant or Inclusive, definitions which can change over time. Being “Respectable”, supporting immigration and assimilation, supporting all white nations become melting pots isn’t going to protect you if you are not wholeheartedly Politically Correct. If you hold a view which Liberalism decides is no longer Tolerant, you become a target.

So Andrew Bolt has been found guilty by Judge (I use the term loosely) Mordecai Bromberg of making a statement the JUDGE found offensive. Andrew Bolt either stepped out of line, or more likely, the line was simply moved further to the side of Political Correctness and Andrew Bolt now found himself outside the line. What it takes to be “Respectable” was simply redefined, and he no longer fits the definition.

However, despite the nature of the article which lead to the proceedings, Andrew Bolt does NOT deserve to be found guilty and the verdict is deplorable. It is irrelevant whether his statement was offensive or not, or even if it was the result of less than perfect journalism. More to the point, one shouldn’t be punished for saying something about someone else, that a third party thinks may offend. Freedom of speech means the freedom to say things which people might find offensive. To deny people the right to say something that another human being might find offensive is to deny people pretty the right to pretty much any political speech whatsoever. Perhaps we are heading towards the banning of all politics that isn’t PC. Freedom of speech means freedom of thought. Curtailing freedom of speech is actually an attempt to curtail freedom of thought.

The lesson here for anyone who holds views against multiculturalism, Political Correctness or liberalism, is that being against racism, being for pluralism isn’t enough if you are not wholeheartedly for it. It isn’t enough to be against racism but also against minority pandering. It isn’t enough to fight against racism, but still believe that European and Anglo countries should be able to preserve their heritage and culture. It isn’t enough to accept a ‘little’ diversity but desire keep it under control. It even isn’t enough to be a support of Israel and denounce anti-semitism.

You may be able to get a paid job, appear on TV, you may be allowed, for a while to be considered somewhat respectable but Liberalism has for the last several decades narrowed the range of behaviour, speech and opinion which is considered acceptable. What was once considered inoffensive in the 80′s can now land you in court. What is considered allowable now will in the future be unacceptable. Each time the screws are tightened, “Respectable” Conservative opinion will simply be re-branded as hate speech and offensive and if necessary, legislated, as Mordecai Bromberg has done by setting a precedent, out of existence.

(In this essay, I shall be looking at the phenomenon of political correctness and cultural-Marxism, and one possible intellectual response to it, from the work of a French philosopher, Gilles Deleuze. The issues involved can be potentially too abstract for some, so I shall resolve to bring them down to earth – into the nitty-gritty of contemporary political reality – as much as possible).

One of the most significant changes in the history of the Left was the adoption of politically-correct Marxism in the 1990s. Appearing, mostly, on university campuses, the new ‘P.C. Marxism’ or Leftism took the radical step of abandoning the old-fashioned worker’s struggle for socialism, instead focusing on the “oppression” of women, gays, Blacks, Hispanics and other minority and victim groups by the white, male Western culture. The new Marxism first appeared in the humanities departments (mainly literary departments) at the universities, and was inspired by French postmodern thinkers who were, even by academic standards, difficult to read and often incomprehensible. As the Jewish-British writer Loren Goldner (an orthodox, old-fashioned Marxist) complained:

The big debate on the American left in the late 1980′s and early 1990′s was about the “difference” of the “identity” of every oppressed group, with the notable exception of the working class as a whole, and that this difference was, in fact, just…difference.

Multiculturalism is in… To the pseudo-radicals of the academic intelligentsia, who have turned social class into a “text”, multiculturalism is the freeing of a “multiplicity of discourses”, a dissolution of the ostensible “phallologocentrism” of an ostensible “Western” cultural tradition… The purveyors of the post-modern “French disease” continue a frenzied production of self-involved books and posh academic journals which communicate nothing so much as a basic ignorance of real history and the pathetic belief that the deconstruction of literary texts amounts to serious radical political activity.

(Loren Goldner, ‘Multi-Culturalism or World Culture? On a “Left”-Wing Response to Contemporary Social Breakdown, 1991, at http://libcom.org/library/multi-culturalism-or-world-culture-left-wing-response-contemporary-social-breakdown )

Like a good many things from 1990s, P.C. Leftism went out of fashion with the Left – Queer Studies, Women’s Studies, Black Studies and other departments still exist on university, of course, but the Left realised, after a time, that postmodern political correctness diverted their energies from what should have been their true focus – communism, anarchism, and the ‘overthrow of capitalism’. (Whether or not such goals are achievable is another thing entirely. The reason why politically-correct, cultural Marxism appeared in the 1990s was because of the disillusionment, among the Left, following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the ‘back-sliding’ of China into capitalism. According to Marx’s theory, these two events shouldn’t have happened, but they did).

However, like a cancer, or a poisonous gas which has escaped its containers, P.C. Marxism lingers on. In Tuscon, Arizona, a Hispanic version of Queer Studies and Black Studies existed until recently: ‘Mexican-American Studies’, which indoctrinates Mexican immigrant high school students in Mexican and Latino nationalist propaganda. A liberal, Tom Horne, who was the state’s superintendent of education, opposed the program on the grounds that it created ethnic divisions and helped draft a law against them. So what went on in these classes?

“It’s propagandizing and brainwashing that’s going on there,” Tom Horne, Arizona’s newly elected attorney general, said this week…

To buttress his critique of the Tucson program, Mr. Horne read from texts used in various classes, which in one instance referred to white people as “gringos” and described privilege as being related to the color of a person’s skin, hair and eyes. He also cited the testimony of five teachers who described the program as giving a skewed view of history and promoting racial discord.

For the state, the issue is… some of the texts used in the classes, among them, “The Pedagogy of the Oppressed” and “Occupied America,” which Mr. Horne said inappropriately teach Latino youths that they are being mistreated.

Teaching methods in the classes are sometimes unconventional, with instructors scrutinizing hip-hop lyrics and sprinkling their lessons with Spanish words.

The state, which includes some Mexican-American studies in its official curriculum, sees the classes as less about educating students than creating future activists.

“On the first day of school, they are no different than students in any other classes,” said John Ward, who briefly taught a Latino history class in Tucson. “But once they get told day after day that they are being victimized, they become angry and resentful.” (‘Rift in Arizona as Latino Class Is Found Illegal’, The New York Times, January 7, 2011).

Amusingly, ‘Mexican-American Studies’ was banned in Arizona – under an anti-racist law:

Under the law signed on Tuesday, any school district that offers classes designed primarily for students of particular ethnic groups, advocate ethnic solidarity or promote resentment of a race or a class of people would risk losing 10 percent of its state financing.

“Governor Brewer signed the bill because she believes, and the legislation states, that public school students should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or classes of people,” Paul Senseman, a spokesman for the governor, said in a statement on Thursday. (‘Citing Individualism, Arizona Tries to Rein in Ethnic Studies in School, The New York Times, May 13, 2010).

So what is at the basis of ‘Mexican-American Studies’, and the entire identity-politics movement of the 1990s? The answer is: dialectics, and the German philosopher Hegel’s parable of the master and the slave.

‘Dialectics’ is not a mere subject for academic study by philosophers. As students of Marxism know, dialectics is at the centre of the communist ideology – which went on take over large parts of the world, and oppress, starve and kill millions. So what is it?

In the textbooks, it is explained as a form of argument: one starts with a proposition (thesis), engages in discussion with someone who has an opposing view (antithesis). Finally, an agreement is reached, where both opposing viewpoints are reconciled (synthesis) and blended into one another to form a new whole. Importantly, there are always left-over elements of the original thesis, but these are transformed and never entirely culled. They undergo a process of what Hegel calls sublation, or elsewhere, ‘Aufheben’, or overcoming.

This is, admittedly, quite abstract. Dialectics is easier to understand if we look at it from the point of view of the Marxist version of history. Capitalism appears, and enslaves the working class. The workers adopt socialist ideas, and revolt against their capitalist masters, and negate him and all his works. Finally, there is the overthrow of capitalism and the appearance of socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The ‘sublation’ occurs when the capitalist’s technology is used – his modes of production. So capitalism, its technology, its methods, have not disappeared entirely – it has been ‘sublated’.

In the ideology of politically correct Leftism, it is probably Hegel’s famous parable of the Master and the Slave which has been the biggest influence. The parable is a strange passage, ‘On Lordship and Bondage’, in his master work ‘The Phenomenology of the Spirit’ (1807). It is an answer to the question: how did slavery come about? What was the state of consciousness of the two parties, master and slave, at the beginning of slavery?

The parable describes, at the dawn of history, an encounter between two human beings who are complete strangers to one another. At first there reaction is one of mutual astonishment, that another like himself can exist, and both are thrown into a state of confusion. Then one, attempting to regain control of himself, attempts to gain control of the other. The two beings undergo a fight to the death – one is braver than the other, and more willing to risk his life, so wins. Then the winner becomes the master and forces the loser to work for him as a slave. But the good news is that the slave is forced to labour and produce products and then develops consciousness of himself, for the first time, during that labour, and his conquest of nature, through that labour. The master, in the meantime, develops a parasitic dependency on the slave for his products, and, worse, he needs the slave for recognition: he needs to be recognised as the master. But recognition from a lesser being – a slave – is insufficient. Eventually the institution of slavery passes away. As Francis Fukuyama writes, in his classic book, ‘The End of History and the Last Man’ (1993):

By Hegel’s account, the desire to be recognised as a human being with dignity drove man at the beginning of history into a bloody battle to the death for prestige. The outcome of this battle was a division of human society into a class of masters, who were willing to risk their lives, and a class of slaves, who gave in to their natural fear of death. But the relationship of lordship and bondage, which took a wide variety of forms in all of the unequal, aristocratic societies that have characterised the greater part of human history, failed ultimately to satisfy the desire for recognition of either the masters or the slaves. The slave, of course, was not acknowledged as a human being in any way whatsoever. But the recognition enjoyed by the master was deficient as well, because he was not recognised by other masters, but slaves whose humanity was as yet incomplete. Dissatisfaction with the flawed recognition available in aristocratic societies constituted a “contradiction” that engendered further stages of history.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/fukuyama.htm

One can recognise, of course, the ‘dialectical’ overtones of the parable; and also see how it would apply to any ideology – Marxism, feminism, Black Power, Hispanic Power, and so on – which takes itself to be the ideology of the oppressed, the slave, the victim. (The academic, Susan Buck-Morss, wrote a paper, ‘Hegel and Haiti, for the journal Critical Enquiry, which argued that Hegel was influenced by the slave uprising in Haiti at the time – an uprising which saw the thorough slaughter, by blacks, of the white French of the island).

Identity politics, dialectics, Hegel’s parable, are all about defining oneself as a slave, as oppressed, and the question is, ultimately, about how one defines oneself philosophically. Is there, then, a philosopher who is anti-Hegel, anti-dialectic, anti-identity politics (as described above)? According to Gilles Deleuze, the answer is yes: Friedrich Nietzsche. In his influential 1965 book on Nietzsche, ‘Nietzsche and Philosophy’, Deleuze outlines Nietzsche’s position. I will quote from some of it here and show, in brackets, how the passages can apply to the problems we have considered already (all quotations are from Deleuze, pp.9-10]:

It is an exhausted force [e.g., Hispanic radicalism, Black revolutionaries] which does not have the strength to affirm its difference [e.g., its own individuality, its own sense of itself as a separate, self-contained race or ethnic group], a force which no longer acts but rather reacts to the forces which dominate it [e.g., the white man] – only such a force brings to the foreground the negative element in its relation to the other [e.g., the desire to revolt against, and destroy, the white "oppressor"]. Such a force denies all that it is not and makes this negation its own essence and the principle of its existence [e.g., the ethnic group defines itself only in opposition to its oppressor, the white man]. “While every noble morality develops from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality from the outset says No to what is ‘outside’, what is ‘different, what is ‘not itself’ and this No is its creative deed” (Nietzsche, ‘The Genealogy of Morals’). This is why Nietzsche presents the dialectic as the speculation of the pleb, as the way of thinking of the slave: the abstract thought of contradiction [e.g., the desire for revolution, for reconquista of land taken from the Mexicans by the white man] then prevails over the concrete feeling of positive difference [e.g., the white man's sense of individuality], reaction over action, revenge and ressentiment take the place of aggression.

[...]

The essential thing is that the identities of the oppressed – Black, Hispanic, and so on – in identity politics are, in effect, created in response to the white man and his activities. They do not exist independently:

Nietzsche shows that what is negative in the master [e.g., the presence of Blacks in America, Hispanics] is always a secondary and derivative product of his existence [e.g., the white man's founding of the American state]… Who dialectises the relationship? [i.e., who invents Hegel's parable?]. It is the slave, the slave’s perspective, the way of thinking belonging to the slave’s perspective. The famous dialectical aspect of the master-slave relationship depends on the fact that power is conceived not as will to power but as representation of power, representation of superiority, recognition by “the one” of the superiority of “the other” [i.e., when the slave triumphs over the master and delivers his comeuppance].

[...]

In other words, what the ‘oppressed minority’ wants, above all, is to be recognised by the white oppressor:

What the wills [i.e., the human beings] in Hegel want is to have their power recognised, to represent their power. According to Nietzsche we have here a wholly erroneous conception of the will to power and its nature. This is the slave’s conception, it is the image that the man of ressentiment has of power. The slave only conceives of power as the object of a recognition, the content of a representation, the stake in a competition, and therefore makes it depend, at the end of a fight, on a simple attribution of established values [i.e., becoming respectable, a 'success' in American, and Western, society]… The portrait of the master that Hegel offers us is, from the start, a portrait which represents the slave, at least as in his dreams, as at best a successful slave. Underneath the Hegelian image of the master we always find the slave [i.e., in his mind, the slave misrepresents his master, and imagines him to be only a version of himself].

Deleuze himself would be shocked by my interpretation of Nietzsche in this fashion: Deleuze was a Marxist and was one of the leading philosophers of the French postmodern Left. His philosophy of ‘difference’ was one of the influences on politically-correct, Marxist thought (only not as big an influence as Hegel). Contradictorily, though, he thoroughly approved of Nietzsche’s ideas – perhaps he was unable to see the implications of them for P.C. identity politics. (Deleuze died in France in 1995, and quite possibly he never encountered culture Marxism, which first appeared in American universities).

There is much in Deleuze’s book on Nietzsche – and in certain of his other books – for the nationalist intellectual to ponder. Quite possibly, the ideas could form the basis of a new intellectual defence of the white Western culture against the onslaught cultural Marxism and multiculturalism. This would be ironic, given Deleuze’s own political views, but postmodernism is full of ironies.

by Tom Sinclair

1. What every nationalist politician needs

We nationalists certainly have a radical program – if by radical we mean uprooting the tendencies and habits which have formed in the West over the past thirty years. The chief tendency, which we oppose is, of course, multiculturalism and mass non-white immigration into the West – a development foisted upon the Western nations by our own politicians, and welcomed by our media, intellectuals, economists, trade union and business groups. Disparate nationalist groups, from Britain to Russia to New Zealand to Canada, are all united on one thing: non-white immigration into the West must cease; and the non-white immigrants already here must be encouraged, through state policy, to return to the homelands of their forefathers.

That is, one could say, our key policy: and certainly the one which attracts the attention of the public. The masses are not really interested in, for instance, the BNP or the NPD’s opinions on global warming, industrial relations, or public health care: they want to hear about immigration. They will vote for a nationalist party for its positions on immigration, mostly because no other politician is brave enough to speak out against it, no matter his or private feelings on the issue, and every political tendency across the board – from the mainstream, liberal democratic parties, conservative and social democratic, to the radical Left – are all for multiculturalism and immigration. “Racists” have been purged, even from the conservative parties of the West, long ago. The likes of the BNP and the NPD, then, constitute an alternative to the mainstream political consensus.

It has to be admitted, however, that the policies of nationalists on non-racial topics which have little to do with immigration – e.g., trade union law, interest rates, financial regulation, recycling, old growth forest logging, maternity leave and the like – attract little attention from the public for another reason. That is, those policies are undeveloped – which is a euphemistic way of saying that nationalists don’t have any. There is very little consensus on these areas of policy in the nationalist world when they do come up for discussion.

The danger is that this locks nationalists out of mainstream political debate. Suppose that a representative for an Australian nationalist party were to do an interview on the current affair program The 7.30 Report. Kerry O’Brien, the host of the show, and a notoriously tough interviewer, would hammer that representative, relentlessly, on areas where the nationalists are weak: he would ask, ‘What does your party think of the ACTU’s latest Living Wage claim? Or increased financial regulation in the wake of the recent financial crisis?’. The representative would mumble some clichés about ‘true Australian worker’s socialism’ in response to the first question, and, in response to the second, perhaps blame the recent financial crisis solely on a single special interest group. All the while he would be hoping that O’Brien would turn the line of questioning back to the question of immigration. At home – in the living rooms across the country – the average Australian television viewer would be shaking his head: even though he may agree with that nationalist party about immigration, he can see, straight away, that the party – given its inability to formulate even the most basic positions on current political topics – is, in the jargon of the mainstream media, ‘unelectable’.

Is it so hard? Does a politician need to have a clear, fixed position on everything to be able to negotiate an interview, or hold a press conference? Does he need to be able to recite facts and figures on almost everything, at a moment’s notice? No: all he – and his party – needs are positions on three or four contemporary political issues. In an interview, at a press conference, on the campaign trail, he can adroitly steer the discussion towards one of those key issues, and then expound the party’s position on it. Enoch Powell made a political career on four issues: immigration; Britain’s membership in the EU; the conflict in Northern Ireland; and monetarism. For Pauline Hanson, it was Aboriginal welfare, Asian immigration, protective tariffs for Australian industry and agriculture, and rural and regional unemployment and under-employment (and socialist remedies for solving that problem). In the case of both Hanson and Powell, their ideology covered a broad range of issues. It should be noted that with his discussion of monetarism alone, Powell was involving himself in a discussion of one of the most contentious issues of the day, involving many mainstream, respectable politicians, economists, journalists and academics. He was not simply a ‘Send the Asians and Coloureds home’ one-trick pony.

And this is the main problem: to introduce the nationalist to mainstream debate – to open doors which have been closed to him because his opposition to immigration was not ‘respectable’.

The purpose of this article is to look at a particular issue which is of great relevance to Australia today, and to educate the nationalist reader who has little to no prior acquaintance with it: hopefully, then, a clear position can be formulated in his or her mind on the topic.

2. Chile in the 1970s

The history of Chile in the 1970s is, in itself, intrinsically interesting to the student of politics. Chile, a Latin American country with a predominantly white population, went from a Chavez-style socialist banana republic to a typical Latin American style military dictatorship banana republic in the space of a years – albeit with a difference: Chile, under the military dictatorship, was the first experiment, in the post-war era, in what is now known as neoliberalism. After the military coup in 1973 that deposed the Marxist Allende, the Chilean military junta enjoyed – after imprisoning, exiling or killing thousands of Chilean communists – absolute power. Faced with a desperate economic crisis, the junta took the (uncharacteristic, for a Latin American ‘fascist’ government) the step of implementing structural reforms to the Chilean economy, which included deregulation, privatisation (Chile’s electricity grid was sold to the Australian entrepreneur Alan Bond), the privatisation of superannuation (or social security, to American readers), labour law reform, cutting of tariffs on imports and the like. The junta’s economic policy-makers were known as the ‘Chicago Boys’, having studied economics in the University of Chicago under the economists Milton Friedman and Arnold Harberger. This was the first instance in history of an authoritarian regimé applying neoliberal measures.

The results are controversial: those with inclinations towards neoliberalism use statistics to show that the Chilean experiment was a success – inflation and unemployment fell, economic growth rose, etc. – while the opponents of neoliberalism (a diverse array of Communists, socialists, Keynesian economists) use statistics to show that the Chilean experiment was a failure. What is certain is that Chile broke new ground: Australia, along with many other Western countries, embarked on widespread deregulation, privatisation, cutting of import tariffs, in the 1980s, a decade later (the Chilean privatisation of superannuation preceded the Australian). Furthermore, it is unlikely that the ‘Chicago Boys’ could have carried out their program without the complete control of economic policy given to them by the Chilean military: their policies met with substantial opposition, not only from the regime’s Communist opponents, but from organised labour and big business as well.

Communism is based on myths and personality cults. The case of Allende in Chile is no exception. Allende was, and continues to be, exalted by the radical Left as a superman figure, a sort of Marxist higher man bringing socialism to the masses, wooing them with his oratory, charisma and rare genius. In his personality cult, he is like so many Communist leaders before him: Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Che, and lesser lights such as East Germany’s Honecker, Romania’s Ceauşescu and Albania’s Hoxha.

The BBC documentary series on Allende and the coup that toppled him – ‘The Other 911’, which is available on YouTube – even evokes, unwittingly, parallels to Hitler and his fall. Allende perishes, by his own hand (blowing his head off with a submachine gun given to him by Fidel Castro), in a fortified presidential palace, besieged by soldiers from the outside, defended by a small, but ideologically determined, praetorian guard of Chilean Communists. The females are evacuated as the palace is besieged (bombed by Chilean air force jets) and Allende, to the last, makes heroic addresses over the radio to the Chilean people, mourning the end of the Chilean socialist dream. The similarities between Allende’s last days, and Hitler’s, are obvious – even if the Left is not willing to acknowledge them.

The circumstances leading up to the Chilean coup, and the aftermath, will not be covered here, interesting as they are. The objective is to look at the main myth about Allende’s Chile: that he had introduced valuable ‘social reforms’, that it was a kind of ‘socialist paradise’. At the time, Allende’s Chile was upheld by the radical Left – like Chavez’ Venezuela now – as a model to the world, as a path, towards ‘democratic socialism’ and ‘development’ worth emulating. In contrast, Pinochet’s Chile, when the ‘Chicago Boys’ ran rampant, was a time of great poverty, misery, inequality, etc. My intention here is to expose the myth: not by measuring statistic against statistic, but by showing how everyday life was, in Allende’s Chile, would be unbearable – in terms of personal freedom, comfort, and the efficiency in the provision of services – even to the most radical of Leftists in the West today.

The question is: why is this of relevance to nationalists in the West?

In the year 2009, Communists have, by and large, infiltrated the environmentalist and anti-globalist movement, and are bending both to Communist purposes. And they are not troubling to define their terms and substantiate their claims. They speak of themselves as anti-capitalist, without defining precisely what capitalism is, or, moreover, what their alternative to capitalism is (at least to the general public – at bottom, they want Soviet-style Communism).

Now, many nationalists are eager to join forces with the anti-globalist movement, or at least, find common ideological ground. Because of their ideological and theoretical vulnerability – in short, their not having a position on these subjects – they can easily be seduced by the arguments of the anti-globalist/anti-capitalist crowd, and end up endorsing a kind of hazy socialism or communism without thinking of the implications of their statements (against greedy bankers, corporations, excessive economic growth and personal consumption, neoliberalism (however neoliberalism is to be defined). So they need to be shown what the consequences are – in a country such as Allende’s Chile, in which the government provisions ‘social justice’ and ‘social reform’, and is run by ‘the workers’. However Communists don’t seem to concern themselves too much in relation to the Ethnic/Racial Heritage of its workers and this is one of the major contrasts between it and Nationalism.

Perhaps the difference between the nationalist and the anti-capitalist/anti-globalist is that the nationalist has only a very vague idea of an alternative to ‘capitalism’ (however capitalism is defined) while the anti-capitalist/anti-globalist (who is, more often than not, a secret Marxist, or a radical environmentalist who wants to take the world back to the pre-industrial age) has a very clear, well-thought out plan. To the Marxist, the ‘anti-capitalist’ world of the future will be a lot like Honecker’s East Germany, or, at the least, Chavez’ Venezuela or Allende’s Chile.

The anarchist is, on the other hand, halfway between the Marxist/environmentalist and the nationalist in terms of vagueness. His idea of the future is one where property is abolished and where businesses are ‘run by the workers’ (syndicalism); or, better still, one where no-one has to work. How people are meant to survive without working – which, in the anarchist doctrine, is considered to be degrading and dehumanising – is not quite explained. All the same, the anarchist does, unlike the nationalist, have a consistent position as to what the alternative to capitalism is. Some Nationalists have flirted with using ideas from Social Credit and we do not discredit the possibility but it has never really been tried and tested too much.

While history has, most definitely, rejected Marxism, it has not rejected socialism. Indeed, socialism has, across the Western world, enjoyed something of a revival during the current recession (socialism in general always does well during a recession). At one point, then, the nationalist – if he wants to stay relevant – will need to come up with an answer to the question: socialism, for or against. Being vague in this area – while being extremely detailed on immigration (or rather, anti-immigration) policy will not do.

3. How it was

So, given the importance of the subject, what was everyday life in Allende’s Chile like? Rather than looking at statistics – which certainly do not give a full picture – we shall examine small bits and pieces, as it were, of Chilean-style socialism in action. (The quotations here are from an account by a Chilean economist, Daniel L. Wisecarver, who is quite biased against socialism, and definitely in favour of neoliberal formulas, but who has some quite hard to come by information).

We shall begin here with a description of the quite bizarre practice of setting ‘fair’ and ‘socially just’ prices by the government in Chile:

By the end of the Allende government, more than 3000 prices were explicitly fixed, primarily by DIRINCO (the Directorate of Industry and Commerce). It is quite clear that the process of price fixing could only be negotiating sessions (when interested firms were allowed to participate) and that the post of price fixer had to be one of the most remunerative employments in all of Chile. The printout lists of fixed prices, including such items as “chalet type” dog houses and woollen gloves for infants, served as inventories of goods that had at one time been available for purchase… [Even after the Junta took power] some specific price fixes were remarkably detailed, particularising the name and type of product, the distributor’s name, and the place sold. For example, in July 1974, maximum prices were set for retail sales of RANN brand detergent, imported by the Center for Purchases of the Ancud Chamber of Commerce; or the retail price of soybean oil from the Netherlands imported by Domingo Coro and Son… [Wisecarver, Daniel L., ‘Economic Regulation and Deregulation in Chile 1973-1983’, in ‘The National Economic Policies of Chile’, ed. Walton, Gary M., Jai Press, 1985, pp. 154-156]

Such a policy had consequences:

One of the most dramatic and visible effects of [Allende’s] price controls and economic policy was the generalised scarcity of most goods in formal markets, the emergence of well-developed black markets, and long queues. In fact, it is now part of Chilean folklore that, upon seeing any queue, people lined up, sometimes for hours, without knowing what was for sale but buying whatever it was in the maximum quantity allowed. [Ibid, p. 154]

Wisecarver gives examples of, of all things, socialist and interventionist policies in buses:

Some of the regulations that existed in 1973 and 1974 were truly spectacular. For example, children could be transported only in yellow buses, so much so that owners of yellow buses were at times able to convince the police to give traffic violation tickets to parents who took more than their own children to school in the family car. Or if any organised group wanted to charter a bus (or drive its own) for a weekend outing to the beach, it was first necessary to get permission from the Sub secretary of Transportation, with at least three days’ anticipation. In fact, no bus could go anywhere, anytime, for any purpose without express authorisation. And one of the many crucial decisions reserved for the Subsecretary of Transportation, one which required careful study and consultations with other ministers, was the color and fabric of the uniforms that bus drivers were to wear in the coming year. [Ibid, p.161]

On a more mundane level,

The authorities fixed the number of buses and the frequency of runs; the frequencies were uniform, regardless of the day of the week or the hour of the day, and were monitored by the police. To help enforce required time schedules, bus drivers were prohibited from taking rest periods in bus terminals… The Ministry of Transportation also set quotas on the number of buses that could be brought into Chile, their make, model, size, country of origin, etc. Most of these restrictions and controls were codified [in a decree]… which also required that the Subsecretary of Transportation ensure that there appear no unfair competition from similar transport services, specifically not from artificial cost reductions. Hence, all bus fares were fixed.

[Ibid, p. 161-162]

Price-setting and regulations gave the government officials in charge enormous privileges, and the right to be inefficient in providing a service:

It is necessary to mention the state’s ex-entry in this sector, ETC (the collective transportation enterprise), a firm which ran annual deficits on the order of US $10-15 million. At the outset of the current government, this public firm possessed approximately 35% of Chile’s buses, its own set of exclusive routs, its own replacement-parts factory, and more than 5000 employees. ETC was well known for its free “social” routes and for having its vehicles broken down in the shop up to half the year. [Wisecarver adds in a footnote] These routes often turned out to exist for the exclusive benefit of a variety of government officials, their employees, and their related social groups. [Ibid, pp. 164, 199]

As for taxis:

The number of autos that could be employed as taxis was strictly controlled by the Subsecretary of Transportation, the Traffic Director, and indirectly by the union of professional taxi drivers. Each municipality was assigned a fixed quota of taxis which were identified with special license plates, and the taxi plates were naturally worth several times the value of the car itself. The monopoly enjoyed by these taxis permitted them to provide poor service (they might agree to take a customer to certain places only if it was convenient). The only “control” exercised over those drivers who were lucky enough to be cabbies took the form of fixing legal taxi rates. [Ibid, p. 164]

Wisecarver gives an account of the practices of Chile’s longshoremen and dock workers, which makes bizarre reading. He first describes the activities of the unions:

In Chilean ports before 1981, there were a total of 77 separate unions up and down the coast, with as many as 17 in any one port. These groups had total monopoly control on moving any cargo within the ports; they determined the number of workers on each crew and fixed their remunerations as a function of the type of cargo. Every worker had his precise job and could and would do nothing more; no one not explicitly named to each task could work. In practice, the system degenerated to such a point that work crews doubled true labor requirements and, of course, the wage bill was correspondingly duplicated [i.e., workers would be paid for two jobs despite only doing one]. One of the major concerns of workers during half of each shift was said to be finding the most comfortable place to sleep. [Ibid, p.173]

Strangely, the Chilean port workers lived in a kind of feudal, hierarchical society, where unions had complete control over the workers’ lives:

The social structure that grew up around the port workers’ monopoly was, if anything, even more remarkable. There were at least five categories of workers:

1. Stevedores – These were the truly high-class workers, the ones with the legal monopoly to work, granted by the possession of an official ID (identity) card issued by the authorities.

2. Supplentes – These were the first-round substitutes for the stevedores, logically but not necessarily the first ones in line to receive the coveted (and lucrative) ID card. The suplentes were the first ones called to work if there were insufficient stevedores.

3. Pincheros – These “helpers” were a large group of lower class (at least in the port hierarchy) workers who might one day hope to be granted stevedore status. Meantime, they waited in the ports for any jobs that might be handed down to them by the higher-ups.

4. Medio Pollos [‘Half chicken’] – These were lower-class pincheros.

5. Cuarto Pollos [‘Quarter chicken’] – Lower-class medio pollos.

For every ship that had to be loaded or unloaded, the stevedores would be called in to determine work crews and costs. Only the stevedores had the legal right to employment, and therefore they were the only ones directly paid. They would then dole out jobs to their pincheros, who in turn would distribute tasks to medio pollos and cuarto pollos. The stevedores collected all the wages and passed them along, after deducting a sort of “commission”, to those below them who had participated in each specific job. At the same time, the union leaders collected a separate round of contributions from all the workers in order to finance the unions’ network of social benefits – housing, schools, health, etc. This network was sufficient to maintain the support of the lower-level workers for the union leaders and hence to maintain the pecking order within the ports. [Ibid, pp. 173-174]

Wisecarver mentions that, under these arrangements, workers were effectively controlled in where they wanted to work and live: ‘Anyone wishing to move and be able to work in a different port had to receive explicit authorisation from the authorities and respective unions’. [Ibid, p.175]

On the topic – of workers being paid for more than they actually worked – Wisecarver writes amusingly:

When the time arrived (1981) to change the legislation and eliminate the monopoly, the card-carrying stevedores reportedly “worked” between 400 and 600 days per year and earned more than $US2000 per month, substantially more than annual per capita income in the entire economy. Such statistics were of great use in stifling potential opposition to the new law among nonparticipants in the ports. [Ibid, p.174]

Finally, we shall look at a topic which has the most relevance to conditions in Australia at the present: Chilean labour law. A kind of guild socialism existed:

Consider the case of “professional colleges”. These colleges were basically highly specialised unions formed to protect the interest of the profession practiced by their members; each College, along with its legal faculties and responsibilities, was created by its own law. Without being a registered, paid-up member in good standing with the relevant college, regardless of professional qualifications, one could not work as a lawyer, public administrator, architect, librarian, accountant, newsman, doctor, nurse, pharmacist, professor, etc. The specific laws gave colleges the right to set fees charged by their members as well as standards for their work, prohibit the public sector from hiring nonregistered professionals, prohibit non-members from offering professional services to the general public, ensure that only dues-paying professional were registered, and so forth. [Ibid, p.186]

In general, the Chilean labor law was based on an ideological worldview akin to that of Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd and the modern Australian union movement:

Starting with publication of the 1931 Labor Code, legislation governing labor relations blossomed into a network of some 70 fundamental labor laws by the end of 1973. Aside from the numerous statutes granting special privileges, two general types of legislation might be considered. On the one hand, for individual contracts, lawmakers acted as if employees were gullible and naive while employers were shrewd and ruthless. Therefore, in order to protect the former from the latter, it was necessary to legislate hours of work (normal and maximum overtime), wages (minimum at least), work conditions, length of vacations and when they could be taken, and so forth and so on – nothing was left to change or negotiation. [Ibid, p.187]

One consequence of the Chilean system was that unions played an increasingly politicised role – just as they did in Britain and Australia in the 1970s:

Over time the unions began to acquire more and more economic and political power, particularly those that could associate themselves with important, protected industries. As the unions became more extensive, and with state intervention in the economy becoming continually more generalised, any labor problem quickly became a political problem, one that was most readily resolved by granting union demands. Given the ubiquitous state intervention, once the firm or industry had granted union requests, it could turn to the state for a compensating favor of some sort – a price readjustment, higher protective tariffs or tighter import restrictions, a tax exemption, whatever. It was a neatly closed, if totally distorted, system. [Ibid, p.188]

4. Solutions

We have only covered part of Wisecarver’s article: not included are agriculture, railroads, air transport, maritime shipping, electricity, telephones, water, fuel, finance and banking…

To Wisecarver, what matters the most is greater ease, comfort, efficiency and freedom of personal choice in day-to-day living. Wisecarver looks at Chile, sector by sector, and recounts what to him are the happy results of a policy of deregulation. For example, he enthuses that:

Before deregulation the route between Santiago and Valparaiso/Vińa del Mar was served by two firms which were characterised by old, uncomfortable buses and somewhat less than reliable service. By the end of 1982, there were 12 firms covering the same route. Nowadays, at any time of the day, one can, for example, take the subway to the outskirts of Santiago, wait no more than 15 minutes, and get on a new, modern, air-conditioned bus, arriving at one’s destination within two hours The fare was lower in nominal terms than it had been five years earlier. And passengers to the coastal cities and sea resorts were not the only beneficiaries; daily rates for swimming pools in Santiago also fell. [Ibid, p.164]

Less electricity brown-outs, better phone coverage, less theft of cargo at the docks, less wasteful employment of government workers who do little to no work, better customer service in taxis and airlines… The list goes on and on. Life was bad under socialism; after the downfall of socialism, and the rolling-back of many of Allende’s splendid ‘social reforms’ (and the ‘reforms’ by the administrations prior to Allende) life improved – even if it became less ‘socially just’, more ‘inequitable’, more prone to ‘dog-eat-dog competition’ and ‘capitalism’. In other words, Chile approached the standards of ease, comfort, efficiency that we have become accustomed to in the West. Today’s Left, in Australia and elsewhere, could not abide life in Allende’s Chile – or Castro’s Cuba, or Chavez’ Venezuela, or Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea. (And lest one object that such ‘standard of living’ concerns are trivial, it is undoubtable that the rather dismal and grim existence in the Eastern European and Soviet regimes in the 1980s hastened the demise of Communism in that region).

That question – of whether life under Allende-style socialism is better (or worse) than under deregulation – is one we will avoid here. The question which should be asked, and which we rarely hear, is, ‘How on earth do we get deregulation?’. That is, how does a country, politically, go about getting these things?. The surprising answer is: to a large extent, not through liberal democracy.

In Australia, the remuneration of almost every single occupation is fixed by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), which in turns makes it decisions based on claims put forward by Australia’s small, but powerful, trade union movement and the reckonings of a special ‘judiciary’ whose job it is to decide what is a ‘living’ wage, a ‘fair’ wage. Competition is outlawed: one cannot offer to work for less than the specified award rate (that is, the minimum rate for each and every occupation). Under the Liberal government of 1996 to 2007, some competition was introduced: workers were able to negotiate their own agreements, called Australian Workplace Agreements, outside the award system. The agreements were vehemently opposed by the union movement, and one of the first tasks of the Labor government elected in 2007 was to abolish them and tighten up laws against competition in the labour market further.

That is what one expects of the Labor Party, which is a centre-left party completely funded and controlled by trade unions. But the Labor government, once elected, did introduce competition into the wheat export market, in a move which would have delighted Wisecarver. Before 2008, Australian wheat-growers had to sell their wheat through a government board, the Australian Wheat Board (AWB). Because it had the monopoly – it was the only entity which had the legal power to sell – it could charge a ‘fair’ price, a ‘just’ price, for wheat exported overseas. Australian wheat-growers were forbidden to sell wheat at anything less than a price determined by the AWB. Why, given its adherence to deregulation, privatisation, liberalisation, individual choice, etc., did not the Liberal Party abolish the monopoly? The answer was because it was in a political coalition with the National Party, an agrarian socialist party, for its entire time in office. The Labor Party, which was not bound by such an alliance, and therefore not in need of propitiating a small special interest group, had no trouble at all in abolishing the monopoly – despite the vociferous opposition of rural socialists such as the senator Bob Katter. (One beneficial effect of the policy, and one which was intended, has been to open the export market to farmers prepared to sell their wheat at below the ‘socially just’, ‘living’ rate set by the AWB).

And there is the answer: under a representational liberal democracy, which, by design, represents small sectors of the Australian population, and not the nation as a whole, as an entire unit, deregulatory measures cannot be enacted on a large scale without offending some special interest pressure-group which demands that a government-enforced monopoly be upheld as long as possible. Furthermore, a democratically-elected political party often lacks the political power to take a policy of deregulation, liberalisation, etc., to the limit. To be consistent with regard to its stated beliefs, the Liberal Party ought to have abolished the entire award system, and the minimum wage; possibly, it could have done this in 1996 or in 2004, when it won crushing majorities (in 2004 in particular, it attained, for the first time, a majority in the Senate). But it did not. The reason why is that the Liberal Party had to contend with a pluralist liberal democracy. It is no coincidence that the policies of Chile after 1973 were enacted after the suspension of Chile’s liberal democratic constitution and a wide-reaching internal military campaign against the Chilean Left.

Advocates of neoliberalism do not often recognise this: they sneer at ‘big government’ and politicians and statesmen in general, and excoriate the state. They call for a ‘limited government’ which protects individual liberties against ‘tyranny’, that is, socialists in the legislative chambers. How that protection is to be achieved – through the diminution of the functions of government, and the excising of power-politics and national-minded statesmen from government – is never explained.

Some neoliberal theorists do recognise the conflict – between a competitive liberal society, and liberal democracy – presented here. In a pamphlet (‘The Conflict between Democracy and Economic Reform’, Political Notes no. 77, The Libertarian Alliance, 1993), Adriana Lukasova examines three governments which, in her view, successfully enacted neoliberal measures: the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile; the Thatcher government in Britain; the post-war occupation government in Germany in 1948. These governments were authoritarian (the occupation government in Germany was an Allied-installed dictatorship) and imposed their measures against the wishes of pressure groups such as the trade union movement, big business and the Left. Lukasova approvingly quotes the Chilean finance minister of 1981, Rolf Luders:

The Chilean tradition shows that governments endowed with strong authority, which have simultaneously guaranteed the exercise of economic freedom and of private initiative, have presided over the periods of greatest progress in the history of the country. (Lukasova, ‘Conflict-‘, p.2).

The formula is expressed, in some academic writings on the subject, as ‘Strong state, free economy’. Lukasova writes, of Britain in the Thatcher period,

In 1982 police were equipped with weaponry, police vehicles, communications devices, protective body armour and crowd control equipment. A system of national co-ordination was devised. The police National Reporting Centre, based at Scotland Yard, became a permanently available facility – to provide some of the benefits of a national police force without the odium of establishing one. (Ibid).

Again, the terms need to be defined: does a ‘Strong state’ equate a state with a large, well-equipped police force and army, and a secret police with special powers to carry out surveillance and arrest people without due process? France and Germany traditionally have had very powerful state security services: yet the French government is notorious for caving in whenever a large union demonstration against some unpopular ‘free-market reform’ takes place. President Sarkozy was elected as a neoliberal, but, in the end, gave in to the ‘French consensus’ – that is, sectional-group pressure – to abandon his proposals and stay with the same old French socialism and welfare-statism.

The same can be said of the term ‘free market’, or ‘free economy’. How are they free? No-one is free to buy or sell whatever they like and at any price. Otherwise, there would be, considering the large number of deviant consumers for them, a trade in child pornography or heroin.

These are some of the problems with the formula, ‘Strong state, free economy’. A more accurate formulation would be: ‘The state that says no’. That is, a state run by a small group of men and women who stay focused, at all times, on the national interest, and have the political strength to resist the demands of small, but highly vocal, political pressure groups. Such a state can ignore the union movement, and the industrial-relations judiciary, when introducing competition in the labour market; it can ignore the Marxist category of environmentalists and the indigenous rights lobbies in proposing sustainable development of the country’s gas, coal and minerals where it benefits the national (not international) interest; it can ignore the Bob Katter’s when deregulating agriculture; it can ignore General Motors when it asks for a $US70 billion bail-out (wasted on a company which is going bust anyway), it can ignore big business demands to increase the migration program to 300,000 per year, or developers demands to constantly expand cities and strip away every green belt. Such a state is a rare thing indeed, and rarely appears in a liberal democracy.

That state – one that says no – is one, by definition, that should appeal to nationalists. After all, a nationalist is someone who puts the well-being of the nation first and foremost. And surely it is no good for the nation when, for instance, 1.8 million Australians on welfare are unable to obtain work because, under the award system, the minimum wage rates for every occupation are being kept artificially high by a small special-interest minority, and so less jobs are created than would exist under a fully competitive system?

Many politicians confuse the special interest group for the people who make up the nation. The trade union movement, for instance, can mobilise large numbers of activists to demonstrate against an Australian government, in short notice; and, given its wealth, can mount extremely effective public relations campaigns using advertisements and other forms of propaganda and outreach. The politician, on the cusp of putting forward some proposal to reduce union powers to strike, or to bring about competition in one sector of the market, will look at those large masses of people and think, erroneously, ‘The Australian people are against me’. And often the battle can get ugly and involve actual violence, between unionists and ‘scabs’, and unionists and the police – as during the Australian maritime workers’ dispute of 1998, or the coal miners’ strike in Britain in 1984. In the liberal model, the state has the monopoly in coercion: that is, only the state has the legal right to arrest people, fine them, prevent them from entering certain premises, use some form of restraint and violence against lawbreakers. In a country politically dominated by large, violent trade-union movements, those functions are usurped: the state loses its monopoly, and unions can carry out coercion, commit acts of violence, at will. Given the seriousness of such conflicts, the politician can again mistake the actions of a small but powerful and well-organised group for the popular will, and hold back on introducing legislation for fear of starting what seems almost like civil war.

This is a problem in liberal theory: the constitution, the state structure, is there, in the liberal model, to protect individual freedom. What happens, then, if a small, well-organised pressure group use that freedom to push through legislation in parliament that violates that individual freedom – to work at a certain job at a certain rate, or to supply wheat on the international market at a certain price, or to prevent a rural land-owner from chopping down trees on his own property (in order to protect his house against a fire outbreak)? The answer is that freedom needs to be protected against such groups. Which is why a government, run on nationalist principles, needs to rule with a guiding hand, a firm hand.

Not serving the interests of such groups means that one is serving the interests of whole: which is what nationalism is all about. So, paradoxically, nationalists are, in this regard, advocates of a liberal society – perhaps the last defenders of liberalism in a socialist and environmentalist world. Nevertheless, it should also be noted that Nationalist Alternative is very much against unrestricted Free Market Fundamentalism which is Capitalism in its most terrorizing form. Genuine Nationalism is also intrinsically against Globalization too. This is because Nationalism wishes to preserve the identity, culture, and heritage of people and their Nations.

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.

This is the program of Nationalist Alternative, an Australian nationalist organisation which is primarily an activist movement, but constituted like a political party.

Nationalist Alternative aims at finding, and developing, an alternative to the excesses, social unrest, greed, despair and arrogance of liberal democracy and universalism.

The primary aim of Nationalist Alternative is to reaffirm Australian cultural and national identity and restore the sovereignty and independence of the Australian nation.

It is the belief of Nationalist Alternative that the modern liberal democratic state uses abstract concepts it deems absolute for all people, and then presumes at imposing its rules, from the top down, upon populations that have little in common culturally or ethnically. It classifies all human beings according to function and income, thereby stripping all particularities of differing people to one common denominator.

Such a state – where people are mere economic cogs – is declared by liberal democracy to be a “country”. It is a mere social construction, where the profit motive and economy is king, a marketplace only. It consists of constantly conflicting interests, ethnic tensions due to irreconcilable cultural values, alienation, unhappiness and no real consensus amongst its disparate constituents.

A nation, in contrast, is a living community, in which its values and heritage are inseparable from the philosophy of its rulers, and where the tools of politics and economics serve the cultural objectives of its people, not the oligarchs of world finance. As human beings we inherently want more than function and income. We want a place in a community, a culture that affirms the values we feel to be true and an organic base from which to build for a better future.

A nation is not a constructed concept but a ‘positive’, i.e., a factual description of the natural order of things since humankind’s earliest beginnings, which progresses from the family, familial clans, tribes and ties of kinship bonding the larger ethnic group as a homogenous people.

A nation can only be legitimately defined from people with a pre-existing bond who recognise that a higher order nation exists among them.? Contrast this with standard practice in liberal democracies, where the nation is defined from above by institutions and the population is coerced into accepting their national definition.? This disempowers people and does not allow people to identity or attribute their own national identity based on kinship and close cultural ties.

The Australian nation is the natural grouping of the Australian people, a living cultural entity, bonded by their common Anglo-Celtic-European cultural, ethnic, linguistic, spiritual, behavioural and biological heritage. This concept of the nation stands in contrast to that of the liberal democratic one, in which atomised citizens compete against billions of other unremarkable, non-distinctive other atomised citizens. This conception of the nation uplifts the people, providing hope, and helping them see beyond purely selfish pursuits, as they are now part of a culture, working for the health of that entity as well as fulfilling their personal lives.

Nationalist Alternative seeks to:

* Preserve true human diversity, plurality and difference, in the face of that which seeks to destroy it namely universalism, liberalism, imperialism and radical egalitarianism, enforced through human rights totalitarianism that is rampant in the ‘undemocratic’ liberal democratic state;

*Resurrect a national-communal based society with an economy harnessed as a tool to further the needs of the Australian people but is not an end in itself;

*Replacement of ‘universal’ values with cultural values specific to the individual nation concerned;

* Practice delayed gratification for future generations:

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in”;

to this end, we reject only living in the present, the worship of hedonism and personal pleasure as ends in themselves, and posit that sustainability of bio-diversity whether animal, plant or human requires protection and preservation of environmental, ethnic and cultural diversity now.

* Nurture a social consciousness which includes consideration of future generations and a long term outlook which extends beyond individual election periods and individual life spans.

*Further, we actively resist policies brought about by the practice of universalism, radical egalitarianism and human rights totalitarianism. For example, the policies of unlimited Chinese and Indian immigration into Australia; the undeniably massive flow of unwanted non-white migration into nearly all Western nations; the suppression of free speech by Orwellian political correctness and associated vicious ‘anti-vilification’ censorship laws; the globalisation of the world’s cultures into one Mc Culture, collapsing of hundreds of spiritualities into one or two religions only; the imperial march of humanism and enforcement of the ‘liberal democratic’ political system on peoples that reject it; the enforcement of the? ‘free market/laissez-faire? fundamentalist’ economic system everywhere. All of these agendas are pushed by the universalistic doctrines of capitalism and communism with their ‘open borders’, one world, one size fits all globalisation ideologies.

2. Why White Australia failed

It should be stated from the outset that any Australian nationalism must be for Australians: if we are nationalists, we must be nationalists for the country we live in, die in, enjoy prosperity and opportunities in, receive benefits in, enjoy the environment in and take advantage of by the mere fact of living in. This may be obvious – the concept that nationalism is local – but it needs to emphasised, simply because Australia has so many non-Australian (white) Europeans who are politically active on behalf of their own countries. In this country we have the strange phenomenon of what we call ‘expat nationalism’: that is large numbers of immigrants, who are biologically white, and come from Europe (mainly Eastern and Central Europe) who, even though they have lived in Australia for two, or even three, generations, have more nationalistic feeling towards their home countries than their adopted motherland If it is announced on the news that Ruritania has annexed a portion of Lower Slobenia, thousands of Ruritanians – of all ages, and both genders – can be guaranteed to organise a massive rally through the city streets, marching, banging drums, waving flags (of their home country) and generally agitating on behalf of the cause of their home country Ruritania, displaying more zeal, zest, initiative for the problems of that country than any Australian political problem.

Unfortunately, the influx of the (biologically white) European immigrants into Australia in the 1950s and 1960s helped pave the way for the arrival of the later, non-white immigrants from Vietnam, China, India, Lebanon, etc. How? Simply, Australians got used to living, side by side, with immigrant communities that would not – and perhaps could not – assimilate, having their own ethnic press, radio. These were Diaspora communities which could not fit into the Anglo-Celtic mainstream. (We have heard, on more than one occasion, Greeks calling the Anglo-Celtic Australians ‘white’, as if they – the Greeks – were not white). The arrival of these (irreducible) immigrants in the 1950s and 1960s, opened the way for the arrival other, self-isolating, self-segregating immigrant groups in the 1970s and after – immigrants who, this time, were non-white. Those sections of the Eastern and Southern European migrant communities, who were vociferous champions of ‘multiculturalism’, i.e., anti-assimilationism and Diaspora-ism, removed the ideological defences against mass, non-white immigration.

At present, a great many of our fellow Europeans from Southeast and Eastern Europe realise the folly of those earlier policies they had adopted so eagerly. As decades rolled on a slow realisation dawned that they, the immigrants from Europe, were used as the shock troops for the advancing non-white immigrants who followed on their heels. It slowly became apparent that the multicultural engineers cast them out in preference to the “new cause celebre” – the Vietnamese boat person, the Chinese, the Muslim, the Sudanese refugee. Now that these ‘real’ minorities were arriving, the Italian, Greeks and Yugoslavs were to be no longer embraced – after all, they are “just” white people from the continent Europe, like the Anglo-Celts.

Perhaps the realisation of these facts is why there was a noticeable amount of Italian, Greek, Polish and other non Anglo-Europeans amongst One Nation’s membership despite the media painting it as purely Anglo-Saxon. It is why the Europeans in Australia are reacting to the changes wrought by immigration and multiracialism in the Australian society which they have adopted as their own. That society has changed dramatically from the Western, Christian nation that they emigrated to.

Now, Nationalist Alternative welcomes members from Eastern and Southern Europe: in our experience, South-Eastern European nationalists in Australia – Serbian, Croatian, Hungarian, etc. – often display a greater energy and vigour than many Anglo-Celtic ones (and it goes without saying that immigrants from Italy, Greece, Poland, Estonia, etc., are infinitely preferable to immigrants from Bangladesh and Vietnam). And all Australian nationalists can learn from the experiences of the excellent nationalist groups in Europe (such as the Magyar Garda in Hungary, Forza Nuova in Italy, Golden Dawn in Greece, etc.). At the same time, any form of Australian nationalism has to champion the cause of the dominant ethnic minority which developed it over at least 157 years from (1788 until 1945), who happen to be Anglo-Celtic, Anglo-Saxon. Just as Argentina – a country which is, more or less, a European colony in the middle of South America – owes its culture and institutions to South-Western Europe (in particular, Italy and Spain), Australia owes its to North-Western Europe, in particular, the British Isles. Australia is, culturally and ethnically, a Commonwealth country – like South Africa, New Zealand and Canada. So while Australia is a white country – along with Bulgaria, Poland, Lithuania, Italy, Greece – it is more accurate to say that it is defined largely by its Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Celtic character and further shaped by struggle and history since 1788 into a uniquely Australian identity. To some extent at the turn of the last century many Anglo-Saxon Australians were still beholden to, and happy to take orders from, an overseas entity, namely, ‘Imperial Britain’ over an independent nationalist Australia. But nationalism must be local.

It was the failure to recognise this fact, in combination with the ‘White Australia’ policy. The creators had admirable intentions towards protecting its European populace but which unwittingly became instrumental in helping the spread of the multiculturalist and then multi-racial virus and dismantling barriers against non-white immigration. How? It boils down to the psychology of identity, and the perhaps even unconscious but deep seated biological prioritised imperative of family that in tribes that forms ethnicity, and then race. (A biological linked concept of identity most liberals deny outright, believing only in environment as a factor in development of identity). Ben Chifley, Arthur Calwell and the other great Australian politicians were the architects of the post-war immigration policy, which led to many thousands of Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Poles, Hungarians, etc., into the country simply on the basis that they were white. These post-war White Australia proponents believed, instinctively, that all white men, all members of the white race, were brothers, which indeed on a racial level we are. And we know now, after many decades of expatriate nationalism, and agitation by certain prominent elements of for instance Greek- and Italian-Australian communities for more and more ‘multiculturalism’ in Australian life, how that turned out. The results have been so bad in Australia that a pure and strict doctrinal application of white nationalism has been shown not to work, simply because it is not true that at a deep seated biological level, the umbrella of race by and large trumps tribe or ethnicity: a fanatical expat nationalist will always feel a greater allegiance to his home country than the Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Celtic Commonwealth of Australia. (It was only in the 1950s that large numbers of non Anglo whites started to arrive – i.e., ?after 160 odd years of nation building and nation-defining events). The expat nationalist, in order to ensure the survival of his Diaspora group, will reject any assimilation, and champion immigration on principle. ?(The dreadful irony is that often the European expat’s home country – e.g., Greece, or Italy – is drowning under a flood of non-white, non-European sub ethnicities like Turkish, Arab and African immigration).

It may well be that the timing of the immigration was decisive. That is to say, multiculturalism really attained prominence after the Second World War, in Australia at least. Before then, expatriate nationalism was not encouraged. In America, a great flood of immigration, from South-Eastern Europe and Russia, took place around the turn of the century. The American racialist author, Lothrop Stoddard, and others denounced it, and as a result, anti-immigrant laws were passed in 1924 (which were only dismantled in 1965). What is noteworthy about the American example is that immigrants were very much forced to assimilate – i.e., schooling in the English language was compulsory. America did a much better job of remoulding those white European immigrants, making them adopt a more Anglo-Saxon identity, than Australia did in the 1950s and 1960s: the result is that the fourth- or fifth-generation Italian or Polish American is more American, and more Anglo-Saxon, than Italian or Polish. In Australia, the European immigrants were more or less left alone, not forced to conform or assimilate, and even encouraged, especially in the Whitlam and Fraser years, to form diasporas and see themselves as being apart from the Anglo-Saxon host population. Which is why expat nationalism has been handed down, from generation to generation).

What are we basically enunciating here in regards to assimilation? In contrast to liberalism’s homogenized world of fractured cultures and peoples, Nationalist Alternative advocate a diverse, harmonious heterogeneous world of homogenous peoples, each rooted in the nation’s culture and soil. So in any given nation whether an ‘old world’ nation or newly formed one, longevity, harmony and strength arise from its collective inhabitants, pulling in the same direction not apart, being dedicated to their particular nation foremost. This includes the truism that independence and sovereignty only exist when decision making is made entirely by the nation not by overseas and external forces. This does not in the least mean pure isolationism or lack of co-operation and dialogue with nations and cultures different from ours. Hence, whilst we do not want an assimilated world or global melting pot of human sameness, homogenous nations implies homogeneity and assimilation within those nations, not just across race and ethnicity but of course culture.

Assuming existing homogeneity in the first place, if you have chosen to travel to a new land where you intend to live in, raise children in, be protected in, then you also have duties to that national community which you desire so much from. Anything else places one in the realm of purely a selfish individualist, concerned about himself or at best his immediate family only. Such an individual is merely an economic migrant happy to cherry pick whatever community he visits, and move on after a few years. Such behaviour is similar to a corporation that discards a region when it is no longer the cheapest cost base from which to manufacture from. Without dedication to your own nation and its associated culture and territory, the seeds of disharmony, the conflicted loyalties, start to threaten the long term survival of a truly independent, sovereign nation of people.

Nationalist Alternative is against the bastardising of culture and identity and prefers to foster a national identity in which assimilable elements can participate in, and in which there is an expectation, and reason to become part of.

As well as that, we have the strange cultural phenomenon, perhaps unique to Australia, of the ethnic ‘car hoon’. The ‘car hoon’ is a lout who spends all day hot-rodding his car, driving it around like a maniac and doing burn-outs, playing ‘doof-doof’ (loud thumping techno and hip-hop) music with super-bass speakers. He wears a uniform of track-suits, baseball caps, gold chains, his main hobby is body-building, and his nationalism consists of rioting whenever international tennis competitions (with players from his home country) are in town, or at the time of the FA World Cup (he of course barracks for the team of his own country). In this subculture again, which is maybe unique to Australia, we see white (for some reason predominantly South-Eastern Europeans) joining with non-white descendants of other immigrant families, the two groups, white and non-white, essentially dressing, talking and behaving like each other. Biologically white Greeks, Italians, Serbs, Croats, etc., and non-white Lebanese, Turks, end up becoming transformed into the one amorphous sub-cultural type – they even speak English with the same accent. This is a disproof of at least ‘absolute’ white nationalism – the notion that whites, instinctively, will feel solidarity with one another against the non-white and a cultural affinity which transcends nationality and ethnicity.

This is a strange phenomenon which could possibly not occur anywhere else except in a multiculturalist context. In the European mainland, one does not come across the subculture mentioned here. Certainly, there is boorishness in Europe – soccer hooliganism, the ‘chav’ phenomenon in Britain, and so forth – but not the multiethnic, expat nationalist ‘car hoon’, replete with gold chains and the rest. Italy, for instance, has its share of boors (as does Britain and Germany): but it is also one of the fashion and style capitals of the world, and, historically, one of the centres of Western European culture. It could be argued that what is really distinctive in Western painting and music is mostly Italian. As well as that, Italy is one of the richest countries in the world, and both Italy and Greece are two of the richest countries in Europe. A massive class divide (as well as cultural divide), or, more accurately, a gulf, exists between the Italians and Greeks of mainland Europe and the Italian and Greek immigrants here. If the Diaspora populations of Southern and South-Eastern Europe were magically transported back to the homelands of their grandparents, they would feel out of place. At the same time, however, these immigrants do not feel a sense of belonging to the Anglo-Saxon culture, hence the hostility and resentment to the ’skips’ (that is, Anglo-Australians), the ‘whites’, exhibited by these groups. The immigrant diasporas, then, feel caught between two worlds.

The source of this sense of diffusion lies within the multiculturalist ideology itself. Multiculturalism is, if anything, a series of metaphors: a country must be like a ‘rainbow’ of many colours (and none predominating); a ’smorgasbord’ with a wide range of ethnic delicacies. It is regarded, by today’s politicians, journalists, academics, that Australia consists of so many different ethnic groups, and that the Anglo-Saxon founders are henceforth relativised, one group among many, no longer the top dog, only one more face in the multi-coloured crowd. Token differences must be preserved – ethnic groups are encouraged to stage their own cultural festivals, folk dances and the like. But, because no one group can be allowed to achieve eminence, no one colour in the rainbow can be allowed to stand out, all groups must be placed at the same level, in terms of value. That is, all groups must be equal. And that has the side-effect of belittling, even destroying, those cultures. Italians, for instance, cannot be encouraged to think of themselves as belonging to a country which has made supreme achievements in the field of painting and music, for example (e.g., the operas of Verdi are at the same level of value as Hmong folk music). So multiculturalism, in its drive for relativism and equality, ends up giving a token version of the different nationalities and ethnicities around the world.

At the same time it suppresses the expression of a genuine deep primary culture of the original dominant people. If it is obvious? that assimilation on a global scale results in the death of diversity due to one huge melting pot of forced conformity, then multiculturalism is not the solution but the problem. By creating an all-encompassing superficial ‘rainbow’ culture and by demanding that it should be imposed say everywhere, true diversity disappears, as there is eventually not one place in the world where one culture is allowed to be the primary one – it must always be the skin deep smorgasbord. It is little surprise that many people upon returning from visiting ‘world’ cities likes Sydney, New York, London, Paris, Toronto, Vancouver often remark that ‘its just another big city’.? These cosmopolitan cities all have their little Chinatowns, Little Italys, Irish pubs, Little Indias and ‘great shopping’ zones. Experiencing one is increasingly not too different from another and each time you receive a ‘taste of all cultures’. Surely a trip to a mostly homogenous part of highland Scotland, hinterland Germany, jungle Cambodia or mountainous Peru is special because it is original and one experiences the virgin culture of the people that reside there. Should we inform Tibet or Iceland that they are culturally deficient and that, in order to correct this (lest they be racist), they should zone a little Chinatown, Little Italy, Irish theme pubs and shopping malls?

It is also interesting to note the stark observation that so-called ‘anti-racist’ activists never seem to demand non-white countries legislate multiculturalism and multiracialism – just those with currently majority white populations.

To conclude: whilst inter-white solidarity is something we strive for, especially given the low percentage of Europeans left in the world, it is essential to recognise the fact of the strong biological urge for ethnic or tribal identity and thousands of years of separate heritage amongst Europeans. We can then work as ethnic nationalists who must bond together in a pan European (co operative) stance to protect our common bond of race whilst still able to preserve our particularity and differences.

Nationalist Alternative, in addition to being Pan-European in its position, internationally calls for an end to ‘petty nationalism’ whereby various European nations or ethnic groups are pitted against each other – such as Irish versus English, or Macedonian versus Greek, or Croatian versus Serb. There are European examples of political co-operation that we agree somewhat with, in its attempt to both protect the separate European identities, and not degenerate into petty nationalism.

At the same time, it is arguable that those globalist forces, who would like to see a ‘one’ world grey- or brown-coloured race and one world culture, realise they need to proceed down that ‘melting pot’ path in slow steps and therefore would prefer it if Caucasians throw out the rich diversity of difference that exits amongst our sub tribes in Europe, the multitude of cultural and ethnic particularities – i.e., the Celt, Slav, Teuton, Anglo, Latinii or Italian, English, German, Russian, Greek, etc. Arguably even some current national definitions in Europe today are too broad; like the category “French”, for example, which includes Franks, Bretons, Corsicans, Normans. All of these groups were compounded, in the French Revolution in 1789, as French by mere citizenship alone, which is in accordance with the civic-state definition of nationalism, which regards any person as being a member so long as they possess citizenship. By forcing the diverse Caucasian tribes to only identify as white and ignore our close but separate histories and cultures, they then have the European peoples conveniently boiled down to just one category, having extinguished all other differences.

For those opposing global one-ness or same-ness that classification leaves humanity only three categories away from the one brown universal man, when those factors also combine all Asian and African differences into the simplistic ‘yellow’ and ‘black’. There are approximately 192 different countries in the world, and many more ethnicities. Acknowledging that fact preserves the diversity of genes, culture, spirituality, and is vastly preferable to three categories only.

3. Old World and New World considerations: the New World tribes

What of assimilation: can it occur? The answer is, in Australia, it already has. The colonies of the West, such as America, Australia, Argentina, were formed by an assimilation, a fusion, of Western immigrant identities. The first settlers in America were British, French, German, Scandinavian, Swiss; their respective national identities, over time, dissolved, and re-formed into a new, distinctly American one. Likewise, the Argentineans (a country made up Spanish, Italian, Irish, German immigrants) and Australia itself (Irish, Scots, English, Welsh). Indeed, the new type of American, Argentinean and Australian is also genetic, biological: there are peculiarly American facial features, for instance, which make Americans distinguishable from, for instance, British or Australians. The result is that the phenomenon of an expat ‘Norwegian nationalism’ in the US, or a ‘Welsh nationalism’ in Australia, is absurd, at least before the advent of multiculturalism, for the reason that Scandinavian-ness, or Welsh-ness, has long ago disappeared. Australia’s cultural roots, and genes, are in the Commonwealth Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Celtic nations. For that reason, an immigrant from Britain or New Zealand, or a white refugee from South Africa or the former Rhodesia, will find it easier to ‘fit into’ Australian life than an Italian or Bulgarian. Each country has its biases – Argentina towards Southern Europe, South Africa, Australia and Rhodesia towards North-Western Europe. This fact needs to be acknowledged.

(Which is not to say that a future Polish or Hungarian immigrant to Australia could never become ‘Anglo-Saxonised’ and then further uniquely ‘Australianised’: the American example, from around the turn of the twentieth century, shows that this process can occur. But the process is impeded by the ideology of multiculturalism, which, as explained above, actively encourages the European immigrant not to assimilate to the culture of the host population, and belittles the host culture itself).

Given that, it would be understandable if the ideology of Nationalist Alternative were to be only located in the rich veins of Australian nationalist tradition of Henry Lawson, Alfred Deakin, William Lane, Jack Lang, and the rest. But Nationalist Alternative wants to up to date, even cutting edge, with today’s (Western) political thought: for that reason, much of the Nationalist Alternative ideology is based on the ideas of certain contemporary European thinkers though not solely, as shall be explained below. So called ‘Bush’ nationalism has its roots in the Australian nationalism of around the turn of the 20th century. The advantage of the ideas of the Nouvelle Droit and thinkers related to the Nouvelle Droit (such as Guillaume Faye), is that – unlike Henry Lawson – they are more contemporary, and tackle contemporary problems. No one is doubting that the analysis of Australia’s problems (e.g., the threat posed by Asian immigration to the Australian way of life) by the likes of Lawson, was, in its essence, correct. ?

In fact much of the writings and social analysis of Australia’s early nationalist thinkers is timeless – such as of capital using immigration and indentured labour against the Australian working and middle classes.

In fact as far as symptoms like say immigration are concerned, the position advocated by early Australian nationalists of demographic extinction of the Australian ethnicity due to one particular immigrant group over all others – Asian migration – continues statistically to be accurate. However, it is argued by some that we should only shout and scream about Islamic migration, because Asian migrants supposedly ‘integrate better’, keep their heads down, work hard and are ‘nicer’ in their social interactions with others. However, in terms of the long-term survival of the nation, the immigrant groups who are not overtly different and anti-social (i.e., become involved in crime and other socially destructive activities), constitute the greater danger.

Observations of ‘niceness and hardworking’ whether true or not are mostly irrelevant, because as nationalists, we oppose not the mere fact of the existence of other non European people groups, but the causes like capitalism, which in its universalism and greed seek to destroy, in pursuit of profit, the preservation and dignity of the bio-diversity of humankind. Universalism will ultimately result in no distinct people groups and cultures – ?whether Asian, African or European. That is, a future scenario where a people, the Australian people, is outnumbered, holds no societal positions of decision making or authority and is reduced to a bossed-about minority. This does not uphold the principles of autonomy and global plurality whatsoever.

As far as symptoms go, injustice is injustice, whether that iniquity comes in the form of an aggressive ‘in your face’, difficult-to-assimilate migrant group, or a more socially amenable group that appears to integrate. Both result in the same end.

Nationalist Alternative uses modern nationalist and racialist European theory to look at the same problems from a different angle then that of just the early Australian nationalists, though as mentioned, we acknowledge their ongoing relevance.

4. Nationalist Alternative’s basis in the European New Right

The presuppositions behind the ideology of Nationalist Alternative are based on the thinking of the European New Right – a group of (mainly Continental) European intellectuals whose ideas are very much compatible with the contemporary nationalist struggle in the West.

A few paragraphs from Tomislav Sunic’s ‘Against Democracy and Equality: the European New Right’ (2004, 2nd edition, Noontide Press), will summarise some of the key New Right concepts:

The [European] New Right argues that, with minor exceptions, both modern liberalism and Marxism wish to impose on all nations the idea of equality, human rights, democracy, and economic progress. To counter this globalistic and universalistic trend, spearheaded by the Soviet Union [the first edition of this book was published in 1990] and America, the New right urges all nations, and particularly European nations, to disengage themselves, culturally and politically, from both superpowers, from both liberalism and Marxism, and join in the common fight for the “cause of the peoples”. In other words, instead of vague belief in universal human rights, the New right stresses the primacy of national rights; instead of abstract and elusive dreams of egalitarian democracy, and the myth of eternal economic progress, the New Right espouses the return to the “roots”, and the foundation of organic societies. [Sunic, p. 112].

Going further in this vein, Sunic writes:

For the New Right and its “ideologue” Louis Rougier, the organic community is the only valid reference for someone’s rights, whereby a person’s rights can be enhanced, measured or curtailed only by the degree of a community’s generosity or the lack thereof. To the advocates of universal human rights, the authors of the New Right oppose a view that each person is first defined by his birth, heritage, a country of origin, and the value system inherited from his community. De Benoist wittily remarks: “I see a horse, but I do not see horsehood”… Similar view were once jokingly expressed by the conservative Joseph de Maistre in his sharp critique of liberal democracy in France. he wrote that during his travels had seen “Poles, Russians, Italians, but as to man, I declare have never seen him”. [Sunic, Op. Cit., p. 142]

So a person – at least, politically – is defined by the community he lives in:

De Benoist argues that man can only define his liberty and his individual rights as long as he is not divorced from his culture, environment, and temporal heritage. “[Man] does not live on Sirius, he does not live on a lone island, or in the kingdom of the blessed, but here and today, and in a very specific society”. [Sunic, Op. Cit., p145]

So why does the New Right oppose immigration and multiculturalism? The answer, paradoxically, is that it causes racism:

Krebs [Pierre Krebs, a prominent New Right author] writes that contemporary racism and violent nationalism usually occur in multi-cultural and multi-racial societies, notably when a dominant and larger ethnic group feels that an alien minority or smaller ethnic group threatens its national and historical identity. Accordingly, a large nation coexisting with a smaller ethnic group within the same body politic, will gradually come to fear that its own historical and national identity will be obliterated by a foreign and alien body unable or unwilling to share the same national, racial and historical consciousness. When negative forms or racism and racial exclusion occur, they can basically be traced to the individuals and peoples who feel more and more alienated from their former communal bonds. Krebs implicitly argues that in multi-racial and multi-cultural environments, abstract human rights will make very little sense. Indeed, such environments may become eventually harmful to all ethnic and racial groups coexisting with each other… Consequently, according to Pierre Krebs, and Hans Eysenck, the aberrant and inevitable aggressive behavior that usually accompanies racism is in part a response of a stronger group to the prospects of impending uprootedness. [Sunic, Op. Cit., p. 136]

5. The Human Rights Cult

The New Right strives, intellectually, against two kinds of totalitarianism: human rights, or humanitarian, totalitarianism; and monotheistic totalitarianism.
The cult of human rights is pro immigrant: much of the non-white immigration into the West is the consequence of humanitarianism. The first wave of Vietnamese boat people – all 48,000 of them – arrived on Australian shores in the late 1970s, and were taken in and made citizens, all in the name of “humanity” (the Asian nations of Indonesia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, being less “humane” than we, rejected them). Now the Africans – and the Iraquis and Afghanis – are the new victim class; humanitarian liberals insist that these people be allowed to emigrate here in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Today, socialist priests, immigration lawyers and social workers agitate for more and more immigration from the Third World, in particular, from Africa, in the name of humanity.
No-one is allowed to dispute with multiculturalist humanism. Many nationalists have been fined, and even sent to jail, on the grounds that something they have written or said has offended the ‘dignity’ and ‘human rights’ of minority groups and has ‘hurt their feelings’. The most recent example, reported in the mainstream media, is Brigitte Bardot, who has been fined (yet again) for denouncing the ritual slaughter of animals by Muslim immigrants living in France. These are the self-appointed anti-racist watchdogs, with (largely undefined) powers to fine, and even imprison, Westerners who ‘offend the feelings’ of immigrants. One of the most notorious is the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
The human rights ideology, and the accompanying totalitarian repression of anyone who disagrees with it, has its origins in the French Revolution. In the ideology of the Jacobins, the community or tribe with unique ethnic and racial characteristics has been replaced by ‘Man’, or, the ‘Citizen’. The end result is a progressive political system, which recognises the equality, the sameness, the rights of all human beings (which are human rights, not the rights of a particular group, i.e., the Corsicans, the Bretons), eradicates all racial, ethnic and even linguistic differences. As de Benoist writes, in his essay ‘On Identity’:

The current denunciation of demands for identity, in the name of the “Republic” or of globalization is a repetition of the Jacobin assimilation discourse, which saw the will to maintain traditional identities as equivalent to a refusal of “progress.” The arguments against “communitarianism” used nowadays are exactly the same that were used earlier to oppress
minorities or to eradicate regional cultures and languages. The paradox of this fight against particularities lies in the fact that, historically, it has always been waged in the name of a connection that is just as specific, but was presented as universal, and relied on its alleged universality to legitimate its designs for assimilation or domination. It is obvious in the Republic’s fight against regionalisms. As Savidan notes, “Brittany’s identity has not been negated in the name of the Ile de France, but in the name of reason, progress, freedom, equality and the universality of the Law.”

Further, in the same essay, he writes:

Refusal to recognize identities has been especially prominent and constant in the “republican” tradition of French Jacobinism… It redefined the nation as a post-communitarian space, i.e., as a political space based on the normative principle of cultural and ethnic homogeneity. The idea of “citizenship” lost its specific substratum (one is always a member of a given society), and was given a “universal” dimension. From this perspective, every polity implies a clean sweep; each attempt to reaffirm a particularity becomes a secession attempt. To be “republican” would mean to refuse differences, at least their political visibility, i.e., their recognition in the public sphere… I.e., the “Republic” can only be based on the omission or the negation of communities.

Sunic expands on this process of ‘de-ethnicisation’ as defined by de Benoist:

De Benoist argues that the proclamation of the same rights for all peoples leads in the long run to deprivation of each people of its own specificity. “People exist”, writes De Benoist, “but a man by himself, the abstract man, the universal man, that type of man does not exist. For De Benoist, man acquires his full rights only within his own community and by adhering to his national and cultural memory. He writes: “The category of ‘people’ cannot be confounded with language, race, class, territory or nation alone. A people is not a transitory sum of individuals. It is not a chance aggregate. It is a reunion of inheritors of a specific fraction of human history, who, on the basis of the sense of common adherence, develop the will to pursue their own history and give themselves a common destiny”. [Sunic, op. cit., pp. 140-141.]

Sunic adds:

For the authors of the New Right, culture and history are the “identity card” of each people. Once the period of assimilation or integration begins to occur, a people will be threatened by extinction – extinction that according to De Benoist does not necessarily have to be carried out by physical force or by absorption into a stronger and larger national unit, but very often, as is the case today, by the voluntary or involuntary adoption of the Western Eurocentric or “Americano-centric” liberal model. [Sunic, ibid].

It should be added that the “Americano-centric” liberal model is of French origin: privileging ‘Man’, the ‘Citizen’, ‘Humanity’, the ‘Rights of Man’, before the race, tribe, ethnic group, even the nation itself. Indeed, they are the one and same:

The implicit message of the Declaration of human rights involved the assumption that universal human rights precede the narrow communal or national rights and that the American-adopted legal principles could be valid for all peoples on earth, regardless of their national origin. Berard notes that the American and French Declaration, by intending to be universal, in fact became the most pernicious expression of Western… ethnocentrism. The Declaration posits that what is viewed as self-evident by Western peoples, must also be self-evident for non-Western peoples. The end result is the loss of one’s cultural and national memory. Berard writes: “Historically, human rights are the ideological expression of Jacobinism. They become today the expression of Western ethnocentrism (”occidentalo-centrisme”) – the underlying discourse of the new international order. [Sunic, op. cit., pp. 139-140].

6. Monotheism

Another source of the modern-day equality cult, the New Right thinkers argue, is monotheistic universalism: that is, religions like Judaism and Christianity. Sunic writes:

Although egalitarian experiments were known to have taken place very early in history and about which there is scant information, it was with Judaism and, later on, Christianity that we can trace with more consistency the genesis and the gradual consolidation of the modern egalitarian belief…. A number of authors of liberal, socialist, and conservative persuasion maintain that the modern ideal of equality significantly owes its rise to early Jewish prophets. Thus the French author Gerard Walter, in his book ‘Les origines du communisme’, maintains that the roots of the modern egalitarian ideal and the belief in brotherhood and democracy, can best be traced to Judea and early Jewish scriptures. In a similar vein, the American scholar Emanuel Rackman, in his piece “Judaism and Equality”, writes that Judaism derives human likeness from the fact that God created only one man from whom all humanity is descended. [Sunic, op. cit., p. 119]

The New Right subscribes to Carl Schmitt’s famous dictum, ‘Political concepts are secularised theological concepts’, that is, political ideas have their roots in religion. Sunic writes:

For Carl Schmitt, who was already discussed in previous chapters, the “political theology” of liberalism and socialism continues to borrow from Jewish and Christian eschatology, albeit by bestowing its discourse with a more secular flavour. This view is shared by the New Right which also concurs that the ideal of equality, human rights, constitutionalism, and universalism, represent the secular transposition of non-European, Oriental, and Judeo-Christian eschatology. [Sunic, op. cit., p. 123].

So, in the New Right view, the modern day fanatics of equality, democracy and liberty are secularised Christians or Jews (it is no coincidence that commentators have observed the influence of messianic, Christian thinking in the discourse of George W. Bush, who, as we know, believed in democracy and freedom (or ‘moxy an freem’, as he pronounced it) as if it were religion, and sought, like an evangelical, to spread it around the entire world):

The New Right asserts that the belief in equality rests more on the principles of social desirability inherited in secular forms from the Judeo-Christian scholastic, than on the facts established by scientific analyses. According to Pierre Krebs, the contemporary theories of the egalitarian mythos deliberately associate a pseudo science (historical materialism [e.g., the Marxist theory of history] with a messianic catechism (the universalist dogma), which are in turn implemented on each level of society…. In the process of this “levelling”, argues Krebs, the role of heredity, the role of national consciousness, the importance of popular and ancient mythology and religion is significantly neglected. [Sunic, op. cit., p. 133].

7. The New Right and Islam

Islamic immigration is a problem in Europe, and it is fast becoming a problem here in Australia and for that reason, nationalists should pay attention to it. However, it should be stated that, unfortunately, if a nationalist starts speaking in a hostile fashion about the spread of Islam, certain other nationalists will react in a knee-jerk like manner and accuse him of “neoconservatism”. If that said nationalist is only concerned with Islam and blind to problems such as (non-Islamic) immigration, societal decay, consumerism, etc., then quite possibly that nationalist is just solely practising ‘Islamophobia’. Given that Islam is a religion that one can choose, just like Christianity, it may not even be a real nationalist at all. In the Middle Eastern world historically, nationality is not defined by ethnicity or race, but by belong to a particular religion – i.e., Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism – or a particular sect within that religious groups.

We would also add that we do not see Islam as ‘the’ major threat to Western civilisation but one of many and also do not recognise as a counter to it, the ‘war on terror’ pushed by the neo cons. We should also add that we do not see Islam as the only threat, the major threat, to Western civilisation, but one of many; and that we do not recognise, as the counter to Islam, the ‘War on Terror’ pushed by the neoconservatives. The neoconservative response to Islam is to impose the capitalism and secular humanism of the liberal democratic state model on Arab states like Iraq.

Given that both Islam and neoconservatism are universalist, we are opposed to both; but we would rate the neoconservative model, which currently has nearly all European ethnicities entrapped within its confines, as the higher threat. It is exactly the oppressive chains of liberalism that has stifled a vibrant European and Australian identity, through the messages, implicit in the political discourse and the media, that European and Australian identity do not exist, or if they do, are not relevant.

To the extent attacks on Islam are allowed and seemingly encouraged by the present system, a nationalist should realise that it is only the defence mechanism of one absolutist system, liberal democracy against another, Islam. Having said that, nationalists should make use of any ‘free kicks’ given to them, so to speak, and use them for nationalist ends, and not those of those representing the status quo. Therefore, opposition to Islam (which is, in theory, a religion any ethnic group can adopt) can also be used to resist Arab migration. The Australian public generally consider both to be one and these same, and so some ethnic awareness, and an acknowledgement of the need to defend Australian culture, arises. Nationalists need not let the right-wing conservatives frame and own the debate; by not participating at all in the attack, sanctioned by the liberal media, on the ’soft target’ of Islamism, nationalists allow conservatives to appropriate the cause, to diffuse public sentiment against immigration and divert it, confining to the safe grounds of ‘civic nationalism’.

Given the above qualifier on Islam, it must be explained, then, why a) opposition to Islam stems naturally from acceptance of New Right doctrines; and why b) there should be opposition to neoconservatism as well.

Firstly, though: why? Why should it be a subject for a New Right attack? Because it is a universalistic, monotheism and thereby totalitarian creed making it more than just another ethnic group, but one? Islam for most of its variants is a Sunic writes:

De Benoist attempts to uncover the roots of totalitarianism… in the Bible and the Judaic religious legacy. As we already observed in our previous chapters, for De Benoist the precondition for a non-totalitarian world is the return to religious polytheism and the abandonment of Judeo-Christian eschatology. For him, biblical monotheism is by definition a religion of totality, which excludes all opposing “truths” and all different value judgements. It follows, according to De Benoist, that all countries that are attached to the biblical message show a latent proto-totalitarian bent. He writes:
‘ Each egalitarian and Universalist ideology is necessarily totalitarian, because it aims at reducing all social and spiritual reality to a single model. Thus, monotheism implies the idea that there is only one truth, one God, one type of man that could please God. The Bible places on the scene one “God only” (Deut. 6.4) who is also a “jealous God” (Deut. 6.15). Jesus says: “Those who are not with me are against me”. Henceforth, to be against God, means to be for the Evil. And against the Evil everything is permitted; genocide, torture, Inquisition. It is only with Judeo-Christianity that totalitarianism appears in history, at the moment when Yahveh, makes the massacre of infidels his primary task (Deut. 13.9); when he declares to his people: “you are going to destroy all peoples which the Lord, your God, will deliver to you” (Deut. 7.16)’ . [Sunic, op. cit., p. 176].

Now, as many (ex-Muslim) authors have chronicled, Islam takes universalism to extremes. In ‘Leaving Islam: apostates speak out’ (Prometheus Books, 2003), Ibn Warraq quotes the Islamic philosopher Ibn Khaldun, who wrote in his Muqaddimah: ‘In the Muslim community, the holy war is religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the (obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force’. [Warraq, p. 425].
Warraq’s book is an eye-opener, mainly because it is a collection of essays from ex-Muslims who have the ‘inside scoop’ on life, and the attitudes, in Islamic societies. One thing that emerges from the book is that there is no such thing as a ‘moderate’ Islam, any more than there is such thing as a ‘moderate’ communism.
The defenders of Islam like to say that Islamic fundamentalism is not the ‘true’ Islam of the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran; in the same vein, the Liberal defenders of communism like to say that ‘Communism (in the Soviet Union and elsewhere) wasn’t Marxism’. It is true that Marxist-Leninism did differ on a few points of doctrine, but: surely the citizens of Red Russia, China, etc., who had Marx and Engels rammed down their throats 24 hours a day, would have noticed any glaring contradiction between the Soviet-style system of communism and that preached in the works of Marx? The answer, as we know from history, is that they did not. And the same is true for Islam. The practices in Muslim countries which so many Westerners, accustomed to a high degree of personal freedom, are in the vast majority of cases sanctioned by the Koran: they are not a ‘deviation’ or ‘distortion’ or ‘perversion’ of the Islamic doctrine. If it were otherwise, liberals in Islamic countries could cite verse and chapter of the Koran and the Hadith (commentaries on the Koran) against the ‘religious police’ who arrest young Iranian men for ‘Western’ spiky hair-dos or young Yemeni couples caught holding hands; or the Saudi courts which prosecute adultery with cruel vehemence while ignoring rape.

It would be all very well if the Muslims restricted such practices to their own countries: but the massive numbers of Islamic immigrants into the West – five million in France, one million in the Netherlands, and so on – are intent on doing the same thing. This is so well known to nationalists that there is no need to recount, at great length, how Islamists attempt to spread similar practices in the West when they emigrate here. It shall suffice to quote from Guillaume Faye, from a talk delivered in Moscow on May the 17th, 2005:

Islam is again on the offensive. With single-minded persistence, its totalitarian and aggressive religion/ideology seeks the conquest of Europe. We’ve already suffered three great assaults by Islam, which today stretches from Gibraltar to Indonesia. The first of these offensives was halted at Portiers in 732 by Charles Martel; the second in 1683, during the Ottoman siege of Vienna; the third [in the form of the present invasion and colonization] is now underway [and virtually unopposed]. Islam has a long memory and its objective is to establish on our continent what [the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, the ayatollah] Khomeini called the “universal Caliphate.” The invasion of Europe has begun and the figures [testifying to its extent] are alarming. The continent, including Russia, is now occupied by 55 million Muslims, a number that increases at a 6 percent annual rate. In France, there are at least 6 million. Like those in Belgium and Britain, these French Muslims are starting to demand a share of political power. The government, for its part, simply refuses to take seriously their objective of transforming France into an Islamic Republic by the year 2020, when the demographic weight of the Arab/Muslim population will have become determinant. Meanwhile, it is financing the construction of Mosques throughout the country in the hope of buying social peace; there are already more than 2,000 in France, nearly double the number in Morocco. Islam is at present the second largest religion in France, behind Catholicism, but the largest in the numbers of practitioners.[The republic's president] Jacques Chirac has even declared that “France is now an Islamic power.” Everywhere in the West there prevails the unfounded belief that there’s a difference between Islam and “Islamism,” and that a Western, secularized, that is, moderate, Islam is possible. There’s no such thing. Every Muslim is potentially a jihadist. For Islam is a theocracy that confuses the spiritual with the temporal, faith with law, and seeks to impose its Shari’a [Islamic law] on a Europe whose civilizational precepts are absolutely incompatible with it.

8. The New Right and neoconservatism

The doctrine of neoconservatism is well-known, and derided by all – even the Rolling Stones have written a song about it. It is an ideology cobbled together by a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals, journalists, publicists and shady types mainly from America: Kristol, Podhoretz, Krauthammer, Friedman, Pipes, Sharansky, Feith, Frum, Abrams, Wolfowitz, Perle, to name a few. Bush Jr. and John McCain are the most famous political proponents of neoconservatism.
So what is it, in the New Right analysis, that makes neoconservatism so bad? The answer is, its messianic devotion to the cause of American-style democracy, liberalism, freedom, equality, the rule of law (its law), peace, which, in turn, sanctions the use of extreme force, ending up in extreme cruelty, against the countries which do not, in the neocon view, adhere to these noble precepts. Few people can deny, at this point in time, that the democratic crusades in Iraq and Afghanistan, have turned into a disaster for their respective peoples (the benefits from living under “democracy” aside); no-one can deny that the Iraqi and Afghani wars are being waged for what Bush, the neocons and their supporters see as the highest good. The two are not unrelated, as shall be argued below.

One of the biggest influences on New Right thinking is Carl Schmitt, who defined the political as the choosing of enemies:

Using Hobbes as a reference, Schmitt argues that the notion of the political consists in distinguishing between the foe and the friend (hostis vs. amicus). But whereas Hobbes transposes the state of nature to the realm of individuals and states, Schmitt enlarges the same concept by adding to it global significance. In Schmitt’s “state of nature” the subjects are individuals, countries, empires, nations, classes, and races. The process of depoliticization, undertaken by both Marxists and liberals in an effort to create a war-proof world, is a dangerous illusion that runs counter to human historical development. Human history it its entirety is primarily a history of perpetual struggle between foes and friends – the ocean of wars in the parentheses of peace. [Sunic, op. cit., p. 57].

Neoconservatives are portrayed, in the media, as warmongers who desire war for its own sake: but, in fact, they urge war for the sake of peace – and freedom, democracy, liberty, equality. (In other words, they are against politics, as Schmitt defines it). Such a war – a liberal war against the warmongers (like Saddam Hussein) – must take on, by necessity, a vicious character:

Should man – who is by definition a political being – refuse to use the political, he then also renounces his own humanity. And to those who use war in order to stop wars, Schmitt responds, “To curse war as a crime against humanity, and then to require from people that they wage war and that they will kill in war and let themselves be killed for the sake of war to end war, is a manifest deceit”. [Sunic, op. cit., p.59].

Suppose we were to live in a world in which politics had been abolished altogether: would that mean the end of war?

No, continues Schmitt; the decision would be reached to proclaim total war against those recalcitrant individuals or “warmongers” who refused to join this depoliticised polity. But this time, however, the war would be total and of titanic dimension, waged, naturally, in the name of eternal principles of justice and peace. The war against war will thus be conducted, as the definitely final war of humanity. Such a “necessary” war would be particularly intensive and inhuman because the enemy is no longer perceived as a person with a sense of justice, but rather as an “inhuman monster” who needs not only be repelled, but totally annihilated. “The adversary”, writes Schmitt, “is no longer called enemy, and consequently, he is placed aside humanity as an enemy of peace… as an outlaw. Another pacifist vocabulary takes shape, which ignores war, but [knows} only of executions, sanctions, punitive expeditions, pacification, safeguarding of contracts, the international police, measures to protect peace...". [Sunic, op. cit., pp. 58-59].

The same applies when one’s enemy is declared to be “evil”: which is what Bush Jr., Blair and the neocons do regularly: Slobodan Milosevic is evil, Yassir Arafat is evil, Sheik Yassin of Hamas is evil, Saddam Hussein is evil, Osama bin Laden is evil, and now Ahmedinejad is evil. By declaring one’s enemy to be evil, one is sanctioning the most vicious treatment against him – and the civilian population of the countries from which they came. One cannot show any mercy to an individual, or political group, or country which is judged to be supremely wicked.

This is the main consequence of the moralisation of politics – the introducing an element (morals) into a sphere of activity which should be kept free of such things. In justifying his keeping the two separate, De Benoist writes in his essay, ‘On Politics’:

Politics cannot be subjected to morality, and even less confused with it, because they are not from the same order. A political command has nothing to do with a moral duty, with a “commandment” (Gebot) in the Biblical sense; it is only an order (Befehl). Similarly, political action does not depend on “truth” and “falsity.” To make a political decision, whether
by voting or by a governmental act, is to create the necessary conditions for achieving a concrete objective, not to state a truth. Finally, Socrates to the contrary notwithstanding, morality and politics cannot be identified because what is morally just, from a personal and private viewpoint, is not necessarily synonymous with what is politically good from a collective and public viewpoint. Thus, a political choice concerning the common good cannot be decided according to principles of private morality; it is different from a personal moral choice. As Freund writes, “morality and politics do not have the same goal. The former responds to an internal requirement and concerns the righteousness of personal acts, each one assuming fully the responsibility of its own behavior. Politics, on the other hand, responds to a social necessity, and whoever takes this road expects to take charge of the global fate of the collectivity.” [De Benoist, 'On politics', p. 16].

So why is neoconservatism more important, and more dangerous, than neoliberalism? Why is Islam a greater threat than the monotheistic creeds, e.g., Christianity? The answer is: both are political, by Schmitt’s definition. No-one can deny that there are Christians in the West engage in odious activities: there are plenty of Christian groups in Australia who work to bring in shiploads of African refugees, in the thousands, in the name of Christian love and humanity, making no distinction between white and non-white (both are equal in the eyes of God). But the days of Christians seeking to take over the world, to spread their creed by force, are over: whereas Islam never stopped. And the difference between Islam and Christianity is that the former raises the distinction between believer and un-believer to a political intensity: that is to say, it makes war on unbelievers. The same goes for the neoconservatives. The neoliberals believe in markets, freedom, competition, free trade and the rest, and more than a few of the neoliberal think-tanks endorse open borders and mass immigration (finding themselves, oddly enough, at one with the socialists on that issue); but they do not believe in spreading their ideas by force (indeed, they are a pacifist bunch), unlike the neoconservatives. Neoconservatism believes in force, war, to bring about liberal democracy: in other words, it is political.

9. Where we differ from the New Right

We may have given the impression, by this point, that Nationalist Alternative agrees with everything the European New Right believes in; but that is not the case. For one thing, De Benoist is a communitarian, federalist and regionalist because he opposes France’s traditional oppression of ethnic minorities such as the Basques, Bretons, Corsicans, Germans in the Alsace-Lorraine province.

Indeed, nationalism itself is a Jacobin plot designed to crush the rights of minorities:The arguments against “communitarianism” used nowadays are exactly the same that were used earlier to oppress minorities or to eradicate regional cultures and languages.

The paradox of this fight against particularities lies in the fact that, historically, it has always been waged in the name of a connection that is just as specific, but was presented as universal, and relied on its alleged universality to legitimate its designs for assimilation or domination. It is obvious in the Republic’s fight against regionalisms. As Savidan notes, “Brittany’s identity has not been negated in the name of the Ile de France, but in the name of reason, progress, freedom, equality and the universality of the Law.” The assimilation of republican values with “universal” values should not fool anyone. The attitude, which opposes the “Republic” to “community” identities, is only a linguistic trick… To proclaim that republican identity should prevail over all others is a way of saying that the connection to the
nation supersedes any other connections.

As Alain Touraine noted, “The goal is to eliminate differences and real social and cultural identities, and to place the relation to the nation above everything else.” Implicitly, it is a zero sum game where anything granted to specific identities would take away from the “Republic.” Common law is not perceived as what exceeds and includes duly recognized distinctive identities, but as what permits ignoring or eliminating them… All it takes to get out of this dilemma is to understand that the nation with its necessary common law can also recognize different identities, it can (re-)build them, instead of ignoring or destroying them. [De Benoist, 'On Identity', p. 35-36].

All this is true enough of France: but what of Australia? One cannot claim that the Australian national identity is (like the French) a construction of universalist egalitarians, bent on repressing inter-ethnic differences and identities. Our country is (prior to the mass immigration wave) ethnically homogenous: there are no Australian equivalents of the Basques, Bretons, Corsicans. Indeed, the Western colonial nations were all largely ethnically homogenous with the national identities of America, New Zealand, developing fairly recently, in countries which (before white settlement) could not be said to exist as such, i.e., as nations.

Secondly, De Benoist takes a soft stance on the number-one ethnic issue in France (and Europe) today: mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East.

When questioned on it in a 2003 interview, De Benoist evades it and descends into waffling:

T&P: In your opinion, is communitarianism an effective response to the problem
created by the introduction of millions of non-Europeans into Europe? Indeed, isn’t community important because it is a function of its specific place and time? For instance, there exist communities that are more rather than less dynamic, especially in terms of natality. Given the failure to integrate non-Europeans, the utopia of a Reconquista, and a communitarianism cloaking a demographic time-bomb, isn’t this
enough to make one pessimistic?

AdB: First, let me say that whenever men fail to find a solution to their problems, history finds one for them. Second, history is always open (which doesn’t mean that anything is possible). Finally, in posing a problem in a
way that has no solution, it shouldn’t be surprising that one is condemned to
pessimism. Today, in Europe there are 52.2 [sic] million Muslims (25 million in
Russia and 13.5 in Western Europe), a majority of whom are of European stock
[Note: This statement is not credible to me.]. The rest, as far as I know, are neither Black nor Asian. If Europeans are less demographically dynamic, it is not the fault of those who are. If they no longer know what their identity is, again this is not the fault of those who do. In face of peoples with strong identities, those lacking such an identity might reflect on why they have lost their own. To this end, they might look to the planetary spread of market values or the nature of Western nihilism. In an era of
general de territorialisation, it might also be useful to think of identity in ways that no longer depend on locale. For my part, I attach more importance to what men do, than to what they presume themselves to be. . . [Terre et Peuple 18, (Winter Solstice 2003), at http://foster.20megsfree.com/468.htm].

Now, politically, such an attitude is disastrous: the indigenous French do not want to waffling and evasions on the immigration issue, and they certainly do not want soft soap. Unfortunately, de Benoist has garnered himself the reputation of being a pedlar of soft soap, which has led to Guillaume Faye’s split from the Nouvelle Droit and GRECE. Indeed, Faye takes a more martial approach to these questions, which is more in line with the thinking of Nationalist Alternative and most Western nationalists.

Secondly, there is the question of the source of egalitarianism: does it stem from Judaism and Christianity? There are two objections to this.

The first is that, according to scholars of Judaism and Jewish culture and history, such as Kevin MacDonald, Michael Hoffmann III, and Jewish writers like Israel Shahak and Israel Shamir, one of the chief characteristics of Judaism is the distinction that religion makes (especially in the Talmud) between Jews and non-Jews. That distinction is, to put it mildly, radically inegalitarian: and certainly the Jewish God, Yahweh, is not the god of all peoples (especially not the god of the Christians, Christianity being a religion which, according to these authors, Judaism vehemently opposes).

The second is that the most radically inegalitarian society that the West has ever experienced – Europe in the Middle Ages – was a Christian one. The Europe of that period was based on a caste system, where everyone’s place, everyone’s role – as a serf, monk, merchant, warrior, ruler – was defined for them by God.

That is, the social, political and economic structure, which was non-democratic and hierarchical, was divinely ordained: an Evolian would say that it was ‘Traditionalist’. Compared to then, we live in very democratic, egalitarian and liberal times; so how it is it that liberalism, democracy and egalitarianism have made their furthest advances the more belief in Christianity has receded?
It could be argued, it is true, that today’s Christianity is radically egalitarian, especially in regard to immigration and race. One can find plenty of examples of Catholic and other Christian priests in the West who work ceaselessly to bring impoverished non-white immigrants from the Third World to the West to live here, permanently, to have those refugees enjoy a ‘better life’.

Immigration is seen as a kind of wealth-redistribution: if one cannot redistribute the wealth of the Western countries to, say, the African nations, then one must bring the peoples of those nations to the West to enjoy that wealth. This is a way of making people equal. (Jean Raspail, in his
classic novel The Camp of the Saints (1973), had one character remark that such
priests had, in their ideology, replaced the Kingdom of Heaven with the Kingdom on Earth, here and now, to be achieved by redistributing the West’s wealth to the Third World – a deed which was to be accomplished chiefly by encouraging the Third World to migrate to the West).

10.The pros and cons of populism

All Australian nationalists accept that Australia’s cultural identity, and even the existence itself of the Australian Anglo-Celt/Anglo-Saxon/European biological stock, is endangered by immigration: to judge by the immigration policies of the Australian governments of the past few decades, the intentions of our liberal democratic masters seems to be to turn Australia into a Malaysian-style republic – one third Malay, one third Chinese, one third Indian. Sydney has been hit by a massive wave of Chinese immigration; Melbourne, Indian. (If the multiculturalists have their way, Sydney will
be renamed New Shanghai, Melbourne New Mumbai, and Australia itself will be
renamed the Republic of Chindia). The question is: what do we who care for this
country to do about it? Do we go ahead and form a populist political party? Do we, being an English-speaking, mostly Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Celtic nation, biologically and culturally, follow the BNP model?

Ultimately, daydreams by some of a direct revolution aside, it is arguable whether one can succeed in nationalist politics without the vehicle of a political party, if only in conjunction with other, extra-parliamentary forms of political activity: namely, the struggle to get one’s message across in the political domain, ?in the street (through demonstrations and community building grassroots activities), as well as in the intellectual domain. A political party is very effective in organising large numbers of nationalists for political activity, of raising large sums of money for activism,
advertising and the rest.

And, for our repatriation policies to succeed, we need the powers that reside in the self-governance of one’s territory: the South African strategy – where leaderless mobs rampage through immigrant areas, trying to persuade them to
leave the country through force and terror – is not open to us. Eventually, then, as long as the liberal democratic system presides, it would be good for Nationalist Alternative or any nationalist group to start contesting winnable council seats in conjunction with extra-parliamentary tactics (e.g., building a strong local community presence).

The electoral path is always difficult for nationalists: even One Nation, at the height of its popularity, had trouble getting the requisite 500 signatures (from party members) to register itself as a party competing in federal elections. So we have a long way to go, as do the other Australian nationalist groups (which have, so far, only constituted themselves as unregistered political parties).

The question is one of tactics: should we follow the Nick Griffin approach?
Nick Griffin, and the BNP, are controversial topics in nationalist circles. One only has to look at Griffin’s champion of Churchill, his mimicking of Churchill’s ‘V for victory’ sign. Churchill, in traditional British nationalism, is seen as a villain, not a hero. Churchill bankrupted and ruined Britain financially during the Second World War, made Britain into a vassal of America and thus removed Britain’s status as a world power; his actions were instrumental in the decline, and break up, of the British Empire – the most far-flung Empire the world has ever seen. On top of that, Churchill
appeased Stalin, helped, along with the Americans, Stalin win his war (through
generous Lend-Lease aid) and handed over half of Europe to communism (including
Poland, on whose behalf the war was supposedly fought).

In short: Churchill, as a politician, was a failure: a statesman aims at increasing power for his State, not throwing it away, or rather, giving it away, as Churchill did. All this thinking is very “Nazi” in Griffin’s view, no doubt, but nevertheless, it is the cold, hard truth.

On top of that, foreign policy aside, can one name one accomplishment of Churchill’s while he was in office? (And remember, he was prime minister, not once, but twice).Churchill’s enemy Hitler had his autobahns, his Strength through Joy leisure cruises, youth labour brigades, Munich Olympics, Nuremberg rallies… Churchill, on the other hand, did hardly anything. He was a negative – a man defined by his opposition to something, not by his deeds.

But Griffin’s championing of Churchill is a clever tactic, in Britain at least. After all, the British liberal democratic establishment venerates Churchill – Churchill, the ultimate British Antifascist, the man who was prepared to destroy an empire (his own)to prove a point, the man who united the British cause with that of the progressive, humanist Soviet Union. By flashing the ‘V for victory’ sign, and waving the Union Jack (and the St George’s Cross) wherever he goes, Griffin seizes the enemy’s own weapon and turns it against them. Like the seafarers of old, who painted eyes on the
bows of their ships (to ward off evil spirits), Griffin’s watered-down, respectable, establishment form of nationalism (so redolent of the flag-waving ‘Britpop’ music movement in the 1990s) repels the enemy – who always seek to pin the label ‘fascist’,‘Nazi’, ‘anti-Semite’ on the British nationalist. Likewise, Griffin’s incorrigible philo-Semitism and Zionism (a tactic Nationalist Alternative rejects) can also be viewed (and is, in establishment quarters) as a cynical stunt.

The same goes for the philo-Semitism of the other Euro-populist parties – the Front National, the Danish People’s Party, the Dutch Party for Freedom.
Suppose that Griffin placed a large ‘Free Ernst Zundel’ icon on the BNP website: how would that help the cause of British nationalism, and the British themselves? The answer is, it would not. Zundel is a supremely important figure in German nationalism, but not in British. The truth is that Britain’s geopolitical decline and drifting into the American sphere of influence (which began in the 1930s, but was sealed by Churchill) did not affect British life in an immediately obvious way: not its culture, traditions, sense of decency, the warmth, friendliness and good humour of its people. It was the reverse immigration from Britain’s non-white colonies, acquired as the result of its own past imperialism (and not the United States’ newer imperialism),
and the decade of Blairism, which changed that, turning the British into the country of over-paid, binge-drinking, depressed, complaining yobs that they are today. And Blairism, and multi-cultism, is a recent phenomenon which have little, to do with the events of the war. So why go on about Zundel, or Churchill’s perfidy?

While the BNP does still have some measure of co-operation with German nationalists, it recognises that the problems of the British must be solved by the British themselves; and that British nationalists cannot expend time and effort on solving Germany’s problems for it. (Indeed, German nationalist groups like the NPD never worry about the British, or French, or the Danes or any of Germany’s ‘European brothers’).

At the same time Australian nationalists must reject any appeals to or pacts with Zionism, which, as a cursory examination of the Jewish community ethnic media reveals, opposes, through various channels and representative organisations, white ethnocentrism and European ethnic nationalism in western nations.

Indeed in many cases, such organisations are strong proponents of multiculturalism, and helped craft the racial and vilification laws in Australia that limit freedom of speech and the battle of Australian nationalists in promoting the Australian identity.

As for being ‘philo-Semitic’, we simply advocate being ‘philo’ Australian only, and reject culture pandering to non Australian, non European movements.
Griffin justifies the BNP’s ideology on the grounds that its new-found ’sensibility’ and ‘respectability’ has been the cause of their electoral success.

Now, we unsure that they have been that successful, electorally: the council seats they have won make up less than 1% of the total. But we believe that the BNP’s policies can be justified on grounds of economy: their activists save more time, more effort, by tackling purely British problems which are part and parcel of recent British political history. Ernst Zundel, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, and all the other subjects which Western nationalists devote so much time and energy to, are not as relevant to the British cause as the large amount of time given to them.

On top of that, the nationalists who have competed in elections (and managed to win seats) have had some measure of success in stemming the immigration tide through legislation. One only has to look at Italy’s Northern League and the Danish People’s Party, which have managed to get anti-immigration laws passed. If centre-right liberal democratic parties have been forced to pass these laws (in order to satisfy their far right coalition partners), so much the better for the people of Italy and Denmark respectively.

What is being argued for here is not “pragmatism”, “revisionism”, “opportunism”
(which the likes of Griffin so often get accused of), but economy. This boils down to the principle, each nation for itself. Here, the Anglo-Saxons, Anglo-Celts and fellow Europeans who have become Australian are on their own and need not look for, or at least depend on, Britain, Germany, Russia for wholesale import of tactics or help.

Self sufficiency and tactics that will work in local conditions is what is needed.However: it is not the case that populism is the right way for nationalists to proceed forward. Populism, after all, means doing what the ordinary person, the average person, the man in the street (who is not a politician, or a journalist, or an intellectual) wants: populism aims at breaking down the distinction between the political class (who are separate from the people) and the people – that is, bringing politics to the
level of the people, or, more accurately, the little man. Which is why the rhetoric of the populist BNP resembles that of the tabloid Daily Mail, which shares the same concerns as the BNP on immigration, Islam, etc. Unfortunately, the BNP ideology is pitched at the same intellectual (and cultural) level of the Mail, going no further – and at times, it resembles that of a disgruntled, old unreformed Tory, always moaning about the EU, youth gangs, immigration, political correctness gone mad and the like…

The correct relationship between the Australian people – who still possess some spark of nationalism and racialism, despite years of multi-culti brainwashing and conditioning – and a nationalist party resembles that between the working-class and a communist party. The Leninist ideology is that a communist party is made up of people who are not of the working-class, but who instruct the working-class, direct it, lead it, educate it; the goal is to foment class consciousness in the workers, and eventually lead them in a revolutionary uprising against capitalism.

In the same way, a nationalist party needs to foment national consciousness in the Australian people, and lead them in a revolutionary uprising against the multi-cultist liberal democratic, capitalist system. That revolution may be drastic and immense or a sudden big electoral breakthrough – both unlikely in apathetic recreational Australia – or more likely a slow breakdown in people’s allegiance to the current system and realignment along new lines. An Australian rebirth if you like. The Australian people want race-based immigration policies, but don’t know how to about getting them: indeed, many
of them are too terrified by political correctness to stand up to Islam, Chinese immigration, Indian immigration, and the destruction of Australian culture and the Australian way of life.They need a nationalist organisation that will remove that fear, show them the way and lead them forward.

We nationalists should put trust in the people, and in Australia, the Australian people. The Cronulla riot, for incident, was a completely spontaneous expression of Australian nationalism and racialism – celebrating and defending the values of Australian culture against Lebanese immigration and Islam. The media tries to link the Cronulla riots to nationalists, but really, Cronulla happened without our help.

The incident resembles the spontaneous Chinese peasant risings against wealthy
landowners in rural China in the 1930s – which occurred any prompting or direction from the Chinese communist party, which, at the time, devoted its energies to fomenting a proletarian uprising in the cities (it took Mao Tse-Tung to see the revolutionary potential of the Chinese peasant movement).