I often discuss nationalist politics with non-nationalist friends. Usually, it transpires that they are in agreement with me on certain issues which we nationalists are concerned with. But, while they do end up agreeing with me, they often note that nationalism seems to lack a centre; that it does not seem to be a coherent ideology moving towards a fixed goal. While I am reluctant to admit it in front of them, I am forced to concede that they are right. The reason is, I think, as follows. Nationalists are often categorised as ‘extreme’; but, while I agree that nationalist must be, in the end, extreme, there is a difference between the extremist ideology of today’s nationalism and the extremist ideologies of the recent past – fascism and communism, for a start. The latter ideologies moved towards a goal, and subordinated all their activities towards that goal. In the case of fascism, the brownshirts and blackshirts aimed at little more than bringing their Führer or their Duce to power, through a combination of legal and extra-parliamentary means; for the communists, to bring achieve the dictatorship of the proletariat, again through the same combination. Both had clear-cut political goals. But the nationalists of today are moving towards – what, exactly?
more…

As most readers know, the Holocaust revisionist Ernst Zündel was sentenced to five years jail by a German court – after being kidnapped, from America to Canada, held for two years without charge in a Canadian prison (under anti-terrorist legislation) and then deported to Germany, where he was charged with multiple counts of Holocaust denial. It is unknown, at this point, if the court will take into account time served. Predictably, the German media were hostile to Zündel and his defence team, but worried if the severity of the sentence – and the fact that freedom of speech on the Holocaust is illegal in Germany and around 30 states in Europe – would turn the ‘Neo-Nazi’ Zündel into a martyr.
more…

The great Austrian political thinker and champion of free-market liberalism, F.A. von Hayek, made a famous distinction in his work between ‘values’ and ‘merits’, summed up in his famous slogan ‘There is no value to society’. (Margaret Thatcher was attempting to convey the same idea when she made her famous assertion that ‘There is no such thing as society’). Hayek argued that, when we assess the worth of a man’s labours – in providing us with symphonies, or paintings, or glass etchings, or plumbing, or shoes, or whatever – the marketplace provides us with the only accurate assessment of their value. The market, which is made up of individual buyers and sellers, assesses the value of, say, a pair of shoes at $90. If buyers disagree with the price charged by the shoe seller, the latter must drop his price, and sell at a discount, if he wants to move his product off the shelves. If he refuses to budge on prices, or if he is underestimated the demand for his product (mistakenly believing that there is a large demand for his shoes, when there wasn’t) he goes out of business.
more…

This is an article about German nationalism – specifically, about the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD) – and what other nationalists outside Germany can learn from the NPD’s practical approach to politics and creating a ‘parallel society’.
more…

‘…National Socialism is not merely a political and economic upheaval but a social revolution as well. To a very large extent it has brought the lower middle class into power. To be sure, one finds quite a few aristocrats and intellectuals in the Nazi regime. Furthermore, there are plenty of Nazis sprung from peasant or worker stock, some of whom, like the Weimar Gauleiter, would rise in any society. Yet the lower middle class seems to be inordinately in evidence. One does not notice this so much in Berlin, because the ablest elements in the Party tend to gravitate to the seat of power. In the provinces the Spiessbürgertum comes much more to the front.’
more…

I.

Recently, the New Right Australia-New Zealand blog published a lengthy criticism of Alain De Benoist’s ideas by Michael O’Meara. I thought it would be opportune to write a similar piece, one which will look at the possibility of applying De Benoist’s ideas to the Australian nationalist scene and the wider political spectrum in general.

Anyone who has read De Benoist books and articles will know that one of the advantages of De Benoist’s work is that it is purely social political. That is, it is political philosophy – it discusses the State and how it works, or how it should work. It is not restricted to rantings against Jews, Muslims and Negroes, or other immigrant groups foreign to the Western societies. This is a refreshing change – to read a nationalist who is an intellectual first and foremost, like Evola or Yockey, and who is not simply some person writing emotive diatribes against people of foreign races.
more…

The subject of race and racial difference is something a lot of people avoid. Some consider it bad manners or impolite. Others say it is offensive and discussion of it should be suppressed by legislation. One spin-off from that category goes as far as to deny the existence of races, claiming any number of religious, philosophic, scientific (sic) and moral theories in support of the proposition. Then, some fellow travellers might conclude that races exist in some narrow, almost meaningless sort of way and may conclude that, for ‘human-universalist’ reasons – they should be abolished.

Of course, there are people – amongst all races – who believe their particular origin renders them wise or good or superior. The fact this class of human beings exists might condition the attitudes of those who prefer the matter not bedevil us further. Sometimes this group is downright offensive and some amongst them have a genocidalist frame of mind. However, that does not make the existence of races as such – invalid. The old Chinese who spoke of others as barbarian or the Hitlerite who took refuge in false aesthetics or the Zionist Jew who believes some peoples are lesser entities are used as an excuse by many to refuse to entertain any theory of race that proclaims a virtue in their existence.

I am not afraid to discuss race. Because I am prepared to accept races exist, I must therefore say: “Where did they come from? What does it mean?”
more…