Nation: a distinct body of people united by common descent, ancestry, ethnicity and history as well as secondary characteristics like culture, spirituality and language.

Nations are naturally occurring, as we are born into our respective families, ethnicities and race. This forms the basis of our identity and is an essential quality inherent to all humans.

Nations are the foundation stone of the rich diversity found in the human species.


Nations reflect nature itself and are a basic human condition, hence they pre exist later inventions or socially constructed artificial concepts like ‘ideology’ and governments (whose sole role should be to serve its nation).

Nationalism is simply the recognition of the primary fundamental natural rights all peoples have the right to:

• to existence (life)

• to self determination/independence (liberty)

• a sovereign homeland and to

• maintain their identity.

To oppose Nationalism is to oppose humanity and what makes us who we are, regardless of what identity may be thrust upon us. Nationalism stands for a diverse world, of difference over sameness. It is the antithesis of ideologies that are inherently imperialist, universalist and supremacist, that seek mastery and control over others and to impose one dogma (one truth) across all humanity. The outcome of this is a bland, boring, totalitarian, coercive world in which everyone is the same culture, the same race, the same religion, language and political and economic system. A blended assimilated grey mass of mere consumers of corporate goods for whom difference is only Nike or Adidas, where people are stripped of their culture and identity in all but the most superficial terms.

Existence: All nations and races of the world have the right to continued existence and to live and survive without having to justify that existence to anyone. It is this inalienable right from which all other national rights spring from.

Self Determination/Independence/Liberty: This is the right of all peoples to self govern (government for the people and by the people). To arrange and structure their society according to their own principles, morals and values free from outside interference, pressure or harassment. This right necessitates, firstly, zero slavery or supremacy, that no race should be a slave or servant to another or dominate/have mastery over another and, secondly, that a people have the right to remain the numerical majority in their homeland and free from population policy which may risk their future as an identifiable peoples. Self determination cannot exist if a nation is not free or is unable to control their own destiny via methods such as elections because they are demographically dispossessed (outnumbered, outvoted) in their own homeland by large-scale influx of other peoples.

Sovereign Homeland: A distinct land in a defined territory with secure borders in which a people can live and have complete undisputed control of their own affairs without unwanted occupation, domination or interference.

Maintain their identity: Identity = Latin word ‘idem’ or ‘identitas’ meaning the ‘quality of being identical’. It is a set of characteristics shared by members of a nation that also differentiate one nation from another. A people has the right to ensure that its nation’s distinct identity, first grounded in a shared ethnicity, can be preserved. Any attempts, whether direct and immediate (outright killing) or indirect and gradual including but not limited to policies, plans or conditions of life , that result, in whole or in part, in assimilating, blending out, demographically displacing (outnumber) a race of people is genocide and destruction of identity. 

What is Nationalism?

The above links to an A4 flyer in PDF format, titled “What is Nationalism” which briefly details that nationalist philosophy which drives the movement and  We encourage people to distribute this to those who have questions about nationalism, or misconceptions about what it is really about.


10 Responses to What is Nationalism?

  1. Chazz Wozza says:

    Hi guys. Using an obvious throwaway email address.

    I feel it’s only natural to seek some policies from alternative parties in this current political climate.

    I’m not interested in waving flags or shouting at socialists. I live in Bendigo and I seek some people to share some similar ideas about the future of this great town.

    Anyway, we should keep in touch.


    Mr C Woz

  2. Sans says:

    I agree with a lot of whats said on here, especially how multiculturalism was a construct by multinationals to ensure that labour costs could be kept low in western countries but I would counsel anyone on the correct side of the political fence (incl the alternative right) to make it very clear that Jews are kept inside our tent. Not liable or blamed for conspiracies, but engaged with (especially the right leaning groups) and brought alongside us in this revolution against loony lefties and political correct BS. They have a lot to offer in the new political landscape.

  3. admin says:

    Sans, you will find that Jews tend towards Leftist politics, in particular in Western countries. Opposition to Islam is seen, but this is more out of self interest, and limited solely to stopping Islamic fundamentalism.

    While it is seen as a noble sentiment among the alt-Right to try to make some visible outreach towards Jewish communities, ultimately experience shows that when it comes to protecting our racial self interest (as opposed to generic modern values), we’re alone in that regard.

    It is one thing to oppose Political Correctness (which we do), but ultimately, we’re Nationalists and as such, we seek our nations, for our culture and our people.

  4. Shaun Lunn says:

    I am a National Socialist and I also agree with everything that has been previously mentioned. I don’t necessarily believe that Zionists were behind the gradual downfall of Western Civilization but I do know that corporate bankers and powerful families were behind it, whether they were Jewish or not is a different story.
    All I want is Australia to re-adopt the White Australia policy and progress the nation towards the future (whilst simultaneously keeping with past traditions and cultures)… that’s all! Every time I try to explain this every one goes on to say that I am a “racist bigot” and a “white supremacist”.
    I don’t know if the Nationalist Alternative supports National Socialism or not but we are brothers in arms. We fight for the same land, we fight for the same race, we fight for the same culture and we fight for the same people!
    It’s time for us nationalists to fight under the same banner and put our petty differences aside before it is too late.
    Hail Victory!

  5. Reg says:

    A few thoughts. Nations are not “naturally occurring”, but are as artificial as the multiculturalism you despise. You seem to forget that Australia was filled with the people Britain did not want. No common heritage there, or common values or spirituality, or any other nonsense made up stuff. Nations were created to serve the interests of an elite, which is why the constant emphasis on patriotism and obedience to it. You want a place where you feel safe in your ignorance and bigotry, and where you are not challenged by difference. A kind of hell for most people. Ed: /snipped

  6. admin says:

    Have a look over our other articles. We clearly distinguish between a nation and a state. You are taking the term nation to be synonymous with state, which then misses the difference between the two.

    Our Nationalism is to people who identify with a common heritage and culture, and these groupings most definitely DO exist. The creation of an identifiable people, of a particular ethnic and cultural identity is the natural outcome of humanity, and is prevalent not just in the West but anywhere where people have been.

    Does the state serve the people, represent their interests? Perhaps not, and there is a good case to be made that the Australian government doesn’t serve our interests, but the interests of the elite.

    But our goal isn’t to protect the government, to legitimize the current power structure or to support all Australian foreign policy. Nor are we statists. Our goal is people-centered, as all Nationalism should be.

    Civic Nationalism on the other hand, does put identification with the state, allegiance to the state first, and this type of Nationalism, if you can really call it Nationalism, we reject.

  7. Marc says:

    I’m a bit concerned that your philosophy in respect of multiculturalism and nationality is a bit ‘black and white’ – no pun intended. I was born here, I am white, and I have, by way of coincidence, married a white. Anglo-Australian woman. I support the idea of a Western democracy, and basic Western liberal values. However, my father was born in Singapore to French-Singaporean parents, and emigrated here when he was 8 years old. Should he have been excluded from emigrating to Australia? He supports Western democracy and basic Western liberal values. Why would we discriminate against people simply based on their race and religion? Isn’t that kind of generalisation going to lead to absurd results? There are many Australians that I know who were born (or whose parents were born) overseas but who subscribe to a very ‘Australian’ way of life… I think there needs to be a bit more nuance to this discussion, lest it descend into ‘white supremacy’…

  8. admin says:

    There is a very large grey area between stopping all immigration completely, and systematically and deliberately pursuing a policy of mass immigration and diversification.

    First and foremost, our immigration policy has to consider the makeup of those who created and populate the nation, and not be used as a means of smashing that nation demographically.

    The problem is that pro-immigration people take an all-or-nothing stance, that is, unless you admit anyone and everyone, you’re racist and xenophobic.

    We already have policies which restrict who can come in based on skills and other attributes. It is already considered acceptable to deny someone entry because of their skills and education, because our policy is geared towards ensuring immigration is good for US. We ALREADY discriminate based on our needs, and no one really has a problem with this. It is because of Politically Correct ideology that extending that criteria beyond the economic sphere to the national sphere is considered verboten. We don’t subscribe to that.

    We simply believe that these criteria have to extend to cultural and ethnic factors as well, that is, we should also have criteria to make sure that our immigration program is sensitive to the cultural and racial sensitivities of people here. We have every right to do so.

    Ultimately, immigration is about US. We reject the idea that a nation somehow owes it to the world, and that we have an obligation to anyone who expresses an interest, as if we owe them.

    There are hundreds of millions of people who could potentially be just like your Grandfather, are we obligated to accept them all, because they like the West?

    As I said, exactly how that policy may look, whether your father would have been allowed is a matter of debate, however the current situation is unacceptable.

  9. Jim Grant says:

    I believe that our current immigration rate of 200,000 people per year is both culturally and ecologically ridiculous, before we even get to the social and economic impact. I believe we can assimilate 50,000 immigrants per year- this would be inclusive of a humanitarian refugee contingent. We would need to screen these immigrants to find those that have the most similar cultural values to our own.

Leave a Reply

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

Please enter CAPTCHA *