by Timothy Walling
29489B2A00000578-0-image-a-6_1433226871784
I.

The past few months have seen a stunning turnabout in the fortunes of Australian nationalism. The Reclaim Australia movement and its offshoot, UPF (United Patriots Front) have single-handedly awoken nationalism in this country after years of moribund sleep. For the first time, Australian nationalists and patriotic-minded people from all walks of life are gathering together under the one banner and fighting a common cause – as part of an organic, SYRIZA and PODEMOS (Greek and Spanish neo-communist) style coalition.

They are taking it to the streets and are not deterred by the communist opposition which stands in its way. One elderly marcher on Sunday joked that she brought an umbrella to the march, not only to protect her from the rain, but also to ‘use as a weapon’ in case one of the communists got too fresh – as we know from the April 2015 Reclaim rally, the Left likes beating up old ladies.

On Sunday, May the 31st, the UPF group launched a demonstration against the Socialist Party (Australia), a Trotskyite communist party which has influence on the Richmond City Council. Led by Stephen Jolly, the Socialist Party (Australia) has been imported from the UK, and represents the Australian chapter of the Socialist Party of England and Wales (or, as it is known to friend and foe alike, SPEW). The SPEW is itself descended from the infamous Militant Tendency, a Trotskyite gang which took control of and bankrupted Liverpool City Council in the 1980s and heavily infiltrated the British Labour Party with the intention of steering that venerable liberal socialist organisation to the hard left.

The rally saw UPF and various other tendencies and groups – including Nationalist Alternative, the Q Society, the UAF (United Australian Front) – march together for the first time in formation against the communists. For this event – which was only intended to be a reconnaissance mission – the UPF organisers managed to field 70 people, or two platoons, made up of men and women, the young and the old. For such an event – which was essentially a minor mission – the turnout was unprecedented.

I will describe the events of the day in detail, but firstly there is a non-issue (which has become an issue) which must be dealt with. I am referring to the fact that men have turned up to the Reclaim and UPF rallies wearing swastika shirts like the ones below:

mickjaggerdestroytumblr_mlqb5klqX91r4lh02o1_500

I take the attitude: it is what is. I’m not shocked by it (any more than I’m shocked by anything the Sex Pistols did), and, while I’m not enamoured of it, I don’t take umbrage to it either. In Melbourne on Sunday after the rally, I saw a young woman wearing hot pink spandex tights, which were surely in bad taste and a crime against fashion, and a heavily bearded man wearing leopard pattern-print women’s leggings. At communist demonstrations and counter-demonstrations, communists have been known to wear hammer and sickle t-shirts. Deplorable? No, it’s merely part of the background; it’s what you get for living in Melbourne in the 21st century. It wasn’t long ago that, in this country, homosexuality was banned and conservative-minded people were shocked, shocked, by the presence of gay men and women in their neighbourhood. Now people accept it. They don’t love it, they don’t hate it, they don’t at all experience strong emotions regarding it. That’s because, in the 21st century, homosexuality, along with people wearing retro punk fashion (and let’s keep in mind that the ‘shocking’ punk movement fathered the ‘shocking’ skinhead movement), has become part of the social fabric.

Speaking of superannuated punk wannabes, take a look at this freak from the communist side at the Richmond rally:
ProtestorsInRichmond
Now, do I regard this as offensive? Yes, it would be offensive and attract attention – in the year 1976. These people want to provoke, and indeed, they would have been provocative – thirty to forty years ago. The punk movement and its offshoot, the skinhead movement, set out to shock. British baby boomers made up the majority in the skinhead and punk movements, and they sought to scandalise their WWII-veteran parents – by swearing on television and wearing swastikas and iron crosses. They were making a statement. All of it seem scandalous and risqué at the time, as did the movie Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975) with its depictions of transsexualism. But the times have moved on.

Many people out there, especially in the media, haven’t moved on. They still live in the 1970s, when transsexualism and punk culture was regarded as shocking and thrilling. ‘Look, a transsexual! Look, a man with a mohawk wearing an iron cross! What a scandal!’. Yet transsexuals, punks and skins have been around Melbourne for forty years. They form part of our cultural milieu.

II.

We’ve wasted enough time on that question; let’s return to the main topic – the rally.

I showed up to Richmond around Sunday lunchtime, not quite sure what to expect. I didn’t expect a good turnout – I thought there’d be only five people (including me) huddled around an Australian flag.

After making my way to Citizen’s Park and to the football oval, I saw a police car, with a wailing siren, come screeching to a halt in front of me. A police officer jumped out and began directing people away. I knew then that I had to hurry. I ran over to the oval, and saw the nationalists at one end of the park, the police in the middle and the communists at the other end. Concerned that the communists would reach the nationalists before I did, I slipped by them. At the time, some young people were holding a junior’s football match – football sirens often punctuate the footage taken of the event (see here – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39JpVVfq3eQ ). Many parents watching their children play were baffled by the events to follow.

I reached the other side of the park – Gleadell Street – where most of the rally was to take place. The police – including the cavalry – had turned out in force. Not wishing to encounter them, the communists on the other side of the oval withdrew and attempted to make their way into Gleadell Street from the bottom end (Bridge Road) but were stopped by a line of police. On Bridge Road, they pitched their camp and blocked off tram and car traffic. Fortunately for us, they weren’t large enough to envelop us from both the top and bottom of Gleadell Street. The top of Gleadell stood open, and further nationalists were turning up and reinforcing us. (The communists numbered around 200. They weren’t as large as they were on the day of the Reclaim rally, because many were attending a pro-Islam conference organised by Jolly and the Socialist Party (Australia). The UPF organisers knew that, which is why they decided to hold the rally on that day).

I introduced myself to some in the small crowd that was forming in Gleadell, and we formed an immediate bond, despite their being complete strangers to me. I waited – somewhat nervously – for the main party to arrive; I was afraid that they would be delayed or wouldn’t show up at all. Eventually, they did enter Gleadell Street, carrying Australian flags on their shoulders on long poles. One of the men in the crowd – Matthew James, who later spoke – became visibly moved by the sight, and rushed forward to greet them.

Then the speeches began. The organisers held the rally in the middle of the road. We listened to a number of speeches in quick succession. Shermon’s speech was interrupted by a heckler – a Pakistani woman (without a hijab or any other Sharia garment). Her husband tried to hustle her away into her car as she rebuked Shermon and told him not to ‘generalise about Muslims’ and informed him that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’.

Shermon retorted that Muslims in Australia never march ‘in the thousands’ whenever a terrorist atrocity like the Hebdo massacre or the Lindt café siege occurs – they never protest, never speak up and are never held responsible. As the heckler left the scene and drove off, I noticed that she, and not her husband, was behind the wheel – something that wouldn’t have been allowed in Saudi Arabia.

We listened to some excellent speeches at the rally, but to me, the best orator was Chris Shortis. He brought along his own megaphone and delivered a fiery speech – with great wit and invective. He possessed impeccable timing and delivery, and even the media present, who were filming and photographing the whole thing, were chortling. Mr Shortis reminded me of some old Labor Party orator from a hundred years ago; we hadn’t seen the likes of him in this country for some time.

Finally the orders came out: we were to march. Our organiser told us sternly that, unlike during the Reclaim rally in April, the women and the elderly were to be shielded from the communists. The young were to stand in the front line and take any blows; women and elderly were to march in the back.

We formed up – in the largest march formation in my fifteen years of nationalist activism – and, with the flags on our shoulders, strode towards the communist in Bridge Road and chanted, ‘Aussie Aussie Aussie! Oi oi oi!’. I felt at one with the marchers – part of something larger than myself.

As we approached Bridge Road, and walked through a gap in the police line, the communists realised that we were there. Several of them ran alongside the column, their faces contorted with an incredible fury and hatred, and made obscene gestures. I waved to them cheerily and was reprimanded by a police officer: ‘Don’t wave at them, get back in line’. Near to the steps of Richmond Town Hall, all hell broke loose. The communists – for one moment – formed a human wall climbing over the top of the police line; the police desperately tried to link arms and re-establish the line, and for a few moments, looked as though they’d fail. Then further police rushed forward to fill the gap, and then the cavalry – always the deciding factor in these skirmishes – trotted over and inserted themselves between us and the communists. A small detachment on our side – including, I think, Shermon – were cut off at the front and attacked by the communists and, to my knowledge, entered the town hall, looped around and walked through Gleadell Street and then rejoined the main group.

I couldn’t help be reminded of a scene in the pilot of the TV series Rome (2005), when the Roman legionaries faced off against Gaulish attackers: it was close quarters combat of the closest kind. We were, for a few moments, face to face with those who literally wanted to kill us.

After that episode, things became anticlimactic and we settled in for a long siege, which to seemed to me to last for hours (but in fact only lasted for half an hour). The communists screamed and chanted their hate slogans, and the indefatigable Mr Shortis kept up a constant stream of counter-invective on his megaphone. I thought his voice his voice would give out at one point, but no, it became stronger, and more angry, as he went along.

Had a miracle occurred, and had the communists broken through the now solid police line, they would have found several tall and sturdy lads to confront them. Unlike during the Reclaim rally, the effectives – that is, the men capable of combat – were concentrated in the one spot. They were determined, too, to fight. For all their bravado, the communists – who consisted of students, freaks (such as the retro punk above) and old commies – didn’t look like a formidable fighting force; many of the students seemed soft and pasty.

Conspicuous by their absence (again) were the jihadi Muslims. Had they shown up with an ISIS-type truck bomb (like the one driven by the Melbourne resident and ISIS recruit Jake Bilardi), it would have all been over for us.

The UPF organisers stuck to the letter of their original plan. I had been assured in a Nationalist Alternative planning meeting a week beforehand that Sunday’s rally would be a reconnaissance mission only; forces of small size would make contact with the enemy and then bug out. Now, after half an hour by the Richmond Town Hall, things went according to script and the nationalist forces made their exit. We threaded out of the communist and police encirclement through a side lane on the right of the Town Hall and made our way back to Gleadell Street. Another military analogy came to mind: the daring escape of the Ukrainian army from the Russians through a farm field in Debaltsev in February 2015:
B-KEErpCcAAwM2b

There, in Gleadell Street, we said our goodbyes and promised to meet up again at the Reclaim rally in July.

III.

Now I will make an assessment of the event and explain – to critics – the tactics and strategy of Reclaim / UPF.
Reclaim and Shermon follow the same thinking (although they don’t know it) of the American communist theorist Hal Draper: an activist has to make the building of a mass movement his top priority and get things moving – get the ball rolling, at any cost. People need to show up and get involved. Politics involves discussion of theory and ideas, but it also involves bringing people together – in a meeting hall, at a march… The nationalist needs to set himself the goal of breaking nationalists out of their isolation from one another and getting them moving towards a common effort.
We need to work with what we’ve got: this is another of Draper’s (and Shermon’s) theses. We need to paper over any ideological splits and divisions and put to one side any antipathy we feel to one another’s point of view. We can’t turn our noses up at one another. In order to build a mass movement, we need to work with the material we have and play the cards we’ve been dealt. To put it another way: we require plenty of soldiers, as many effectives, as possible, but snobbery, sectarianism and our natural tendency towards self-imposed isolation stand in the way of recruitment. We ought to take the pragmatic approach of many armies in periods of prolonged war. As one elderly former British RAF servicemen (who served in WWII) once told me, ‘Back in those days, the RAF didn’t care who the recruit was – so long as his body was warm [i.e., he wasn’t dead]’.

Unlike Draper, Shermon doesn’t take his inspiration from Marxism, but from anti-Islam. Islam provides us with the casus belli, because many Australians (and many people around the world) are united  in opposition to the values of Islam and Sharia – even certain of the communists oppose Sharia. Islam brings disparate Australian nationalists and patriots together. It’s quite true that there are many evils in the world today and that each of these should be protested against. Many nationalists understand that Islam isn’t the sole problem. But only Islam, it seems, will get the requisite number of Australians out there marching on the streets.
Combine the two theses – the necessity of ‘getting active’, and anti-Islam – and we arrive at what Shermon calls the ‘wash cycle’. That is, you repeat the same line over and over in social media: ‘Islam, Islam, Islam – come to the rally; Islam, Islam, Islam – come to the rally’… We build the momentum, over and over. Many nationalists have never participated in any group activity, any political activism, before Reclaim; Mr Shortis is one of them. The rallies awaken the dormant nationalists out there in the Australian community from their political sleep and give them a voice, for the first time.

An outside observer may ask: ‘Why pay attention to communism?’. As Trotsky once said, you may ignore war, but war won’t ignore you. Anyone who has been on the nationalist scene in Australia knows that whenever any Far Right and nationalist group tries to hold a rally or party meeting in broad daylight, the communists will step in and try to break it up – they will use extra-parliamentary action and violence. Conservatives who come to nationalism for the first time are completely unprepared, psychologically and physically, for the furious and relentless communist assault on their civil liberties and democratic rights. Political establishment parties such as Liberal and Labor can hold party meetings and conference in peace and safety, but those on the fringe, on the Far Right, cannot. The communists see those on the Far Right as fair game who can be picked off at will.
As to why they do this, well, one must understand the fundamentals of communist cults and gangs such as Socialist Party (Australia), Socialist Alternative, Socialist Alliance and the Spartacist League. All social groupings need to engage in constant activity in order to survive as a grouping, otherwise they fall apart. A skydiving club must practice frequent skydiving, a stamp-collecting group must meet on a regular basis to discuss the collection of stamps… If they don’t do this, they cease to exist. A communist group, whether it be Maoist, Stalinist, Trotskyist, Hoxhaist, whatever, doesn’t differ at all in that respect. What does make a communist group distinct is that it must constantly engage in acts of politicised violence. Breaking the law, trampling on the constitutionally-ordained rights and liberties and flouting the spirit of liberal democracy imbues in the communist the spirit of violating taboos and defiance of the law and state.

Communists seek to subvert, corrupt and break apart the traditional constitutional order. Once this goal has been achieved, they can go on to seize political power. We should consider all communist law-breaking as a means to this end. Criminal activity serves to educate communists; it teaches them that the law can twisted, subverted and then overturned. The existing state of things – the existing constitutional order – has not been ordained by God; it can easily be toppled. ‘Smashing’ the state brings about ‘progress’ and ‘change’ – that is, the assumption of political power by the communist party and the formation of a one-party state.

Trotsky taught all this in his writings on the ‘vanguard’ and ‘combat’ party. But, in trying to implement Trotsky’s creed, the ‘combat parties’ such as Socialist Alternative and Socialist Alliance run into a number of problems. For one thing, mainstream political parties and venerable institutions such as the Labor Party or the Liberal Party or the Australian Chamber of Commerce present them with a hard target. The enemy here – the political establishment standing in the way of the Bolshevik seizure of power – has fortified himself; he can’t be overrun easily; he can’t be ‘smashed’. Far better then, to turn one’s attentions away from the big fish and towards the small fry – the miniscule and under-funded parties on the Far Right. It’s on these that the communists can practise their political demolition tactics.

All parties and all political formations possess equal rights in our liberal democracy, or so we are told. Even a fringe, alternative party or grouping such as One Nation or Reclaim Australia should have the right to hold meetings in public, demonstrate, run in elections… But if a communist outfit can deny such a grouping its rights, and use a very illiberal and unconstitutional dosage of coercion and violence, then the liberal order is thereby cast into ill repute; the liberal democracy shows itself to be unable to protect even the smaller and weaker participants.

This goes some way to explaining, I think, why the communists come down so hard on the Far Right political formations and why those formations never seem to get off the ground. The Far Right in Australia has been held back, for decades, for many reasons but the chief among these is the fact that it can’t operate in daylight like all the other groups on the political spectrum. The Far Right can’t hold a public meeting and interact with members of the electorate like the mainstream center-left and center-right parties or even the far-left parties; it can’t provide, in meeting halls and open-air rallies, a ‘safe space’ for adult males, let alone women, children, babies.

This state of affairs has persisted in Australian political life for nearly fifty years. A patriotic and nationalist grouping appears, gains momentum, gathers support in the community, organises, holds rallies and runs in elections – and then finds its offices firebombed by the communists. Some hardy individuals in that grouping continue to struggle past this point; most of them back down and eventually melt away and return to the anonymity of apolitical life; the communists move on to their next victim. Really, as a movement, the Far Right should concentrate all its resources and manpower on surgically eliminating the communist obstacle to its progress, but until now, few have done that – few even recognise the necessity of a task. The nationalist activist needs to understand Australian politics as a multi-level computer game. In order to get through to and defeat the opponent Mr Islam, one must get through to Mr Trotsky. Only then can one progress to the next level.

It’s too soon to say, of course, that the political field will be open to patriots and nationalists, and that they’ll have an easy time of it, once the communist tumour has been removed. I myself am of that conviction, but future events will prove me wrong or right. Certainly we need to address this scandal in our national and political life – the existence of criminal gangs operating under the camouflage of socialist politics – and once we make ordinary Australians aware of it, we’ll find that very little tangible opposition to our ideas exists out there in the community.

Tagged with:
 

4 Responses to Nationalists Come Alive: The Richmond Anti-Communist Rally of May 2015

  1. Jennifer says:

    It’s a good feeling seeing Aussie nationalists getting fired up! All a communist knows how to do is tear down and destroy. They’re incapable of building something great and noble. Nationalist men create strong civilizations, love their women and protect their children.

  2. JoeQCitizen says:

    Hi Tim. In response to your carefully written and well recorded information above, I have a number of observations.
    Any movement that is crushed in infancy by it’s well organized opposition must work ‘smart’ rather than loud. I recall the pattern of the NS in Germany, with all the bad ideas they had, their evil, their lamentable cruelty.. putting that aside for a moment.. they did have ONE thing that worked for them in terms of building a movement. This principle applies to any movement.
    That ONE thing needs to be viewed against a backdrop of their disappointments, imagine a motley band of political wanna-be’s in a dingy basement believing they had the solutions for the nations ills…and while they are meeting, outside in the streets of Munich, marches of 100,000 Communists were screaming their slogans and attacking any and all who opposed them.
    HOW… could such a tiny embronic group ever become what they clearly did become in such a short number of years and against such stupendous opposition?

    Consider also how they would have felt when they were all fired up, incandescent with enthusiasm, ready to climb the highest mountain, navigate the stormiest ocean and knock down the thickest wall, and with those emotions they printed 1000 leaflets which they posted on all the public places they thought would gather attention and support… those posters advertized their next meeting. There were 7 people on the committee..and just 7 people turned up to that well advertized meeting.
    If disappointment was dynamite, I think they had enough to demolish the harbor bridge!
    SO…..what did they do next?

    1/ They firstly established the roles of their members. with ‘uknowho’ as their key functionary/speaker (as yet unproven in large situations)
    2/ They settled and determined their symbols, making sure they were attractive and colorful.
    3/ (this is a very important point) They build awareness over a period of a couple of years, having regular meetings, but never having any more than 250 people attend.
    THEN…they rented a large hall with a capacity of around 2000
    AND they paid for a decent advert in a major newspaper…….
    again they wondered if things had changed from their first dismal meeting…. with bated breath they asked themselves “Will anyone turn up?” “Will it be more than our usual meetings?”
    4/ To their surprise it was a pack-out and UknowWho made a speech of such passion (think Chris Shortis as one example) that many of the communists who had come to the meeting to break it up were ‘converted’, and the unconverted ones who did try to wreck it…..were themselves wrecked!

    That was the process leading to the point of no return where they had to keep that momentum going or fade into obscurity. The rest is history.

    MY POINT. I’ve flagged this idea with a few people casually, but I want to raise it more formally in due course. It is imperative to make our presence and program known far and wide, but…. I believe we need to ‘test market’ it as all successful companies do with ‘focus groups’ which in this case would be a specific target area where ‘method’ is tested and impact is measured.

    AT THIS POINT… I won’t divulge any more about the ‘how’ of it, for that you should contact me which you can do via the email attached to this comment, that you can see but others cannot. I was present at the meeting last night, (as were NDP ladsl) and a few others will know me from that. I can verify my identity by phone if you write via email.

  3. Peter C says:

    Hey how do i get news letter?
    Pete

  4. admin says:

    You’ve been added.

Leave a Reply

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

Please enter CAPTCHA *