Now, as a German, my criticism regarding the original article and the reply is that the neither of them actually quantify what the so-called ‘Nazis’ in today’s modern German nationalists movements are.

It is rather easy, and lets be honest a desired effect by the system, to label a group or people with a word that is designed to evoke fear and hatred within the general political uneducated population. However, for people and groups that claim to be politically on the nationalistic side (what ever that means) and without hesitation use the same language and phrases as the totalitarian Antifa and the liberal democratic media, one has to wonder where they are coming from.

The words ‘Nazi’, Racist’, ect are just ….. words. Their intentions is, by the system, to label people and groups as undesirables, white trash, etc. and generally stop the ‘democratic’ community listening what ‘these undesirables’ have to say, kind of a ‘liberal democratic apartheid’.

I really don’t want to comment too much on both articles. I don’t believe that the suggestions and methods proposed by the article posted by the Nationalist Alternative are a solution to the problem that exists in the so called ‘nationalistic’ parties in Europe. Let’s be honest, most political nationalistic parties are only interested in political power and will bend whatever way it takes so they will get elected. Just look at the BNP in England, and what have they achieved since they are in the EU parliament?

You might knock the NPD as much as they want, but they are one of the longest surviving nationalistic parties in Europe. And if they have ‘Nazis’ in their midst, so who really cares? ‘Nazis’ are human beings too and part of our society; they have their believes, they work, pay taxes and drink tea. Some of them are even vegetarians and do not like German folk music.

As long as political groups and parties exclude people, because of whatever they are labeled to be, from the political processes of a society, the system nothing but a totalitarian entity – whatever they call themselves. As long as labels are more important in today’s political environment then discussing political and social issues without any prejudice, we are failed to go down the path that the system sets for us.

And if one thinks that today’s western liberal democracy is a fair and honest form of government, that is like claiming the catholic church a revolutionary anti-dogmatic society. But then some people are feeling rather warm and cozy in a dogmatic nightmare of self destruction……

Welf Herfurth

The origin of the terms (“left” and “right”) was in a specific political and historical context, and an examination of what they meant at their birth can provide us with both the type of character which tends to favour either one and – more importantly – the substantive content which they were meant to embody.

These terms arose in relation to the French Revolution, when in the Legislative Assembly of 1791 supporters of the ancien régime sat on the right side of the chamber, while its opponents sat on the left side. The right side represented the side in power at the time, and the left side that of the opposition who were not in power and want to change the state of affairs (in this case, to take revolutionary control).

The “right” or the “conservatives” originally stood for “Throne and Altar” – preserving the political and religious status quo AT THAT TIME.

The “left” or the “progressives” originally stood for “popular sovereignty” and the separation of Church and State in advocating the “universal rights of man” of the French Revolution it was opposed to the status quo AT THAT TIME.

The battle between left and right (understood in their original sense) was won by the left. The French Republics prevailed over the old aristocracy; the British reformed the basis of their constitution in favour of popular sovereignty; Russia catastrophically underwent a revolution of the extreme left; and Germany lost its own ancien régime to the Weimar Republic – specifically based on liberal principles; (and the US was founded on principles compatible with those of the French Revolution[1]).

The situation for us in the contemporary West has only worsened since these events. The outcome of WWII was a disaster precisely for the allies, as it led to the attempt at a proto-world government based on left principles: the United Nations (UN). It was able to achieve this because the US at that time saw the inherent compatibility of the UN’s aims with the advancement of its own geo-political objective: bankrupting the British and ensuring their own ascension to global dominance (at least over the West) at the British Empire’s expense. The ostensible goal of WWII was the removal of a tyranny, but the actual result was in addition the foundation of one on a permanent basis: the war was started to avert a disequilibrium between the various European powers, but it ended up with erecting an unelected and unrepresentative global surveillance and control system. (The UN drafted its charter deliberately to exclude withdrawal from it, thereby admitting that it is a tyranny since it has knowingly removed any possible basis of consent, which requires freedom to choose to be a part or not to be part of any group). The foundation of this tyranny was temporarily obscured by the more massive confrontation between the victors of WWII – the United States of America (USA) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). The UN has a veneer of consent because the Western Powers – or rather, the Allies – had complicity in its founding. But the UN gained support precisely by obscuring its intentions and withholding decisive information about itself, which otherwise would have prevented it gaining support, at least in the Western world.

It follows as a consequence of this that those who have won (the “left”) are today’s supporters of the status quo since it now embodies their own principles, so that they are the true right in today’s terms and hence are fundamentally conservative towards the status quo. Conversely, those who have lost the battle over our own societies (the “right”) are today’s “progressives” who want fundamental change for the better, so that they are the true left in today’s terms.

The perverse effect of this perverse situation is that people are often misled about what is in their true interest: the status quo is the contemporary right’s problem, conservatism is a feeling which inclines one to preserve what exists, but what exists is precisely the right’s problem.

So what is the situation for the right once the left have won? To be conservative in that situation (which is our own) is to fight for and preserve the left’s and not the right’s substantive principles. To try to work within the system now is to operate contrary to the right’s principles. In order to get back to the substantive, non-ephemeral core of the right’s political objectives requires the adoption – as means, not ends – of the left’s own originally revolutionary approach (the Establishment/the Left can hardly complain on that matter, since it won via this very same method). Why should the intellectually derelict structures of the left stay intact and be defended by those of us who are in principle opposed to them? Why should loyalty to these retrograde ideas and institutions be expected of those whose own positions are founded on diametrically opposed ideas? Too long has the left relied for the maintenance of its own structures on the compliant loyalty of those against whose interests those very structures embody, and it even now still insists on relying for support on those whose principles are in direct opposition to the left.

The left relies on the tacit support of contemporary conservatives to maintain its rule. But conservatives need to be made conscious of the fact that their own interests are not, have not and never will be served by their own compliance and submission to leftist dictates and dogma.
Often conservative voters are bewildered that – having voted for a conservative government (even in landslide elections) – the conservative party elected fails to implement “conservative” policy. They are stunned and become disgruntled that the legislation and policy of the previously elected left party has neither been repealed nor often even ameliorated: it is preserved and thereby conserved and incorporated into prescriptive right and becomes part of the status quo.
It is in the left’s interest for voters to be unreflectively non-revolutionarily conservative. For the left merely has only to get into power from time to time to ratchet up its preferred political positions in order to achieve its full programme. They can rely on conservatives never to revoke, invalidate, or repeal their fundamental platform.

The left is quite aware about what it is doing and the effect of what it demands. This is why the media (most notably the ABC, but not confined to that political propaganda broadcasting agency) and the left wing parties insisted upon the (conservative) Coalition parties placing their preferences to Pauline Hanson’s party last on the ballot paper, thereby favouring the election of the left’s own politically preferred candidates – even though the allocation of party preferences was entirely an internal matter for the Coalition parties and that the left would never bow to pressure from parties of the right to favour a candidate against its own political interests. (This is not an endorsement of Pauline Hanson, merely a critique of the extremes that the left – which includes the media – will go to when there is a perceived threat to leftwing parties and principles). The compliance of the conservatives in this case was a victory for the left at the conservatives’ own hands. A tougher response admittedly risked losing an election, but it would have strengthened the right in two ways: firstly, by the cleansing of the party of leftist elements (who would have left voluntarily) and by placing a non-leftist position within the frame of legitimate political discussion within the media (making the leftist positions contestable again publicly).

The prominence of “hate-speech” legislation and – insidiously – the expansion of it to include “holocaust denial” is entirely a product of the Left. It is unchallenged by the media or by any mainstream political party, despite being an obvious infringement of democratic norms such as freedom of thought and speech. “Hate speech” is little examined by those on the right and by conservatives and it is worth our while to examine it because it is entrenched politically and academically.

Basically, it is the way the Left can enforce its own political dogma without being in office: the criminalisation of all political thought which is against its own agenda or view of the world. “Hate speech” laws and their like are also a good example of the left achieving its ends without challenge from conservatives.

What is “hate speech”? “Hate-speech” is usually just anger speech. Anger is a normal part of what makes a human being a human being – it comes to the fore politically as the expression of condemnation of injustice. The sight of injustice being done gives rise (in normal individuals, at least) to anger: the desire to punish the wrong-doers. People unable to restrain their sense of injustice may well lash out and act violently, but the inherent injustice that the feeling of anger expresses exists independently whether someone controls their feelings or does not. So, there are two types of anger-speech – only one is reprehensible, while the other is not. “Hate” speech legislation should not infringe upon the freedom of speech – certainly of political speech – which we are presumed to enjoy in free societies. The infringement constitutes an injustice against all members of society even when “thought criminals” are not prosecuted since it acts as a threat of punishment in an area where such a threat of punishment should not be tolerated. “Hate” speech legislation is used to mask the injustice it perpetuates by conflating the two types of anger-speech, which are merely two different ways of responding to injustice, as both being criminal. Here “hate” speech legislation infringes on the Freedom of Thought and Freedom of Speech upon which our liberal democracies rely to sustain their own case for legitimacy.

The UN and leftist principles cannot preserve our societies or look after their interests – this is not accidental or incidental, it was apparent from the very beginning of the UN. The Australian diplomat, writer and war veteran, Sir Walter Russell Crocker KBE, provides insight to the internal workings of the UN being a witness to it from within:

“It came as a shock to the British, not least to the British Labour government’s minister for Colonial Affairs, Creech-Jones… to discover that the British were regarded as an enemy, in some UN quarters as the enemy. Churchill in the latter days of the war had said, in response to one of Roosevelt’s anti-colonies policies, that he had no intention of seeing Britain put in the dock. That was precisely where she was put by the UN. That she had done so much, and at such cost, to bring Hitler and his Nazis down, standing up to them alone for two years, holding the pass until America came into the war, counted for nothing. At Lake Success [viz. the temporary headquarters of the United Nations while its headquarters building in New York City was built], Britain was the whipping boy.”[2]

Some of the members of the “Negro colleges” which “were too often… poisoned with hate and with anti-white racialism… got themselves appointed to the [UN] Secretariat.”[3] The tone and direction of the UN was set by this racialism which was anti-white in nature, leading Crocker to observe:

A piquant thing about the American drive against colonies was not only their de facto alliance with the [Soviet] Russians in the drive but the part played by American Negroes. The Negroes saw the UN as a whip to be used against America for the racial inferiority to which they saw themselves condemned. More than once I had the experience in my first months at Lake Success of a Negro taxi driver refusing to accept payment – he saw me, as a UN official, as somebody striving to get a better lot for the Negroes against white Americans.”[4]

The UN can thus be seen as the world’s “Weimar Republic” – a constitution thrust upon a people (in this case, numerous peoples) based on leftist principles which does not look after the interests or good of those it governs, nay it has been emphatically designed to rule at the expense of national, cultural, political, ethnic and economic interests of the nation.

The practice of the UN has been racist and anti-nationalist, but what about the theory behind it? Is there just a bad coincidence here which a little (or a lot of) reform could fix, or is there something fundamentally wrong with the UN (and the attempt at world government based on “human rights”) which will also impact negatively on national sovereignty and the exercise of the rights attached to citizens of nations?

How extreme is the left these days and how entrenched is it? A new culmination of leftist thought replaces a previously held right which was limiting the leftist agenda into an “unright.” Larking and Abizadeh both independently argue that there is “No Right to Control Your Own Borders Unilaterally.”[5]

Abizadeh does this by re-interpreting the meaning of the basic political unit of the demos (people). In contrast to conventional understandings, he re-interprets it as not being “bounded” by anything (in particular, not by a nation), but as “unbounded” or infinite in extension (at least in principle). This infinite extension of the political unit is consistent with the leftist notion of political universalism, but is fundamentally at odds with the conservative and nationalist position of the primacy of the particular. Since Abizadeh argues on the basis of leftist understanding of terms his argument is unsuccessful, and he pre-supposes his position to begin with and then is surprised that his argument miraculously coincides with the leftist position he wants. To achieve his universalist position he would have to prove that the coercion of the state is legitimate “only insofar as it is actually justified by and to” both citizens and non-citizens.[6] In other words, it cannot account for the legitimacy of war and in a situation of attack could not provide a rationale for resistance to aggression. His notion of legitimacy (upon which his argument rests) is therefore fundamentally unsound and unconvincing.

Larking tries to argue much the same thing: “Constitutional democracies must abandon the sovereign assertion of a right to act primarily in the interests of their own citizens.”[7] This should send shivers down the spine of anyone who calls themselves conservative. Luckily, her case is even weaker than Abizadeh’s, resting on an ignorance of parliamentary sovereignty and its justification by Dicey, and assuming that John Locke is an unchallenged and unrefuted constitutional source (especially for democracies which incorporate the “Westminster” or British system of government – like Australia).

Larking and Abizadeh are merely drawing out the inferences based on the premises set forth in UN declarations. The fault is in the UN and its declarations. Conservatives have to learn not to treat the symptoms by complaining about what is being taught in universities, but to remove the cause of the problem.

What is the essential, non-ephemeral core of the right which is not subject to fluctuation? The substantive principle of the right is: the common good of a community of people in a political formation. Or, more abstractly: the right of the particular, not the universal. A number of consequences follow from this: that no world government is possible or desirable (and if instituted, would constitute a tyranny). Two other consequences follow from this:

- the greater or lesser attainment of other races/nations has no priority of claim over one’s own nation, the group has to ensure its own survival and its own good.

- Aid, assistance, or help of any form therefore becomes an act of grace, and not a moral duty: it is an uncompelled favour – freely given (if given), and cannot be compelled.

These are not politically irrelevant considerations because the right to self-determination is derivative from these principles. There is no other secure basis for it. This can be easily seen when one examines the fact that the UN cannot even secure its own raison d’être as outlined in its own Charter. Even putting aside the unrealistic goal of world peace (however desirable it has not been achieved since 1945), the UN undermines its own basic objectives. This can be clearly seen in the case of self-determination of peoples: “…when self-determination becomes associated with the right of particular ethnic groups to determine their own political status [self-determination] ceases to be a human right because it becomes discriminatory in nature.”[8] The UN and its charter of “human rights” is therefore unable to secure self-determination of particular ethnic groups, despite claiming as its legitimation the security of self-determination. Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 of the UN Charter states its purpose as: “To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.” This sounds like it is compatible with nationalism – but the UN compromises that principle by its denial of the right of self-determination of ethnic groups. The only secure principle consistent with self-determination is the nationalist principle of the right of the particular over the universal. This is also a fundamentally conservative doctrine as it preserves the distinctive individuality of nations and underwrites their preservation into the future. The UN and universalist/leftist position in contrast places all nations and people in jeopardy in the face of globalisation and eventuates in the removal of national borders and the total abolition of any sovereignty besides that of a global government, indifferent to the common good of any nation.

So, what specific policies or positions do the principles of the right call on us to adopt? The laws and institutions which back, support, monitor or enforce “Hate speech” legislation or any other Orwellian curtailments of freedom of thought, speech, or association need to be abolished and revoked. However, what must be observed is that they were not removed or abolished by the “conservative” Howard government in its eleven years in office. The only possible excuse for such failure to act to remove these leftist institutions, treaties, and laws is that the media and the left have grown so powerful that any opposition to them is now impossible to achieve, even for a democratically elected government. That is an admission in effect that parliament and our liberal democracy have failed, are dead, and need to be replaced. And that such a radical position must be the conservative political policy and agenda of our times.

But this excuse of a too powerful media is an insufficient reason for the “conservatives” to give in their defence, since it does not stop one talking about such a deplorable state of affairs and thereby garnering public support to écrasez l’infâme. But Howard and co. have been noticeably silent on this matter. This means that we are in a situation where only one side of politics has any opportunity to advance its agenda, while the other is entirely excluded from acting on its political principles.

But the situation is even worse than that, because the “conservative” position as expressed by “conservatives” politically and in the press/tv does not acknowledge this situation and may even support the left and their institutions here. That is to say, the publicly, self-identified conservative movement does not act on the principles of the right, but has already lost the battle and is fighting for or supporting the leftist institutions and ideas.

Only a clear understanding of the substantive, non-ephemeral core of the right’s political objectives can find a way for conservatives to be successful in their political endeavours by tackling the root causes of the problem.

Bibliography
Abizadeh, Arash. 2008. “Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control Your Own Borders” Political Theory 36.1: 37-65.

Crocker, Sir Walter. 1985. The role of Sir Raphael Cilento at the United Nations. University of Queensland Press. Brisbane.

Larking, Emma. 2004. “Human rights and the Principle of Sovereignty” Australian Journal of Human Rights (AJHR) 10.1: 15-32.

Musgrave, Thomas D. 1997. Self-Determination and National Minorities. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Zifcak, Spencer. 2003. Mr Ruddock Goes to Geneva. University of New South Wales Press. Sydney.
[1] Even pro-US political scientists recognise this compatibility, see for example page 83, Harry V. Jaffa, Crisis of the House Divided, 1959, University of Chicago, 1982 Reprint.
[2] Crocker (1985) 13.
[3] Ibid. 15.
[4] Ibid. 16.
[5] Larking (2004) and Abizadeh (2008).
[6] Abizadeh (2008) 41.
[7] Larking (2004).
[8] Musgrave (1997) 179.

John Gordon is an Australian New Right activist and can be contacted through the New Right Australia/New Zealand website http://www.newrightausnz.com/

‘RN has its foundation in biology and treats economics as an important, but secondary issue. The fact is that RN has no predefined economic philosophy. Economics are viewed primarily as to how the racial well-being of the people is affected. In short, RN rejects both the conservative model of unrestrained capitalism and the massive state-control of Marxism’. [1]

Capitalism goes hand-in-hand with globalization. These are ideologies that only care about how well economies are going and how much money they are making. Any human suffering or hardship that happens along the way is merely collateral damage.
Capitalism itself does not care what your heritage is or where you are from in the world or if you are dying of hunger or overwhelmed with bills that need to be paid. As Noam Chomsky remarks

‘Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist — just because its anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic — there’s no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that’s produced — that’s their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance’.[2]

So basically the grand plan of the capitalists and globalists is to make all the peoples of the world into merely producers and consumers of products. The idea of unique identity, culture, or heritage is seen as being irrelevant and an annoyance to keeping the money flowing in. Therefore it is the job of state authorities to quash any discontent by Nationalists or other anti-globalist groups that go against the status-quo.

Nonetheless, it must be taken into account that Nationalists are not all isolationist in their views either. A country which had a Nationalist government would of course trade with its neighbours (if they are willing) and to think that it would not is quite ridiculous. The whole issue of economics and Nationalism can be saved for another article in the future as globalization is the core issue here. In the article Confronting Globalization Alain de Benoist argues that

‘far from being an aberration or a radical innovation, or even the result of some plot, globalization is simply part of a long term dynamic of capitalism’.[3]

This relates to the ideologies of both communism and capitalism being imperialist/ globalist in nature and having machinations of forming their own kind of “World Order” to enslave the entire population of the Earth.

The various anti-globalization associations that are around the world fail to see the hypocrisy behind their own agenda. On the one hand, they will strenuously protest big multi-national companies and how 3rd world people will be so greatly disadvantaged because of all the inequality of wealth around the world and how the unique culture and heritage of these 3rd world people will be under serious threat. But on the other hand, is there any thought or effort put into the threat that also faces people from Western nations? The silence is deafening from those involved with the Traditional Left who have a sense of hatred and self-loathing for anything considered part of Western civilization. It is the calling of Nationalists from those Western nations who must stand up to this hypocrisy from the Traditional Left. Because as we all know it will be the symbolic example of the jackboot of Nationalism that will crush any coercive imperialist/globalist agenda which seeks to destroy our sense of identity, pride, heritage and culture. Historically, this has happened on the streets (just like in 1920s-30s Germany) and it will continue to do so. This is because Nationalism is like a flame which burns brighter and becomes larger with more and more passion, feelings, and emotion from people. Nationalism also gives people a sense of belonging and a sense of pride and self-worth. People believe they belong to a particular group and want to keep that group strong, healthy and help it survive. Nationalism wishes to help that group to become free, independent, successful, and find glory. Professor Lars Ingelstam also mentions that in

‘…returning to the context of globalization, it is important to recognize that the rapid escalation of all the different processes that are so rapidly linking everyone living on our planet today is a result of modernizing forces rooted in the industrial revolution, democratization, and the rise of ethnic nationalism. All of these changes entail the abandonment of traditional caste-like social differences rooted in hierarchic principles of inequality and sacred authority’.[4]

This explains how in some regards it is globalization which is destroying the natural order of societies and cultures around the world. Therefore, leading to conflict and rebellion by different ethnic groups who are quite content living the way they do and do not want to be globalized.

Another major issue that relates to globalization is how it intends to create a 20-80 society. This is a phrase coined by Hans-Peter Martin in his book The Global Trap which envisages a world where only 20% of the population has permanent well-paid jobs. The remaining 80% will be on casual work, will experience low income, and have poor financial security. Hans-Peter Martin explains that

‘…this was actually a scenario that world leaders in the political field and the field of economy came up with at a conference in San Francisco that I had the chance to attend, behind closed doors. And they would actually argue that 20 % of the world population would be enough to produce all the goods and services needed for the world population as far as purchasing power is concerned. And the rest… the 80 % would have to be kept quiet by what they call “tittytainment” – the mixture of entertainment and tits – but they were not referring to pornographic movies, they were referring to the breast of a feeding mother’.[5]

So basically, the ultimate plans of the globalists is to have a very small minority to do the majority of the work while the rest of the world are kept in low-paid, casual jobs and brainwashed/bemused by all this “tittytainment” so they don’t complain or rise up against these injustices. For the globalists it is all about making as much money as they can. The globalists have no concern for the welfare of people’s freedom, heritage, culture, identity, nation and way of life.

In a number of ways this topic of globalization is very relevant to the current world-wide events that are happening. At this point in time we are facing a world-wide economic crisis. Now this article will not go into any details about economics but it does go to show what happens when the greed of capitalists and globalists goes too far. Capitalism itself believes that making money is far more important than anything else in life and if the means justify the ends then nothing else matters. Hans-Peter Martin also says that

‘…money has always been very important globally in almost all societies. What is new right now is that the importance of the financial markets is growing and growing, and that they are actually the power-house of globalisation. They have now become more dangerous to the world than nuclear weapons, and the really sad part about it is that they’re not honest about their interest. They are just pretending – especially the analysts, the ones who play the markets – that they only reflect reality. But the last ideology left is the one of “free market is good for everybody”… this is simply not true. We see it happening in Asia, we saw it happening even here in this very country where I’m sitting right now in London, that if you liberalise too much you have a lot of negative effects’.[6]

However, we can see with the current global economic crisis that to rely far too heavily on free markets can seriously backfire on you. As a Nationalist we realise that there are many things insurmountably more important than material wealth and for that reason economics is never seen as being the be all and end all for us. It has been globalization that has forced the ideology of capitalism down the throats of people whether they like it or not. Many communities around the world were living quite happy and harmoniously before the spectre of globalism came around. Multiculturalism/Multiracialism, through mass immigration of peoples, is a by-product of globalization and there seems to be a rule of Asia for the Asians, Africa for the Africans and Western Nations for everybody! The hypocrisy of all this is pretty obvious, particularly if you are a Nationalist from a Western nation who is seeing the original demographic that helped create their country inevitably transform through the constant flood of migrants. It is not just the original inhabitancy that suffers, but also the native flora and fauna as well as the environment.

Globalization and imperialism has many similarities in relation to trying to dominate a particular set of values and practices over a multitude of vastly different peoples, cultures and countries. Professor Lars Ingelstam argues that

‘…as a result of the rise and collapse of industrial empires and the explosion of modern communications and transportation technologies, the whole world is now exposed to the utterly wrenching experience of trying to replace traditional caste-like social structures with modern class-based practices. Such a transformation cannot take place overnight. Instead, it is a violent and devastating process, producing many antagonisms: the more advantaged citizens seek to protect their threatened privileges while activists from marginalized communities strive to obtain the advantages promised to all by the new ethos. Moreover, although this transformative process was launched in the West, contemporary globalization has accelerated its spread throughout the planet. It has generated fundamental problems involving sovereignty, nationalism, and constitutional choices’. [7]

From this argument we can see that globalization has in many ways caused a lot more problems than it has solved. Particularly in regards to the upheaval of societies that have had to adapt to new technologies and practices at an alarming rate. Technology, over the last 100 years, has progressed far more rapidly than any other moment in time. This has led to situations us as humans have never had deal with before in our history and while this has been a good thing in many ways it has also been a bad thing in others. We are not as close to nature as we once were many generations ago and because of this our environment has suffered and many animal species have become extinct.

In keeping with hearing the opinions of other Racial Nationalists on the topic of globalization Fred W. Riggs states that

‘…black cultural nationalists deem the global context problematic and troubling, especially as it impacts the effectiveness of race as both a weapon of struggle, and framework for understanding reality. In their judgment, globalization has rendered blacks more susceptible to western and European hegemonic interests. To counteract this, they advocate strengthening, rather than weakening, the racial line’. [8]

In a multitude of ways many Racial Nationalists would agree with this and believe that racial identity needs to be strengthened against the spectre of globalization. Particularly as the ideas of globalization believe that there is “no such thing as race” but that we are all merely global citizens. Of course, there is the supremacist view that we should not bother listening to what African Nationalists have to say, but if they believe in the idea of separatism and each racial group having their own homogenous nation or territory then that is indeed a positive. In fact, there is much we can learn from different Nationalists all over the globe and by ignoring what they have to say we may miss something really useful. Nationalists from Europe, America, Australia etc should be pleased that there are other Racial Nationalists out there around the world that wish to live in their own separate nations without any interference from other racial groups.

Citizenship and globalization also has a link in regards to the idea of what it really means to be a citizen of a particular nation. There is now the common belief in many Western nations that gaining citizenship is about as worthless and meaningless as the piece of paper that it is written on. Fred W. Riggs believes that

‘…the conception of cultural citizenship implies human capacity, and willingness to deemphasize, or even transcend national or some other primordial construction of citizenship and identity—be it race, ethnicity, or religion. Afrocentric scholars who advocate an absolutist and monolithic construction of African and black Diaspora identity are opposed to, and deeply suspicious of, any global cosmopolitan construction of identity’. [9]

So we can see here that even African Nationalists are against the idea of global citizens as it takes away a person’s sense of racial identity and destroys any sense of genuine diversity around the world. The lies of globalism are seen by a variety of Racial Nationalists around the world who realise that it is a danger to be taken seriously because it attempts to fool people into thinking that racial difference is an illusion. White Civil Rights leader David Duke mentions that

‘…as all of us know, the world is getting smaller. Incredible advancements in transportation and communication make it so. Many national corporations that once had minor branches overseas have now become truly international, and their own loyalties have gone beyond their own national origins. Profit is their one flag, their one loyalty. It flies above nation, culture, race, morality, health, concerns over the environment, anything. These global concentrations of enormous wealth have become a juggernaut, amassing huge power and weight like a snowball turning into an avalanche. Interwoven with their enterprises, the globalists dominate the media, which, of course, has also become truly international. With it they control the democracies, where the sheeple cannot distinguish between a free press and a controlled one’. [10]

From this statement even our own media supports a globalist agenda and is “managed” to give a particular bias on events and only shows us the news that the media chooses us to see. This just goes to show that Nationalism needs to be internationalized, where Nationalists around the world network together and work in a kind of coalition to help fight against globalization. It must be acknowledged that globalization is a major world-wide threat that wants to destroy our culture, our heritage, our way of life and our nations. Being a mere “citizen” of a nation does not make you a true part of it. Somebody who is truly part of a nation must have been born in that nation and been part of the dominant ethnic/cultural group which helped to form and create that particular nation, for example; somebody would have to be an ethnic Swede, speak Swedish, have been born in Sweden, and been brought up by Swedish customs to be considered a real part of the Swedish nation.

However, that doesn’t mean that our racial differences should be ignored and put aside to fight against the behemoth which is globalization. We need to respect all cultures but fight for our own culture above all. This interconnects very much with the idea of racial separatism and living the way we choose is appropriate for our own kind. We should not have anything to do with the genocidal multiculturalists that wish to transform us all into an unidentifiable mongrelized people. Fred W. Riggs states that

‘…the call for pan-blackist cultural vigilance and unity, and the projection of a monolithic African cultural world and identity, therefore, represent a response to the cultural implications of globalization. In the Afrocentric worldview, culture is an arena of irreconcilable conflict and antagonism between blacks and whites. Blacks are expected to maintain a respectable distance from, and vigilance against, white cultural contacts’. [11]

In many ways what is explained in the above comment is at the core belief of all Racial Nationalists who highly recommend that various racial groups should be separate and respect the right of self-determination and not allow the interference of other racial groups in their affairs. Globalization intrudes into the rights of people who are from different countries, cultures, ethnic groups etc who wish to live their own way according to their customs and beliefs. Globalists don’t care who is right or wrong or what the social or environmental consequences are when it comes to making profits.

Globalization is inextricably linked with the ideology of capitalism. This means that any view about what is right or wrong doesn’t apply when it comes to making profits. Morality is negligent for people who care more about how much money can be made from a particular business venture and not what the possible repercussions may be. A Pan-Blackist by the name of Professor Tunde Adeleke argues that

‘…those who preached Globalization couldn’t tell the difference between ethics and morality. Ethics is the measurement of the public good. Morality is the weapon of religious and social righteousness. Political and economic ideologies often decline into religious-style morality toward the end. But Globalization had shoved ethics to the side from the very beginning and insisted upon a curious sort of moral righteousness that included maximum trade, unrestrained self-interest, and governments alone respecting their debts’.[12]

The individuals who take on the globalist viewpoint are not Nationalist minded people but are instead people who have no genuine understanding whatsoever to a sense of pride, identity or passion for their homeland or their own people. Globalists must be seen as people who cannot be trusted and would rather stab a person in the back if they could make a profit from it. They are kinds of people that believe that it is money “which makes the world go around”, anything else is of minor importance.

Globalization has only caused more pain and more suffering and conflict around the world than it has cured. Globalization is causing the genocide of unique cultures and ethnic groups around the world. Those ethnic groups that breed quicker than others are taking over places demographically and often replacing the original inhabitancy and creating a new area. Just like what happened with the Serbs losing the territory of Kosovo (which is Serbian ancestral homeland) to Albanian Muslims who became the dominant populace. People are being duped into believing that globalization is a good thing when in reality it is turning us into a very crowded, materialistic and mongrelized planet. Professor Tunde Adeleke believes that

‘…the reconceptualization of civilization through the prism of economics had reached a critical barrier. Beyond that barrier any international exchange that involved a commercial element would be treated as fundamentally commercial. Culture would be seen as a mere matter of industrial regulation; food, as a secondary outcome of agricultural industries’.[13]

This shows a prime example of how important things like culture, identity and even the food we eat is placed into economic value rather than being worth more than that .This shows how globalization and capitalism work hand-in-hand in dehumanizing us all.

We can already see the cracks forming in the idea of globalization being this wonderful, perfect, amazing thing which will help the peoples of the world all work together in harmony as “global citizens” in some kind of delusional fantasy. No matter what Globalization tries to do we shall always have religious and ethnic rivalries. Bringing people from far-flung places around the globe and dumping them all in the same place like various multicultural/multiracial societies try to do will only cause more and more problems in the long run. Globalization cannot stop a person’s sense of identity and belonging. When it comes to the collapse of globalism and the rebirth of Nationalism, Canadian John Ralston Saul raises a very interesting question when it comes to our sense of identity as a people. John Ralston Saul asks

‘what makes a people? A people has a common heritage and a will to a common destiny. A people exists despite superficial cleavages such as parties, interest groups, and passing trends in ideologies. As Georges Dumézil, Mircea Eliade, and Carl G. Jung have demon­strated, a people shares a “mythe fondateur”-a communal myth that gives birth to original cultural endeavors. The culture of a people, recalls Alain de Benoist, is its identity card and its mental respiration, and “it is the passport for a future that takes the shape of destiny.” When a people becomes oblivious of its founding myth it is doomed to perish. Worse, it may turn into an aggregate of happy robots whose new dictum of universal human rights could be just another cloak for mindless hedonism’. [14]

As Nationalists we need to continually let the adherents of globalism know that we don’t believe in the idea of a “global citizen” and we don’t want to become a bunch of “happy robots” willing to do what is good for big business. It is the duty of Nationalists to wake people up to what is going on around them and to fight back against those who wish for us to forget our “founding myth” as coined by Alain De Benoist.

It is up to Nationalism to point out the obvious gaping flaws in globalization. Those who support communism cannot criticize globalization in an honest and unbiased manner because their own ideology only wants to replace capitalism with another internationalist world-view. Communism talks about giving the proletariat “freedom” when in reality it will lead to suppression and persecution of the people, just like during the reign of Stalin in the Soviet Union, Mao in China, Tito in Yugoslavia or Fidel Castro in Cuba. Professor Tomislav Sunic who is a Croatian-American knows all too well the suffering of those under communism in the former Yugoslavia. As Tomislav Sunic explains

‘Yugoslavia, founded on similar principles of multiculturalism, is a product of the Russian 19th-century pan-Slavism combined with the Wilsonian dream. This experiment has not resulted in perpetual peace. In times of great crises host nations no longer look at aliens as purveyors of exotic folklore, but rather as predators snatching bread from their host’s mouth. Peoples are not the same; they never have been and never will be. Ethnic groups can be compared to the inmates of large American prisons, who usually begin to respect each only when their turf is staked out and when their cells are separated by massive stone walls. Thrown into one cell they are likely to devour each other in a perpetual conflict over “territorial imperative”’. [15]

Is this the same fate that shall affect those nations that are having multiculturalism/multiracialism forced onto them now? What clearly needs to be understood is that it will be racial separatism that will help stop any possibly conflicts that arise and not integration or assimilation as the multiculturalists/multiracialists will try and tell you.

Globalization in many ways is actually the scourge of diversity and not really the helper. It is full of inconsistencies and contradictions all in the name of making all the things we do and hold dear into economic commodities that are given monetary value. There is no need to have the same kind of restaurant or particular kind of soft drink all around the world, when people go overseas they shouldn’t expect to find the same things they have back in their own countries. As David Duke mentions

‘…building a McDonald’s and a coca cola machine on every street corner of the world is not only injurious to the health of the people of the world, it is uniformity, not diversity. It is unicultural not multicultural. Supporting massive immigration into Western nations is not multicultural; the nations the immigrants come from offer a truly different cultural environment. Melting them into one brown mass does not create diversity; it eventually destroys the indigenous culture of that particular nation. Even more so, it destroys the unique genetic heritage and character of those people and the unique nations that they created. Is it really a good thing for Germans to be outnumbered by Turks in their own nation? Is it good to remake Germany into a land foreign to its own people? Is it good to make whole sections of America into a replica of Mexico? Should The Russian people in the 21st century become dissolved by a massive influx of Asians, a fate Russia diligently avoided for two thousand years?’.[16]

These are all valid questions by David Duke that people need to ask themselves if they believe that globalization is a good thing, particularly those defenders of diversity and multiculturalism. Do these people actually realise that they are not supporting genuine diversity at all, but are really trying to turn us all into one mass-mongrelized world where everything is the same? Do these people who support this fake globalist diversity want to be responsible for the genocide of various unique cultures and peoples around the world? I hope those who support multiculturalism/multiracialism and read this article have a really good hard look in the mirror and ask themselves whether they are really supporting true diversity.

Now I realise it is unfair to lay all the blame of Globalization on the United States of America but they did play a major role in the beginning of it all. In his book Revolt against the Modern World Julius Evola clearly states that

‘America … has created a “civilization” that represents an exact contradiction of the ancient European tradition. It has introduced the religion of praxis and productivity; it has put the quest for profit, great industrial production, and mechanical, visible, and quantative achievements over any other interest. It has generated a soulless greatness of a purely technological and collective nature, lacking any background of transcendence, inner light, and true spirituality. America has [built a society where] man becomes a mere instrument of production and material productivity within a conformist social conglomerate’. [17]

However, it can now be said that globalization has become a kind of Frankenstein’s Monster for America because of the world economic crisis with so many companies going bust and almost most of the world facing recession. Globalization has also caused big businesses to look elsewhere for cheap labour as they want to make more profits rather than having to pay workers more as they would in Western nations. The association between globalization and cheap labour has caused many Western nations to lose jobs to those 3rd World nations that pay their workers a lot less and it is the big businesses that reap the rewards. As Brenda Walker explains

‘…hundreds of thousands of high-paying manufacturing jobs have moved from the U.S. to Mexico, where they have become low-paying manufacturing jobs, even by Mexican standards. As Ralph Nader has said, “Globalized trade is a race to the bottom.” Such a result should not be surprising, however; globalized economic rules are completely skewed to benefit capital and investors. Mere citizens get zero’.[18]

From this comment it explains that the idea of a “trickle-down effect” for those workers doesn’t really happen. If anything, those workers in 3rd World nations who work for these massive multi-national companies are nothing more than slaves that are given a pittance compared to the millions of dollars the executives get for those companies.

Many people seem to forget that globalization is something that not just affects things like the products you buy, the restaurants you eat in and the clothes you wear, but it also affects entire Nations. It allows capitalism to run rampant without any concerns for what future consequences may arise. Ali A. Mazrui, an African academic, believes that

‘..globalization is negative when it allows itself to be a handmaiden to ruthless capitalism, increases the danger of warfare by remote control, deepens the divide between the haves and have-nots, and accelerates damage to our environment’.[19]

Plus there is the view that having a successful economy in more valuable than saving human lives. Starving people in a country cannot get in the way of making money. For example; if a tribe of people needed livestock because they are facing famine but they had not enough money to pay for these livestock what are they to do? Would those owners of livestock in the marketplace be expected to make a loss and give away their livestock for free just to help this tribe? We unfortunately live in a globalized world where profit margins supersede any value on human life. In the article Environment, Globalization and Genocide, S. Rowan Wolf, Ph.D. explicates that

‘…if there is a refusal to feed people when there is food available for fear of “disrupting” capitalist economics, then what is the likelihood of providing feed for the livestock of these tribes? None. So, the human influenced environmental catastrophe is worsened by the influence of globalization, resulting in the genocide of a people’.[20]

Now this relates back to one of the banner used at APEC in Sydney, September 2007, which says Globalization is Genocide! This is because the Globalists are more than happy to see entire cultures and peoples either amalgamated or wiped out so long as the mass multi-national companies they are part of continue to make profits. Keeping shareholders happy is far more important than the loss of human life. Globalists do not care if a country is being slowly demographically taken over, house by house, street by street, suburbs by suburb, city by city by various alien cultures.

Another threat which faces countries through globalization is how the economy and keeping big businesses happy is far more important for governments than keeping the people of that particular Nation happy. The unique individuality and sovereignty of that Nation can also be filtered away to bend to the will of the globalists. Ali A. Mazrui also states that

‘…globalization in governance is also leading to dilution of sovereignty within each country and the reduction of the power of the central government. Those European countries which have adopted the EURO as their currency have lost some sovereignty in the arena of monetary control. Regional unification in Europe is reducing the sovereignty of each member’.[21]

That is why it would be the requirement of a Nationalist government to repel any globalist changes to preserve a nation’s unique culture, identity and sovereignty. The most ideal solution for a Nationalist government to undertake would be to encourage “economic patriotism” which favours goods and services in their own country. This can be implemented via either demand stimulation or through supply protection (e.g. tariffs). But as has been stated throughout this article the issue of economics will not be discussed in any detail as the prime topic is globalization. Ian McKinney sums it up best in relation to discussing Racial Nationalism when he elucidates that

‘RN places the well-being of the people above that of economics; Economics is treated merely as a tool for the advancement of the racial community and not an end in itself. Thus, dangerous pollution and worker exploitation would be necessarily restricted, not from a desire to increase state control, but for the protection of the environment that is necessary for healthy living. We also recognize the danger posed by the ultra-wealthy and corporations who are able to manipulate government policy for their own selfish purposes, which in many cases are destructive’. [22]

This sort of belief is probably the most sensible, realistic and caring when it comes to the interconnection between globalization and its effects on the economy in a particular country.

In many respects, it is the obligation of every Nationalist no matter where they are in the world to rebel against the encroachment of globalization. We cannot sit idly by while our culture, our people and our way of life slowly melts away in a mongrelized mass of “global citizenry”. As reiterated earlier, it is important belief of a Nationalist to respect other cultures but to fight for your own culture because it is your own culture which you belong to and that makes you different and unique to others. We cannot let the globalists, who work hand-in-hand with the multiculturalists/multiracialists, have their way as it would mean the total destruction of the future for your people, your family and your culture. Globalization is no friend to diversity or to Nationalism. If anything, it is a deceitful enemy of all the various cultures around the world who wish to remain independent, free and preserve their identity and way of life. As S. Rowan Wolf, Ph.D. cautions

‘there is a sad irony in the fact that the path that has brought the world to this place is not recognized as a failed paradigm. As the world groans and peoples and cultures die, the decision is to plow ahead at all due speed. One can hope that people will rise up in time to change the path we are on, but that change is already too late for thousands of cultures’.[23]

This warning must be heeded before it comes too late for us all no matter what part of the world we are from. Our civilization would simply fall apart because of globalization and the mass amounts of people from alien cultures demographically taking over our nations and this must be stopped.

Overall, the only question is, how are we supposed to do this? Well, I would suggest the most important thing is to go out there and do Nationalistic activism. Sitting around complaining about things over the Internet on a discussion forum will never achieve anything in the long run and neither will immature infighting amongst various Nationalists because they don’t agree 100% with your own views. We all know that it is actions that speak louder than any words. I encourage people who read this to go out there into the “real world” and get active! We need to rebel against the oppression in our countries that forces us to just allow the globalist agenda to have its own way without any hindrance. Striving for freedom and liberty for our nation, our culture and our people should be our ultimate priority. The Russian Anarchist Mikhail Bakunin pronounces that

‘I feel myself always the patriot of all oppressed fatherlands. . . Nationality. . . is a historic, local fact which, like all real and harmless facts, has the right to claim general acceptance. . . Every people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and therefore has a right to be itself. . . Nationality is not a principle; it is a legitimate fact, just as individuality is. Every Nationality, great or small, has the incontestable right to be itself, to live according to its own nature. This right is simply the corollary of the general principal of freedom.’[24]

While it is understandable that many in Nationalist circles are suspicious of Anarchism this particular quote shows that every Nationality has a right to exist and for freedom and it goes against the globalist belief of the entire world being forced to become “global citizens” and our unique ethnic differences being changed to sameness.

To stop this, as Nationalists we need to start networking and organising ourselves to work in groups to do more activism. We need make sure we turn up to political demonstrations or just create our own. It is crucial to be involved with activist groups with the long-term intention of creating a broader Nationalist movement and becoming politically active. As Nationalists we cannot just be reactionary and wait for something to happen we need to make things happen ourselves! We need to be Nationalist revolutionaries that want to change things for the better and to protect our own ethnic groups, our own culture and our nations before globalization destroys everything that we hold dear and special to us all. I encourage all you Nationalists out there who read this article to get out there and make a difference, that way when you are old and grey you can proudly and honestly say to your grandchildren you did your bit to fight against the scourge of globalization with a clear conscience. Get up from behind your computers and fight for your people, fight your culture, fight for your way of life and most of all, fight for your nation against globalization!

*Colin Godfrey is a supporter of New Right Australia/New Zealand and can be contacted through the NR website www.newrightausnz.com

FOOTNOTES
[1] http://www.folkandfaith.com/articles/racnat.shtml
2 http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://oskorei.motpol.nu/?p=522
3 http://www.alaindebenoist.com/pdf/confronting_globalization.pdf
4 http://www.nnn.se/archive/globedem.htm
5 http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s303159.htm
6 http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s303159.htm
7 http://www.nnn.se/archive/globedem.htm
8 http://www.hawaii.edu/global/publications_media/Publications_Staff_Fac/riggs.html
9 http://www.hawaii.edu/global/publications_media/Publications_Staff_Fac/riggs.html
10 http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-lies-of-globalism_11.html
11 http://www.hawaii.edu/global/publications_media/Publications_Staff_Fac/riggs.html
12 http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v5.1/adeleke.html
13 http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v5.1/adeleke.html
14 http://www.globalpolicy.org/globaliz/define/2004/03nationalism.htm
15 http://es.geocities.com/sucellus23/559.htm
16 http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-lies-of-globalism_11.html
17 http://blr.folkandfaith.com/billwhite2.htm
18 http://www.limitstogrowth.org/WEB-text/globalization.html
19 http://igcs.binghamton.edu/igcs_site/dirton15.htm
20 http://www.maavak.net/rwolf/rwolf054.html
21 http://igcs.binghamton.edu/igcs_site/dirton15.htm
22 http://www.folkandfaith.com/articles/racnat.shtml
23 http://www.maavak.net/rwolf/rwolf054.html
24 http://translate.google.com.au/translate?hl=en&sl=sv&u=http://oskorei.motpol.nu/?p=522

There is nothing wrong with this every human being wants to have a better life. However, it would be better to stay put and help their respective nations. But it’s not that simple if there is a great hardship (e.g. war or famine) going on is there? We need to be understanding of people who only wish to have better lives and escape the problems in their homelands. Unfortunately in the long term, all this does is drag down the new host nations they migrate to because their ability to live in an advanced Western society falters. This in turn creates social conflict and leads to racial/cultural tensions just as we see in many parts of Europe, America and Australia (e.g. the Cronulla uprising, December, 2005). It is quite pointless to blame individual migrants for wanting to live in our Western nations because we are blaming the wrong people. It is the immigration policy makers, corrupt governments, pro-immigration lobby groups, bleeding-heart liberals and big businesses that want MORE immigrants to flood into our countries for the sake of the economy. How is the economy more important than our heritage and culture?! The globalists only want more consumers and cheap labour to keep the economy going.

The minute amount of refugees we allow into our countries for the sake of humanitarian reasons is nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands of economic migrants we allow in. People get into a huge fuss about a boatload of refugees landing on our shores, when at the same time, planeload upon planeload of economic migrants are coming in. And I assure those Australians who read this article that most of those migrants would not pass the (unfortunately) now defunct White Australia Policy requirements! The immigration restriction bill, also known as the White Australia Policy should never have been made redundant in my opinion. Although, in that regard I can also sympathize with any Nationalist around the globe who wants to keep the homogeneity of their nation the way it is and free of being demographically taken over by a different ethnic group just like what happened when Kosovo become independent from Serbia.

Keeping on track, we need to realize that immigration is one of many issues that make up the problems with globalization. Nationalists from all around the world realize the problems that come with globalization.
For example the Bulgarian National Alliance believe that -

‘We, the nationalists from BNS, have adopt a course toward formation of united nationalists front against globalization, NATO, EU in its current form, corrupt Bulgarian politics, and rebirth of a traditional Bulgarian moral issues.’[1]

The continuous problems from globalization have caused quite a reactionary outcry by Nationalists over the last few decades. Douglas Kellner explains that

‘Missing from both Marxist and liberal models has been an understanding of how race, ethnicity, and nationalist sentiment might intersect with class to produce local, political struggles with complex causes. Indeed, from the late 1980s to the present, there has been a resurgence of nationalism, traditionalism, and religious fundamentalism alongside trends toward growing globalization. The explosion of regional, cultural, and religious differences in the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia — as well as explosive tribal conflicts in Africa and elsewhere — suggests that globalization and homogenization were not as deep as its proponents hoped and critics feared. Culture has thus become a new source of conflict and an important dimension of struggle between the global and the local. National cultures have produced confrontations between Serbs, Muslims, and Croats, Armenians and Azarbaijanis, Mohawk First Nation peoples and Quebecois, and in South Africa struggles between the Umkatha tribe and the African National Congress. Thus, both culture and nationalism turned out to be more enduring, deeper, and fundamental than expected and clashes between the global and local and various national cultures with each other continue in a supposedly globalized world.’[2]

Douglas Kellner is implying that no matter what the globalists try and do their will always be outcry and rebellion from different cultural and ethnic groups who are Nationalistic and want to preserve their identity and do not want to follow the destructive agenda set out through globalization.

The traditional Left selfishly believe that they somehow “own the rights” to issues such as the environment, animal rights and globalization but this is a lie they want everybody to believe. The truth is these issues affect everybody! No matter what you’re political persuasion or heritage may be. At the APEC demonstration in Sydney, September 2007, a group of New Right activists and National Anarchists also decided to make a bold statement by creating banners and doing some protesting with the rest of the march. One of the reasons this was done was to show that Nationalism is also against the scourge of globalization. As Nationalists we believe we have the only true moral right against globalization because we are concerned about our culture, heritage, and identity, while the traditional Left use globalization more as an issue for the sake of political opportunism. The deceitful “international socialists” believe that they are trying to defeat globalization, when if you actually take a historical look at Communism then you can see this was very much an ideology that wanted to enforce its views around the rest of the world (just like Islam and Capitalism does in some respect)! So these people are very hypocritical because Communism is technically a globalist/universal view! History shows that Communist machinations, of course, played a part in the Cold War after World War 2 and led to many proxy wars being fought between the U.S.A. (The Capitalists) and the Soviet Union (The Communists). Let us not believe for one second that the traditional Left doesn’t have the agenda of creating some sort of “socialist utopia” around the globe just like big-businesses want globalization to continue for creating more profits.

Once the New Right activists and National Anarchists were seen as not supporting the same Marxist-friendly views as the rest of those people organising the APEC demonstration they were ostracized and labelled the same tired old names that the traditional Left use against those they don’t agree with such as; fascists, racists and nazis. The traditional Left also had plans to commit violence against the small group of New Right activists and National Anarchists. Why? Because even though the group were against globalization the traditional Left took on the totalitarian view that because the New Right activists and National Anarchists didn’t follow similar views they must be made to feel unwelcome no matter what, because their own view must be the ONLY one. This is a very Trotskyite in nature and just goes to show that the traditional Left is ridden with contradictions and hypocrisy. One of the most obvious examples of their hypocrisy is the way some of the quasi-Anarchists had the audacity to say that the New Right activists and National Anarchists STOLE their symbols? How can any genuine Anarchist say they have the “rights” to any particular symbol? Do they have some sort of copyright? I think not! The quasi-Anarchists were merely jealous and scared of the New Right activists and National Anarchists and because they cannot argue with us on an intellectual level they have to resort to the actions of immature name-calling, taking photos and threats of violence. If they are so assured that the New Right activists and National Anarchists have no idea what they are on about and are basically trying to “steal their thunder” then why do they give us so much attention (free publicity)? All I know is that we do appreciate the fact that the quasi-Anarchists and various Communists are talking about us so much! It makes our job of self-promotion so much easier. The May Day protest in Melbourne, May 2008, also saw the same pathetic tactics by the Communists of; name-calling, swearing, threats of violence and even whinging to the police (using the state authorities they hate so much!).

The point of this article must be reiterated, globalization is an issue that affects all of us, no matter what that person’s political persuasion or heritage. Nationalists have as much right, if not more, to protest against globalization as anybody else! The traditional Left has invidiously had a strangle-hold of this issue for far too long and their grasp will now start to loosen. Historically it is well known that Nationalists win the street-battles against the traditional Left and once we are large enough this will happen again in due time. In the near future we shall see Nationalists organizing more rallies against globalization (and other issues) just like the NPD does in Germany.

As Nationalists we have an obligation to be concerned about how our country is being affected via global forces. Often massive multinational companies will take full advantage of these poorer nations by offering slave-labour jobs which pay next to nothing but the inhabitancy have no other option to accept for the sake of survival. I believe that globalization IS genocide for the simple fact that it will eventually cause us to lose our cultural and ethnic uniqueness. Multiculturalism as subscribed by The System is nothing but mono-culturalism. We will become a milieu of coffee-coloured people who have no identity or culture of our own and everything we know and love about our nation and culture will be lost to greed and consumerism.

The diversity of people will be abolished because of globalization as everything will inevitably become the same. Being proud of your heritage and culture has already become a taboo in many respects. Particularly if you are of White/European heritage because we are seen as the evil, colonial imperialists who must be “punished” for our past wrong-doings and must be wiped off the planet by those who have a global mono-culturalist agenda. Many of them have the insidious view that ONLY White/European people can be guilty of racism which is a despicable outright lie! As Nationalists it is our duty to fight against globalization and these ill-informed people. We must promote diversity, legitimacy, pride and difference between races and nations.

When it comes to combating globalization it is important to understand what it actually is and doing some in depth research on the topic. That way you can not only physically protest against globalization via demonstrations, but as a Nationalist you can also enter intelligent debate on globalization and discuss what issues concern you using a Nationalist perspective. As Nationalists we have to take out the emotion from a debate and equip ourselves with the right facts and information to discuss the issue intellectually.

Douglas Kellner argues that -

‘In a sense, there is no such thing as globalization per se. Rather the term is used as a cover concept for a heterogeneity of processes that need to be spelled out and articulated. The term is not innocent nor neutral in many of its uses and often serves to replace older discourses like “imperialism” but also “modernization.” As a replacement for imperialism, it could displace focus on domination of developing countries by the overdeveloped ones, or of national and local economies by transnational corporations. Moreover, it could serve as a cover to neutralize the horrors of colonialism and could be part of a discourse of neo-imperialism that serves to obscure the continuing exploitation of much of the world by a few superpowers and giant transnational corporations, thus cloaking some of the more barbaric and destructive aspects of contemporary development.’[3]

Now this definition of globalization is one of many examples but it shows how the syntax and semantics of words can mean a number of different things and how a word can be replaced with another word so it seems either better or worse than it truly is. For example; using the word “hate speech” rather than freedom of speech because a particular individual was upset about what another person said. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

Speaking of different viewpoints, I think it is important to include not only a Nationalist point of view that is of White/European heritage but also hear what Nationalists from other races have to say. It is not supremacist to respect other cultures and races but wish for them to stay in their own separate nations and to be proud of whom we are and want to defend our way of life. Now some people would say “who cares what they think?” but that is a negative and counter-productive view that won’t allow us to learn anything new that may help us.
An Asian Nationalist by the name of John Kusumi notes that -

‘Nationalism is a way that society chose to order its affairs. As children, we learn that nations are territories, each under the leadership of its civil and/or military authorities. As territories, they have geographical boundaries, and can be found as shapes on a map. There is far more to know about nations than the simple child’s understanding, as above. They are units of community and polity, each with a history and character all of its own. Just as people are unique, so too are nations, and they do have lives of their own. It should be underscored that in nations, people live there — nations are communities. In each, we can find an economy; a society; and one or more cultures. Every nation will be found to be richly intricate and complex. Each has no shortage of angles for analysis. A nation is an intense thing, not to be trivialized or taken lightly. And — I am convinced — a nation is a good thing.’[4]

Now this Asian Nationalist wants to preserve the identity and way of life of his nation just like we here in Australia want to do. The only problem is that Asians do not face a mass influx of White/European immigrants flooding into their countries, for us here in Australia it is the other way around! Coincidentally, in China they have a mass influx of Indians and Pakistanis flooding into their country looking for work, which causes racial problems but this is not reported in the mainstream Western media.

As I reiterate, there is one problem that Nationalists do have in common all around the world and that is globalization. It does not matter where in the world you are the affects of globalization can be felt. In many ways globalization is the new arch-enemy of Nationalism. Forget the Communists with their tired old ways of Trotsky, Lenin and Marx. Globalists who want to destroy everything unique about your culture, heritage, society, and your whole country are now are more dangerous threat. As Nationalists here in Australia, immigration is often our number one issue that we discuss but it is mainly globalization which causes this immigration to happen in the first place!

John Kusumi acknowledges that -

‘…globalization is the antithesis of nationalism. Globalization suggests that there are no boundaries, just one globe. Globalization would put all ambassadors out of a job, because who are they? –Aren’t they just people who shuttle back and forth between those nation-states, which are thought, under globalization, to be passé?’[5]

Now this is to a certain extent a trivial comment but it does make a good point that without nations we would just be a global empire run by a few enormous corporations. In a completely globalized world, we would have no sense of national pride or identity we would merely be a mongrelized mass of mindless workers who are told what to do, given emotion suppressing drugs for our “health” and constantly monitored on cameras and supervised by robotic police like in the movie THX 1138 (Directed by George Lucas), which is set in an Orwellian future. I’m not saying that this would happen, but a future with globalization paints a grim picture for all of us around the world. The path of globalization and the gloomy picture it paints for all races, especially those of European heritage, was one of the key reasons the New Right activists and National Anarchists chose the phrase “globalization is genocide!” on their banner at the APEC protest back in September, 2007.

Numerous people involved with the New Right Australia/New Zealand realise that Nationalism is an international ideology and therefore are Pan-Nationalists. Meaning they support Nationalist movements around the world. Although, we are all of White/European heritage and our primary concerns are Australia and New Zealand and those people who share the same heritage as us. We believe that the diversity and difference of White/European peoples has the right to exist just as any other racial/ethnic group and should not be inter-mixed making us all the same. This is something which long term globalization will cause and we must strenuously rebel against.

John Kusumi argues that –

‘…globalization and nationalism are like oil and water. You can have one, but not both. They are concepts in conflict. An international nature includes nations; a global nature contains some intellectual aggression against the boundaries that we draw on the globe. A robber can ask you to choose between giving up “your money or your life.” Similarly, globalization requires that you choose loyalty to “your globe or your nation.”Globalization threatens the identity of one and all. It tries to say to (e.g.) Americans, “you are not Americans — rather instead, you are just the collateral consequences of corporate decisions.” Likewise, it says to Chinese that you are not Chinese; to Russians, that you are not Russian; etc’.[6]

We can see from this quote that globalization eventually intends to destroy any sense of Nationalism altogether in preference to a “global community” and we become merely collateral or consumers for corporations. State authorities are told to ‘crack down’ on any political groups that dare to criticize and rebel against globalization and this is doubly so for us as Nationalists because we are seen as “hateful” and are against mass floods of immigrants pouring into our country. When the truth is we are merely proud of our heritage and want to preserve our way of life, our culture and do not want our nation to be overwhelmed by cheap labour and being irreversibly transformed from a homogenous predominately Western/European society to a hodge-podge of different races and cultures that will all be mixed into one all encompassing consumerist “mud society” with no real identity in a globalized world. Numerous anti-globalist organizations fail to see the obvious connection between globalization and immigration because they are blinded with their bleeding heart humanist views of all people being part of the “human race” rather than understanding the genuine diversity amongst peoples in the world, which acknowledges racial differences and that they are worth preserving. For argument’s sake we could even say that those who believe in everybody being part of the “human race” are therefore forsaking what it really means to be different and unique in the world and want everything to be bland and all the same. Their bizarre idea of multiculturalism will only lead to a global mono-culture.

The shadow of globalization on the world does no favours for either the Western World or the 3rd World.

As Aruni Mukherjee, an Indian Nationalist, suggests –

‘The most potent and long-lasting effect of globalization as it stands today has been on the realm of ideas that has been straitjacketed into a certain mould, which reduces options for weaker countries to devise their own solutions to the various perplexing problems that they face. For example, multinational companies often have to alter their marketing strategies according to the cultural tastes of a particular country. However, this ignores the fact that the hegemonic presence of Western brands not only homogenizes the structure of the market globally, but also creates an illusion of superiority for such products. The newfound consumer culture in China and India and the hankering for foreign goods is a good example of this tendency’.[7]

This shows a really good example of how globalization wants to impose an imperialist global hegemony over all cultures around the world and how so-called “designer brands” such as Adidas, Nike, etc are made to seem better than local brands of products. How can a particular cultural or ethnic group hold onto their identity if they believe that imported, foreign products are seemed to be far superior to the original ones they make for themselves? For example should “Australian Made” products be seen as inferior products compared to those made in China just because of a certain brand name? Why can people feel that a “brand name” means more to them than wanting to buy products that will help keep jobs in your own country? To me it is ridiculous to constantly buy things that the big multi-national companies want you to buy (who in all honesty do NOT care about you, your country or your heritage and culture!) rather than buying products that will help your people and your country. As Nationalists we need to try and think more before buying products and make sure we check where they are made and who it is that makes them and who gets the profits. It also needs to be remembered that all nations around the world are adversely affected by globalization.

As Aruni Mukherjee mentions –

‘…globalization – in its current avatar – does not offer developing countries the chance to make their own choices about major economic and political policies’.[8]
This means that globalization merely keeps 3rd World nations the way they are without developing into more technologically advanced societies, which would increase the standard of living in these countries. Therefore, the positive flow on effect would be less people from 3rd World nations wanting to migrate to Western countries such as Australia, Britain, Sweden, Italy, Germany, The Netherlands etc.

This now leads onto our prime concern in relation to globalization which is how it is interconnected with immigration. As we all know, immigration seems to be the sole concern of Australian Nationalists, especially when it comes to the threat of Asianisation. However, I would disagree and say that is one of many issues that affect all of us here in Australia. As Nationalists we need to be versatile and have knowledge about a number of different issues which include health care, education, defence, the environment, globalization, economics, as well as immigration. Now globalization, in particular, leads to many things. Not only does it harm our society with big multi-national companies being set up that merely want us to become mindless consumers but it allows these companies to lobby Western governments to have cheap labour brought into countries to help the economy of a particular nation.

The old adage of wanting workers rights but if the wage rate goes too high than greedy companies that only care about their shareholders will “pull out” to go countries that have cheaper (lower) working conditions. To combat this Western governments allow mass amounts of 3rd World people to migrate to their countries that will work for less and keep the economy successful.

The University of Iowa states that –

‘..although the creation of migration cannot be attributed to globalization, the globalization process has given rise to a new kind of immigration. Prior to the 21st century, immigration meant leaving one’s home to become a member of another community. Travelling between one’s homeland and a recipient country was both time-consuming and expensive. Written correspondence did not allow for people to remain current with the events in one’s home country and other means of communication were relatively expensive. With advances in technology, today’s immigrants can maintain ties with their home countries. Changes in technology and globalization make full assimilation into the recipient country less necessary. Several countries encourage immigrants to maintain ties with their home country by creating laws that protect property rights of absent individuals and laws that enable immigrants to be dual citizens’.[9]

From this quote we can see how globalization also allows immigrants to have dual loyalties and that assimilation is no longer required. This leads to alienation of particular ethnic and/or cultural groups who set up their own alternative societies or create ghettoes. A prime example of this here in Australia are the Chinese, Aboriginals or Muslims (of various ethnic/racial groups) who follow their own cultural rules and have separate morals and values compared to the average Australian who is of Anglo-Celtic/European background.

The major concern in relation to immigration and globalization is how a mass flood of different cultures and ethnic groups will cause the original culture and ethnic group to be made a minority in the nation that they created. The hegemony of a nation, such as Australia, will change from being predominately Anglo-Celtic/European to something which is a mongrelized amalgamation or foreign races and cultures. This result will surely happen to numerous countries, cultures and ethnic groups around the world, as globalization seeks to create a “one-world culture” and make us all global citizens (or should I say slaves of globalization?).

The University of Iowa also claims that –

‘…discussing the role of immigrants in globalization requires one to engage in two discourses: “(i) the discourse of globalization as a cultural phenomenon and (ii) the discourse of difference.” In the same way that proponents of immigration argue that the integration of immigrants contributes to the diversity of a population, immigration critics argue that immigrants change the culture of the population to which they are migrating simply by bringing their own culture with them’.[10]

The question needs to be raised to those proponents of immigration that they need to realise that their misunderstood view of “diversity” may sound like a good idea (to them!) short-term but in the long run, through the influence of globalization, we will all lose that genuine diversity and become mongrels that have no unique identity. We will be a mass of “coffee-coloured” people that become a mono-cultural society that is no longer unique or diverse whatsoever!
In many ways it has been globalization and its influence of immigration that has caused animosity and friction in different societies around the world. Millions of people are migrating to start a “better life” particularly those from 3rd World countries.

As Catherine Tactaquin says –

‘…the over 150 million people in migration every year are contributing to a “demographic shift” in countries throughout the world. At the same time, globalization ‘s impact in migrant-receiving countries, such as in the United States or in Europe, has stirred economic uncertainties and heightened racial and anti-immigrant hostilities as predominantly white native populations seek economic security. High-tech communication, low transportation charges and boundless free trade allow the world to fuse into a single market. This also creates severe global competition even on the labour market. German businesses will only create new jobs in low-cost foreign countries. Deregulation instead of state supervision, liberalization of trade and capital transactions as well as privatization of state enterprises were the strategic weapons in the arsenal of market-fundamentalist governments and the international economic organizations supported by them, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). With these instruments, they fought a struggle for independence for capital that continues up to today. Nothing and no one should evade the law of supply and demand, whether air transport or telecommunications, banks or insurances, the construction industry, software development or the labour forces’. [11]

From this statement we can say how it doesn’t matter to the big multi-national companies if there is any racial or anti-immigrant hostility in a particular country it is about whether or not they are making profits and the economy in that particular country is successful. If a company is paying too much in wages, or costs are too high in another way, they will merely move to country where they can pay lower wages.

Why is it fair to blame “racism” for people reacting naturally to a threat to their financial security and way of life? Are the lives of immigrants worth any more than the lives of the original inhabitants who helped to create that nation, through their blood, sweat and tears in the first place? As Nationalists it is our duty to defend against those people who wish to impose harm or take advantage of our nation and in particular it seems that the globalists are the ones implementing these insidious changes.

*** I will discuss more in my second part of this article about the struggle between Nationalism and globalization. This will include the issue of how globalization can lead to the creation of a 20 – 80 society, along with what a few New Right intellectuals have to say about globalization and the thoughts of other racial Nationalists. There will also be a concluding statement about how Nationalists should tackle the issue of globalization.

REFERENCES

1 http://www.bgns.net/En/actual/posit/200904.html
2 http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/dk/GLOBPM.htm
3 http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/courses/ed253a/dk/GLOBPM.htm
4 http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2261.html
5 http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2261.html
6 http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2261.html
7 http://www.boloji.com/perspective/198.htm
8 http://www.boloji.com/perspective/198.htm
9 http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/issues/globalization/readingtable/immigration.shtml
10 http://www.uiowa.edu/ifdebook/issues/globalization/readingtable/immigration.shtml
11 http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=375

*Colin Godfrey is a supporter of the New Right Australia/New Zealand and can be contacted through the NR website.

Finally, here is a report about the National Anarchist Asia Tour 2008. The report was written by one of the participants, and it is purposely written as an eye witness account, without too many political statements. The aim of the report is to give a personal account of the trip.

One of the aims that we tried to achieve with this tour was to show the participants how the native people live. Two of the guys who came with us had never been in Asia and one can say that it was a real eye opener for them. Not only did we see the most amazing cultural sights and landscapes, but we mixed with the people as much as we could: we ate their local food, travelled in their buses and experienced the life they lead.

And by the end of the trip it was very clear to us that the people in Lao, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia have the same needs and wants as we have here in Australia, namely the need for financial security, preservation of their culture against the never-ending tsunami of American influence and the preservation of their community’s identity and survival.

Across South East Asia

(I went on the trip in order to see for myself how an alien culture, but of a more natural society, contrasted with the technocratic-dogmatic thinking that is enforced on my beloved homeland. I discovered how complete the imprisonment of the great masses is. May every one of my countrymen and women’s minds break free!)

After much wrangling with my local post office, my passport arrived two weeks ahead of the plane trip. I flicked through it standing outside the post office. Its cover was dark blue, made of some stiff card with a fabric face; inside was a holographic photo of myself. Of interest, and different from my previous passport, was the addition of an imbedded chip in a page towards the back, presumably holding my personal file for the benefit of the authorities. I’d like to know what is on it.

I work in a factory at a trade. My last day at work was actually a send off; I would not be coming back. Therefore I was treated by all and sundry, and made to promise to send post cards. A few chaps from the factory floor decided to spring a good natured trap and in a meat pie they gave to me, had surreptitiously inserted into the filling a chopped up chilli! However, I had been training myself for the past months to eat chilli, and the addition on one chilli improved the taste of the pie. They stood surprised as I pulled another chilli from my lunchbox and ate it raw. Then the rough fellows slapped me on the back and hooted with applause. I had impressed them.

I did not want to have to pay rent for five weeks while away, so I packed everything I owned into my car. The student accommodation where I live is easy to get, and I planned to reapply when I returned. Therefore I needed to store my possessions while away. Previously, I had sorted out to store them at a friend’s garage, and now I drove over there. Not everything could fit in the car; therefore everything I did not want to keep, various odds and ends, books and the like, I simply distributed to the other tenants or discarded. I had an interesting ride, with my car full of things, receiving many an odd look from other motorists. At one point the car’s suspension, already overburdened, bottomed out over a speed bump with an awkward grind. I gripped the wheel tightly, thinking I was stranded. Fortunately the downhill momentum carried the car over.

After returning to my residence I collected the bond from my landlord. He was happy at the state of my room, and we parted friends. Then I drove my now empty car over to Welf’s. My other comrades greeted me at the door excitedly, everyone was in high sprirts. After a while Allan said to me: ‘Look here, I’m staving. Let’s go and get a kebab’. We quietly left and drove up and got a kebab. It was our last taste of a kebab for five weeks.

That night I could not sleep much. Going overseas excites because it is seeing things one has never seen before. My mind was continually playing over what I read about or seen in photographs many times before, and I tried to imagine what it would be like once we touched down. Would it be the same? Or would it be different? This guessing kept me up for a long time. Finally I dropped off in a restless slumber.
…..

We awoke at some time past four am. It was a clear cloudless sky: those mornings are the coldest. A cloudy morning acts as an insulating blanket. Rainy weather is even better. After a few cups of coffee we lumbered our packs into the car. Another comrade arrived. More greetings. Then we left for the station.

Here we did not intend to catch the train. The line to Sydney Airport is owned by a private company and the fare is prohibitive. It is cheaper and more reliable to catch a taxi. We selected one and got in, however at that moment its engine died. A poor start. The driver looked at us apologetically. I felt sorry for the fellow; he seemed a decent enough chap. He called for a friend over his radio to come and pick us up.

On the way to the airport we got stuck in the traffic coming through the M5 tunnel under the airport itself. This is a major bottleneck in Sydney’s traffic ring road system, especially in the mornings and afternoons during peak hours. The driver cursed and grumbled at the Government. All of us comrades laugh at the various corruptions in the NSW State Government, and incompetence with which it deals with the endless scandals when the media uncovers them. In a way I am glad that we have a corrupt government: it throws out the sham of liberal-democracy into sharp relief, something we can use in our own outreach.

The taxi pulled up at International at about seven am. We changed our money into Thai Bant, and read our last emails till touch down in Bangkok. After check in we passed into the huge shopping area that all passengers navigate. Then we went through the much vaunted airport security. This checkpoint was manned by an obese woman with three chins. She grunted at me once and I passed through the metal detector. We went straight to our plane and boarded within a few minutes.
…..

The plane trip was uneventful. It simply felt as we had got into a tube and then got out again eight hours later – but the scenery was different. Most people watched movies or slept. My first recollection of Bangkok was a great poster of the Thai Monarch, with the slogan, ‘Long Live the King’, facing the disembarking passengers at the airport. It was literally the first thing we saw of Thailand. Presumably this was to remind newcomers or returning Thais who was boss. Not that I minded: I’d rather a king as head of State anyday, over some lacklustre politician. Not that I stand for old Lizzy though.

The reception hall at Bangkok Airport is a huge modern steel and glass hanger-like structure. We passed through customs and security without incident. After we retrieved our packs from the baggage carrousel we went outside to get a taxi to the city and a hostel. Immediately outside a heavy, smoggy, windy heat descended on us. Our shirts began to stick to our backs. Past the glass doors a large pack of tour and accommodation guides gathered; now they gathered around us, offering various deals. We selected one and hopped into a car. It was a sort of homemade taxi. To the driver’s credit the ride was smooth.

The drive to Bangkok’s Chinatown is along massive freeways and overpasses that are not ten years old. Magnificent bronze statues of traditional Thai figures adorn the side. Out beyond that lies Bangkok: a metropolis that reaches as far as the eye can see, vast and glistening and spreading. Soaring office and residential towers glint silver and white in the slanting afternoon sun against a brown smog; their number is countless, and they stretch to the horizon in all directions. Between them as a floor lies the green foliage of neighbourhood trees, like a carpet between teeth. This is the home of the common people.

From a sweeping exit we descended into the neighbourhoods of Chinatown. Here tuk tuk’s – small motorcycles with a passenger cart attached – and sedans wrestled with numerous scooters and a considerable amount of bicycles, for possession of the road space. Thais drive on the left, but that is the only similarity to Sydney. The nature of driving and road rules, or lack of, was a topic of much discussion among my comrades, and a whole treatise could probably on that subject be written.

The important point for the traveller to remember is that here drivers and riders have an uncanny unspoken understanding with one another (undoubtedly born of close folkish community), and possess a hidden capacity to adjudicate right of way among themselves with ease, in a traffic without a legally set ‘right of way’ as in Western countries. The communicate subtlety to one another their intentions: a raised eyebrow, a slight nod, a minor movement of the finger; which, owing to their slightness of motion, the average tourist misses and mistakes for an almost telepathic communication (as mentioned before, this can only come about through an intense knowledge of common ‘modes of understanding’ held only within a folkish community).

What this amounts to on the roads is that rules are often flouted, because they don’t need them. For example, off the freeways, one can forget entirely the lane markings. We learnt over the trip to trust implicitly in our drivers and riders, and their ability to judge distance and speed in often chaotic situations, as well as communicate effectively to other drivers and riders. We became confident and our earlier apprehension was dispelled. After this, riding on a motor scooter through a crowded five way intersection became a peculiar joy.

But I digress. The hotel in Chinatown was unremarkable and Western-like. We ventured out after a shower into the streets. Bangkok’s streets are always remarkable – so much living is done on them! When outside one is continually engaged by the strange smells, sounds, and exotic sights that press in on foreign senses. Every inch is occupied, yet if you need room then space is made. Sellers flogging food clutter the footpaths and lanes; tuk tuks crowd the road; cycles navigate precariously close but safely the edges of whizzing traffics. There is an order here, but it is another order: a more natural order to the West; here each man follows what his own mind thinks best – instead of what he is told is best.

This is in contrast to the West, where advertising has changed way the average man thinks: instead of what comes instinctively, what would be common sense, what is inherently logical, Western man has unnatural rules, ‘responsibilities’, technocratic dogma, fashionableness, ‘correct political attitudes’, etc., etc., to consider when confronted by a problem and in framing his solution. Mostly he applies these stipulations subconsciously, but once in a while he wonders at their illogical. Here, this attitude of mindless conformity was thrown into sharp contrast with the more logical mode and independence of thinking of the native people. Why not set up a barbecue on the street? There is room, and money to be made, so why not? Another though occurred to me. As I became gradually conscious of the enormous effect advertising has over the great masses and their thinking, I realised the enormous problem that confronts anyone who seeks to establish the forces of national resistance against the whole international movement.

And finally let no one say that modern society needs these ‘rules’ to operate: Bangkok is a modern city of over twenty millions which operates with minimal violent crime or social disturbances – and its preserves its folkish community.
…..

The next morning we visited the famed Bangkok floating markets. The idea was to get into a motor canoe and visit numerous stalls by the side of the canal. The edged of the canals are concrete, the stalls themselves timber and reed roofs, the hawkers selling mass-produced, but locally made Thai souvenirs. It is purely a tourist market. That said, I had no problem with the outfit because the items obviously were of decent quality and made by local people.

We ended up buying little though. We left lunch and drove up to the bridge on River Kwai. One end of the bridge is a small town, with again lots of tourist wares. The planking on the bridge is rather slipshod, and many boards rattle when stepped on. We did witness a Buddhist monk being carried on the shoulders of others in a religious parade. Then we drove over to a famous cutting, the infamous ‘Hellfire Pass’, of the Japanese Thailand-Burma Railway built by forced labour during the last war. Here Allied soldiers, mainly British, Australian and New Zealanders, and Dutch, were used as forced labour by their Japanese to build the railway through the jungle, as well as numerous Chinese, Malay, and Tamil labourers. All suffered greatly under the Japanese.

It must have been a very difficult project to be labouring on. It was very remote from any major town and the lack of metal hand tools meant workers were often using sticks as makeshift digging tools. Workers were often required to work eighteen hour days in the humid climate, and this coupled with the lack of hygiene, poor health care, and small, poor quality rations, resulted in cases of cholera, dysentery, starvation, and exhaustion among the working parties. To increase production, extra strain was placed on the still healthy workers, with the Japanese using bamboo canes to beat slow workers. In the six weeks it took to cut the pass, guards beat to death sixty-eight in total, or about eleven men a week.

There is a bronze plaque dedicated to these poor souls at the beginning of the pass. Here we stood in silent contemplation of the pain that happened here years ago. Men our own age here had suffered horrible fates, maybe their ghosts lingered here still. It was a solemn moment.

On the 13th of April we spent the day browsing the bazaars and street markets of Bangkok. I brought a sturdy bracelet of Afghan make made of a silver alloy of low quality. The moist air affected the copper in the mix and slowly turned it a darken yellow in the weeks to come. I decided then to only buy four souvenirs, one from each country we visited.

That evening all agreed we were looking forwards to leaving Bangkok. The humidity was oppressive, and the air was polluted with smog. We previously had bought tickets on an overnight train to Vientiane, capital of Laos, a country to the north of Thailand.

Now we went to the grand central railway station of Bangkok from our hotel in a tuk tuk. We boarded at about 8PM, but the train left not at the 8.30PM timetable start, but instead at about 10PM – reason unknown. We shared out the bottles of beers we had brought with us and made merry. Then we were rocked us to sleep by the train, racing over the rails.

We arrived at the end of the line and crossed into Laos. Here the communist authorities and their bureaucracy became apparent: it took about an hour to cross the boarder. A tuk tuk took us into Vientiane. It was a small city and had everything in pleasing proportion. We checked into a hostel and went over to a well known venue, The Scandinavian Bakery, for lunch. Then we prepared for the Hash House Harrier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_House_Harriers) run being held that afternoon.

It was held at a large house inside a compound on the edge of town. Like most of the runners, the host was an American from New York. We all got on fine. Then we ran the hash, through the streets, up into the poorer suburbs, out into the ramshackle slums, and along the main roads. It was great fun, and I remembered the thrill of pushing the body from my days competing in school middle distance running. Dogs yapped and barked at our heels and God knows what the locals thought of these red faced foreigners. After the run our generous host showered us with beer and conducted a hash circle, which is really a badly disguised drinking game for adults. Then, all for the grand price of US$5, we ate and drank to our hearts content at a nearby restaurant.

The next day was spent in sightseeing in Vientiane. We trawled the markets for deals on rare items back home, and for souvenirs. I bought a handsome silver dragon headed bracelet. That night we travelled north to Vanvieng in a minivan. Along the way an accident had just occurred, and a man was groaning on the ground, clutching a bloody head with his hands. He did not appear seriously injured though.

We arrived in Vanvieng past dusk. The streets had a Wild West feel. It was a free and easy atmosphere. There are a large amount of backpackers and European tourists in Vanvieng, and therefore drugs. One can order with food all sorts of concoctions.

The next day the others went tubing on a nearby river. I wandered the immense airstrip that runs through the town. Today its surface has deteriorated to a gravelly surface, and it serves a sort of large empty square. In the Vietnam War era this was the CIA’s base of operations for its ‘Air America’ service, an outfit transport aid and training to the anti-communist hill tribes. It was unlike how I’d imagined it. I had expected to see plane wrecks and mournful faces, but the people here seem to have already forgotten the war.

Vanvieng is a testament to the hedonism of today. Stoned backpackers stumble along the streets and periodically someone will fall over in a drug induced fit. This is common, and the person is simply carried to a padded bench to recover. It seemed to me like the end of the world, a denial of reality, of the future, a simple living for the moment feeling.

The day after the next we returned to Vientiane. The next morning, I left my companions and took a bus to across Laos heading for Danang in Vietnam. The bus travelled on through the night, and the music was never turned off for very long. I did not sleep for more than three hours all up.
…

In the pale blue dawn we stopped at a busy roadside café on the edge of a misty mountain. The coffee was Vietnamese style, condensed milk, hot dark liquid and ice. Stirring it up mixed the ingredients into a sweet and strong brew.

We went through the Vietnamese boarder at about 9AM. Because I was the only Westerner in the office I was delayed, and my passport was not approved until the last minute. However my bus passenger waited patiently, and even cheered me when I walked under the red and white boom gate.

Danang was a whistlestop. At about 2PM I quickly disembarked from the bus and found another going south almost immediately. We left Danang in record time, and this time I made certain beyond all doubt that the bus had air conditioning. Also the seats had clean fabric, not dirty lino covers. A pure luxury, in a contrast with the last twenty four hours. Not even the music would stop me from enjoying an adequate rest.

All that day and night we drove on, small fry on the roads dodging our rushing mass. In the morning we navigated through the outer suburbs of Saigon, which is still commonly called that name by locals. Once off the bus, I found a map. I correctly guessed the tourist precinct to be District 1. A local bus took me across town. Here I found in the agreed hostel a note detailing a change to another hostel around the corner. I fumbled around the long way, rejecting many offers of tuk tuks and restaurants. Finally I found it, well hidden in a back lane. The boys greeted me, and I explained my adventure on the busses.

I was in Saigon, the opulent faded jewel of France’s colonial empire. The influence could be seen in the art deco and French provincial architecture and street layout. Welf had the good luck to run into an old acquaintance from his previous trip, Johnny, an experienced local guide. Throughout our stay in Vietnam the friendliness of the local people surprised us, not least because being Australians our country had been fighting here less than thirty years ago. Perhaps the better treatment the Australians gave the Vietnamese back then, and their more professional training, accounted for some of this.
However I am inclined to venture that the natural spirit of the Vietnamese is friendly toward any stranger. A good example of this was Johnny, who insisted that we visit his home and eat there at least once. Similarly he was an honest and good natured guide we could not fault. After the day was over, and the obligation to guide these clumsy Westerners was done, still he would on his own free time insist on staying with us to help out and point out the better eating and drinking places. Undoubtable some of this was due to following shear good business acumen of not letting a customer out of site until safely in hostel, but it was hard to ascribe it entirely to this. There was a genuine and friendly side to his nature that was undeniable.

Johnny himself was a former South Vietnamese soldier in ARVN. After the war these men where barred from other professions’, and so today make up the large labouring and taxi driving class of Saigon and the South.

LONG TAN

The next morning we visited the memorial to the Australians at Long Tan, about an hour north west of Saigon. Again the heat was oppressive. The red soil was dusty in a horrid way, getting everywhere in the car. The memorial, which is a simple concrete cross painted white, stands in an unremarkable field of rubber trees. Here we stood for a moment of sombre silence. The birds twittered in the trees above.

Here on the 18th of August 1966 a ‘D’ Company 6RAR (Australian infantry) encountered forward elements of a VC regiment. The battle developed until the VC were continually assaulting and attempting to flank the Australians, however heavy artillery from a nearby base and ammunition resupply from helicopters allowed the Australians, who where widely dispersed in excellent defensive positions, to hold them off. Also heavy rain hampered assault attempts. This situation lasted for some hours until a counter attack by another company, ‘B’, staged in APC’s drove off the attackers.

Most of the Australian soldiers fighting in both companies were in their early twenties and conscripted. The parallels to my own age were again, like Hellfire Pass, uncanny, and gave me pause for reflection.

Two hundred metres or so to the right of the cross lay the battlefield itself, a cleared patch of red soil, furrowed for planting. It is said that this is the only memorial to foreign soldiers Vietnam has permitted to be erected on its soil. I wondered why this was. We also visited the unremarkable remnants of the Australian and New Zealander Base, now dismantled and grown over.

On the 24th we travelled to Mui Ne which is a beachside town north of Saigon by four hours. It is a simple and pretty place, clean sand and water against a warm blue sky. It did not rain once.

It is often said that when things are dangerous, or unpleasant, they make good reading and can fill many pages; but that happier days, of rest and sunshine can be soon told.

We spent the days lazing about the beach or floating in the warm ocean swells. In the evenings we would gather at our favourite restaurant and feast like kings for a pittance. And at dusk the cloudless red sky gave way to a full moon, which we toasted with our drinks in the gentle surf.

But we had adventures there too. One day we hired motor scooters and rode bravely through the foreign traffic, out along a coast road to a sea of immense dunes. Here we climb for hours among the hills of sand, sliding down the steep and shear faces, to come to rest in little valleys of dune grass and old drift wood – and then climb out again. Sand got into everything, my pockets and my under clothes included.

Among the dunes lay a round blue lake, ringed with green weed, and there stood a herd of miniature ponies, grazing in the shallows. The ponies had no owners in sight and seemed free beasts. They seemed unaware of our presence, and we left them to their food.

Later that day I lent my motor scooter to another backpacker. She fell into a corner, cutting her leg in places, and was taken to a local hospital. I was roused by Allan who raced back to the hostel. I was required to bring back the motorcycles of Welf and the injured backpacker. Allan took me to hospital and in turns we got back the other bikes, riding separately back and then together to the hospital. I must admit that the speed and confidence of Allan’s riding surprised me, but I counselled myself that he was an experienced rider of many years. On the return journey’s, when I was in control, I pushed my abilities to stay with Allan, and he commended me afterward. The sheer thrill of riding a bike at high speeds along chaotic road cannot be matched, and is almost delicious in its appeal. It feels like you have cheated death. The closure of this unfortunate incident was the complete recovery of the injured backpacker.

A sad parting of ways occurred then also, with Michael starting on the long journey home. During a special midnight toast in the South China Sea we declared eternal friendship.

Then after a few days, with heavy hearts, we turned and left the Mui Ne beach and returned to Saigon. Back into the smog and dirt and bustle of the city. The day after we caught a bus bound for Phonm Penh. We arrived late in the afternoon.

Cambodia struck me immediately as being a few degrees poorer than Vietnam. My first memory after crossing the boarder was the profusion of street sellers of crisp fried insects. I am told that these are a good source of protein. Eating them undoubtable was a practice that sprung up during Pol Pots time. The people here seem more reserved than Vietnam, more irrational, more genuine.

The next day I wandered along the foreshore of the Mekong, and here was a festival taking place in a very public manner. A small public temple was surrounded and crowded with reverent Buddhists, graced with flowers and incense. Across the road a large open air market spread. The living pulse of Asia is overwhelming, the sheer unconsciousness of how the people go about their very public lives amazes. There is not the least shred of self-consciousness here.

On the 29th of April I visited the huge Russian markets; perhaps it refers to the aid this country received from the USSR at one time. There I brought a small number of the red check traditional Khmer scarves. That night we lazed about the foreign correspondents club, famous for the patronage of journalists during Pol Pot time.

The next day Allen departed. We had the now customary last drinks. Then the net morning we boarded a bus to Sinnahokville, a beach town on the south coast of Cambodia. There was nothing extremely remarkable about this place in contrast to the beach at Mui Ne. In fact I found it dirtier and more crowded. There was not much to recommend it. However it could have been we stayed in a bad area or saw the wrong beach.

After a few days here we returned to Phenon Penh and to the same guest house. Then after a night we travelled north to Siem Riep. This is a town just south of the temples of Angkor Wat, Cambodia’s best know landmark. Here Welf left to join up with his better half in an upmarket hotel. I choose a budget hostel instead. The rooms were $5 without aircon which suited me fine.

ANKOR WAT

I spent the next week travelling up to Angkor Wat and wandering around their massive bulk. This place is simply amazing and if a visitor does not visit it while in Asia then they are missing an extraordinary spectacle. These mightily temples, build between 800 and 1200 AC are the remnants of a once powerful Hindu empire in this now Buddhist land. The immense carved faces stare out at one impassively, confident and incumbent in their long gone power.

The temples take most of their themes directly from the mythology of the Hindu: the complex is laid out to represent holy Mount Meru in India; the temple is dedicated to Vishnu; and the orientation is to the West, from whence the Gods originated in Hindu myths.

Impressive stone scenes are depicted in bas relief and statues adore most other structures. Here one can see the great extent of Indian – and by default Aryan – influence, on South East Asian culture. This influence does not wash over the mountain chain that divides Vietnam from Laos and Cambodia, and this has acted as a dividing line between the Indianite and Sino influenced cultures of Cambodia, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam respectively.

I left Siem Riep on the 9th of May. I took a bus to the boarder of Thailand along a highway that was in a poor state. I am told this is as an airline company is paying the government bribes to not repair the road. And thus the trip is slow and rough.

At the boarder transferred to a different bus. Thailand is a very modern efficient State, and the crossing was easy. The new bus was far more comfortable and we made good progress, arriving in Bangkok at 8.30PM.

I found the cheapest room I could (about $2) in a dormitory. Then I caught a taxi with two New Zealanders to the airport in the morning. It all went like clockwork. I meet Welf at the airport with his partner; they’d been staying on the idyllic south coast of Thailand for the better part of a week. Unfortunately it had rained a lot. However they had a happy time, including many massages and facials – Welf’s partner that is.

On the flight home I watched an old version of ‘Around the World in Eighty Days’. I was reminded that the world still holds much mystery, even now. Witnessing Asian culture shows one what is important in our own European culture.

In seeking to understand and respect other cultures, perhaps we can find some keys to building our own.

Reactionary nationalism

Reactionary nationalism can be loosely defined as nationalistic sentiment which has been created in response to a particular social change or crisis. It is important to differentiate between reactionary nationalistic sentiment which has arisen in response to a particular experience, and nationalistic sentiment which has always more or less existed in a dormant form but has been aroused in response to a perceived problem. These two situations, while superficially appearing similar, that is to say, both individuals have become more politically active in response to a situation, are still fundamentally different. The difference lies in the psychology of the individuals and the motivation which has spurned them to action.

Reactionary nationalism, or behaviour which appears to be nationalistic, is probably the most common form of nationalism. It is also not uncommon for such behaviour to be misconstrued as greater sense of awareness of the underlying issues which have led to a particular crisis. However such knee jerk nationalism often lacks a more solid ideological basis or a sense of belief or conviction which has arisen as a conclusion to personal enquiry. It is an emotional form of nationalism which is fueled by an almost instinctual response to protect ones interests. This is not however, the primary reason why such sentiment fails to spread to any siginificant degree or sustain itself as a long term movement. The Cronulla riots served as a good example of this, being a localised and short lived, but nevetheless explosive expression of nationalist sentiment, an uprising . A few important points need to be made about the events at Cronulla.

Firstly, the sentiment which led to the riots had been present for quite some time beforehand. There had been allegations circulating around the local area that groups of ‘middle eastern youths’ on the beach had asked white women wearing bikinis to “cover up”, along with allegations of harassment such as spitting in food and general intimidating behaviour which had been going on for several years. It has been claimed that these alleged incidents are what prompted retaliation by locals. It was also alleged that five life guards from North Cronulla were attacked by ‘youths of middle eastern origin. (1)

Secondly, the riot, although marked as ‘racist’ by the media, was clearly targetted at “Middle Easterners”, that is primarily Lebanese, but NOT against other races such as Asians or Indians. The targets were nationalities that were deemed as problematic and troublesome and other races seemed to have been largely ignored.

Thirdly, despite efforts by a few to the contrary, the riot was largely seen as embarrasing, disgusting and a source of national shame. While some Australians were able to identify with social issues that manifest themselves in neighbourhoods that have a Muslim Lebanese presence, for the most part they disagreed with rioters.

It should be noted that even though the riot appeared nationalistic, youths toting the Australian flag, wanting to take control of their community and turning against the liberal agenda of social pluralism and multiracial assimilation, there was still very little, if any, of a developed nationalist sentiment. Would such people who may object to race X having a presence in Australia, accept race Y because race Y is less prone to antagonistic behaviour? Would many of the rioters who express disdain about the presence of Lebanese, express the same disdain about the presence of Chinese? Would they consider Asian assimilation and intermarriage as acceptable, or even desirable? There would probably be quite heated debate on this issue. As a side note, while the term “Lebanese” is commonly used, it should be noted that there are both Christian and Muslim Lebanese. The term “Lebanese” when used in such situation like this, or with the gang rapes in Sydney implies that it refers quite specifically to Muslim Lebanese, and not to all Lebanese in general. An overlooked apsect of Cronulla was that the ‘racial’ friction may not have been so much due to friction between “Aussies” and “Lebs” but probably more accurately between European Christians and Muslims.

The media following the riot beat up the issue. The left attributed it to “nationalism” making the incorrect implication that ALL forms of nationalism take on this particular form and that such rioting is the natural result of any nationalistic sentiment. Quick conclusions were drawn that this was due to xenophobia, but as stated earlier, why target Lebanese specifically (Lebanese Muslims)?

Nationalism in a true sense does not necessarily take this form. Nationalism, as the idea that a country, or a state or any community should consist of a group of people more or less ethnically or racially similar, sharing more or less the same cultural heritage is quite different to ‘reactionary nationalism’ which may only consider this notion as a solution to the problem of troublesome foreigners, rather than as an ends in itself. A nation does not take a prescribed form, nor need to be formally defined. The etymology of the word nation implies that nation refers to ethnicity, to ancestry, and not merely to being a citizen of a particular country, or a subject to a particular monarchy.

To many who express nationalistic sentiment, the ideal of a nation respresenting a rather specific cultural and ethnic/racial group is secondary to the ideal of removing percieved problematic ethnic groups. The New Right however, hold the view that dealing with troublesome ethnic groups is secondary to securing our own nation and protecting our own cultural identity.

Much of how nationalism is perceived is due to the actions of reactionary nationalists, who are nationalists more in name than actions. Because these nationalists have used racial friction as the primary, or in some cases, the sole mechanism by which their nationalism is expressed, the media have found it all too easy to make ‘nationalism’ synonymous with racial intolerance and bigotry. In public discourse, it is an unwritten assumption that nationalistic behaviour is largely xenophobic and isolationist in nature. Because most people do not subscribe to such ideals, nor wish to categorise themselves in this manner, unless some siginificant crisis comes along, reactionary nationalism will continue to remain the domain of a minority.

The difference here, although subtle, is vitally important. A true nationalist movement subscribes to the core ideals of nationalism and seeks to promote the ideals, rather than what some people percieve as being necessary to beat the path towards national salvation. A true nationalistic movement is an inwards looking one. One that seeks to better the state of ones own folk, and in parallel, allow others to better run, independantly, their own nations. It is about folk running their own nation, for the expression and preservation of their own culture, their own race or ethnicity. To paraphrase the constitution, a nation by the people, FOR the people. A state which isn’t detached from those which created it, but rather a state which is an expression of that unique subgroup, that unique expression of the human species which at that time and place.

Nationalism as a positive movement

There is a great deal of potential within the movement to further promote and exploit the positive aspects of nationalism. That is, those aspects of nationalism which would be appealing to the general public and which would lead to positive associations with a nationalist movement rather than negative associations.

Currently, a lot of the focus of nationalist propaganda is on either social problems, or on an impending and perhaps unjustified sense of doom. Pauline Hanson in her maiden parliamentary speech said “I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40 % of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate.” (2) While her point may have been factually valid, nevertheless this statement was one that, whether justified or not, defined the One Nation party in the eyes of Australians. The image that was created of One Nation, was that it was full of people who were xenophobic, who were full of fear and who wanted to resist change and ‘social progress’. Many other nationalist parties are seen this way, at best.

A hypothetical party, which would define themselves as being a solution to the problem of ghettos, street violence and protestations and demands from immigrants would gain support from secondary nationalists who wish to resolve this problem. But for many others, a sub conscious association is made between this party and racial problems and a xenophobic attitude. If this party focused on attacking the ‘other’ then in turn, they portay themselves as attackers and lose appeal to those who don’t hold belligerent attitudes. The party does not even need to focus on attacking the ‘other’, as any vaguely nationalist party will be accused by the liberal media of being xenophobic and holding racially polemic ideals. As seen with the One Nation party, the image that a party which sets out to appeal to nationalists has, and the extent of their views, as percieved by the public, is more of a construct of the media, than the party. Such a party, which might touch on issues that multiracialism brings will be made out to appear not all that different from a party which focuses on such issues and proposes drastic countermeasures. The charges that were laid against One Nation led them

Making a nationalist movement appear as a positive contribution to the existing nation is not so much a matter of taking a more ‘moderate’ approach but rather taking a different approach entirely. By doing so, one can help bypass the inevitable mudslinging , namecalling and distortion of truth that most nationalist parties that lean to the right must wear by not appearing to follow the same paradigms and approaches of old.

The different approach comes, not from simply changing tactics, but from a fundamental and deep seated change from within the movement. It comes, not from attacking others in a more sophisticated way, but in coming to a realisation that true nationalism is not about fighting the other, but in promoting the welfare of ones own nation. A realisation that the problems that face us, is not a simple matter of ‘us vs them’, but rather it is a deeper problem concerning the way people see their relationship with others, with their country, with others countries and with other cultures. It is the fundamental changes in how people see humanity and the function of the state which leads to problems that reactionary nationalists rebel against.

Why Nationalism is good

Consider the average suburbanite. Perhaps the one who is employed full time, has a house, mortgage, children and bills. Much of his time is dedicated to that job or jobs, those bills, that mortgage and the children. Perhaps there is awareness and concern of larger issues, such as the state of the Earths environment, wars, poverty but by and large, for the large majority of people, their primary expectation from those who govern them are to facilitate thier endeavours in their more immediate environment and circumstances. The idea of having organic societies, a protected cultural heritage or a nation state which exists for the people, rather than viewing the people as a resource is far removed from interest rates, petrol prices, workplace bargaining agreements or local crime. While there might be concerns which have been taken up by nationalists, why should most people care?

Living in a diverse society leads to alienation. More and more people are finding themselves in communities where their neighbours are less and less familiar. More people are living in communities which don’t resemble those that they grew up in. Many Australians can remember homogenous suburbs where they grew up, where children were trusted to play on the streets and where there was little gang mentality. They can remember streets not being so crowded and jammed with cars, less competition for housing and space and the sense that there was one country, one culture. Many can remember when it would have been considered ridiculous to even entertain the notion that outward displays of Christianity or Western culture might be socially troublesome. Sure there were quite a few different European ethnicities who may not have necessarily received a red carpet introduction. Even immigrant English weren’t spared, but the similarities were enough to facilitate a form of assimilation which didn’t necessitate redefining the host nation. In moving away from an organic, relatively racially and culturally homogenous society, people have been asked, forced, or coerced into making more and more concessions to accommodate the social experiement that is the pluralistic state. The extent of the sacrifices that Australians have made in order to facilitate this liberal social experiment perhaps isn’t clearly understood and could be one of the underlying reasons why the program of continued multiracialism, individualisation and economisation of the country is continuing unabated. Younger people may not even be able to remember back far enough to have a solid frame of reference as to how much Australia, and Western nations have changed since liberalism has taken root.

Despite the overall acceptance of the direction that the western world is heading, and the opposition and criticism that the New Right or National Anarchists might receive, there is nevertheless still an undercurrent of dissatisfaction and a desire to return to simpler times that still exists. It seems that it is the younger generation who are becoming more politically incorrect in their outlook rather than the older ones. Rebellion still exists, but rather than rebellion against conservatism as witnessed in the 1960′s, it is a rebellion against something different entirely, against ideas perpertrated by the original revolutionaries. Unlike the 1960′s where people didn’t live in the societies that they were advocating, people today, who are living with the results of liberalism hold a sense of dissatisfaction with it. Despite education, indoctrination, the Politically Correct thought police and other influences, there still is a strong sense of scepticism about it all. It seems that many natural tendancies, desires and wishes cannot be eradicated or indoctrinated out of people. Even those who cannot remember a time before oppressive Political Correctness, are still capable of sensing the social injustice it involves and the double standards. Nature always triumphs in the end.

A nationalist movement which wants to put forward a positive image, doesn’t necessarily have to avoid any mention of gang violence or ethnic marginalisation. It can make references to these, but it shouldn’t project itself as existing merely for the purposes of dealing with these issues. It shouldn’t do so, because a true nationalist movement simply wouldn’t exist primarily for these purposes in the first place. It would be more productive to put forward positive imagery, to project the same goals and desires as everyone else. For instance, rather then focus on the problems of certain groups within certain suburbs, it would be more productive to convey the notion of a suburb which is peaceful, where everyone looks like they belong there and feel as if they are home. A society where there is no need to be careful of what one says, or be careful of expressing ones culture. One where everyone is able to understand and connect with others, having knowledge of the same national history and being aware of cultural nuances. It is hard for anyone to argue against such a society or such a goal. Other positives would be a sense of ownership over ones nation. Rather than being an citizen who must deal with the wishes of those who take it upon themselves to engineer the nation, being a citizen who has a sense of ownership over their own community and nation. A country owned by Australians and being run on behalf of Australians, rather than the situation as it is today, a nation run by the incumbent government for it’s own interests, the interests of big business and of pressure groups. Most people do not necessarily endorse this situation, but they must be made aware that it does not have to be so.

Putting a positive spin on nationalism isn’t just about avoiding criticism and creating touchy feel good policies, but in also altering the perception that people have of nationalism at a more subconscious level. One propaganda technique used quite frequently by the media, is to create subconscious connections in peoples minds between two unrelated objects or emotions. For instance, ‘nationalists’ are often depicted in conjunction with overt displays of assertiveness, stubborness and in a manner which make them appear reactionary, unthinking and simple minded intolerant bigots. Even though there is no solid argument to the accusations, the repeated exposure to the name or image of the particular party or group in conjuction with exposure to images and concepts which make people uncomfortable creates an almost pavlovial response. For instance, SBS news had a segment on an anti immigration protest in Moscow, mostly attented by your average citizen, many middle aged and older. This segment was followed seamlessly and without breaking stride at all, into an unrelated story on neo-nazis in Russia. Do this repeatedly, and the viewer then associates one with the other, even though there is no direct link between the two. In a similar manner, newspaper stories regarding the September 11 attacks would often include within the article a paragraph or two on Iraq about some unrelated issue. When party X always puts out leaflets which predict doom and gloom, social upheaval and worst case scenarios, despite the legitimacy of the argument, party X will be viewed through the lens it has created. It’s policies, it ideologies will be distorted by the very image and associations it has created for itself. It is the context of the message, rather than the message itself which will determine what kind of people are drawn to it. The image one project of oneself, gives others the prism which they will see you through with.

Positive nationalism is about creating positive connections. Rather than always putting forward ideas which seem confrontational and uncomfortable, positive images should be put out. When people think of the New Right, they should automatically associate NR or NA with positive thoughts and desires, which in turn leads to a positive opinion of the New Right. Doing so associates one with more nostalgic images and gives people legitimate reason to support the party or movement. A movement which seeks to create and bring about that which people wish for, that which makes people more comfortable and content, will enjoy greater support than a movement which does not offer anything like this.

A movement which focuses on the positives of organic, homogenous societies, and the benefits that this kind of society will bring about for people and their children will resonate more with the general population than a movement which is frantic and whose message is dire. One which is incapable of eloquently describing a more inclusive society which uplifts people and offers a more meaningful existance will have little recourse to defend itself when attacked as being extermists and fringe dwellers.

The BNP have enjoyed success with their efforts to get involved in the local community, and take care of issues that the government has neglected. While there is little strategic value in the outcome of the work, the BNP are working towards portraying themselves as people dedicated to the community, who do not ignore the little man and who understand peoples concerns. Community events hosted by the BNP not only bring people together, but also keep alive the spirit of community and of ones belonging to that community. Despite what the BNP actually stand for, their precense at such events creates a positive link in peoples mind. When they think of family events and community action they will think of the BNP, and as such will think of community, family events and political party people who listen and care when they think of the BNP.

This strategy seems to have has some success. When the RSPCA office in Chippenham Road in Harold Hill was closed, local residents turned to the British National Party to ask for help. A deputation approached Mark Logan, the BNP councillor for Gooshays ward on Havering Council, and asked him if he could do anything to get the office opened again. (3) Having demonstrated their political capabilities and proven themselves as positive nationalists, residents disenchanted with the system have recognised the BNP as a real, and more importantly, viable alternative as a party and as a local action group.

This also offers a degree of protection against criticism from opponents. One can oppose a catalogue of policies and ideals, but when those ideals resonate with people, it becomes much harder to offer constructive criticism. Political Correctness has relied on this in order to stifle any opposition. By simply claiming to be against intolerance, hate, violence, bigotry and injustice, rather than extolling the virtues of social marxism, it has given itself a great deal of immunity to opposition. How, after all, can one rationally put forward an objection to fighting intolerance, racial hatred and genocide? If they were to argue that society should adopt Marxist ideals and the destruction of national identity, it leaves the door open for constructive criticism and legitimate opposition. But by framing their agenda in terms of ‘fighting hatred’, by showing images of oppressed, delicate and downtrodden blacks, by being for abstract ideals which are almost universally desired, it has been able to silence opposition by simple stating that they are for bigotry, violence and hatred. By linking national identity with hatred, racial intolerance and facism, people became much more receptive to attacks in national identity, as nationalism was now seen as a barrier towards tolerance and harmony around the world. Of course, this is not true, and is miles away from the real issue, but nevertheless is highlights how people attach to the sentiments that a movement expresses, rather than the political and ideological details. Most people who accept modern democratic liberal states do it, not because of some deep understanding of the philosophy behind it, but because they associate multicultural liberal democracies with ideals like ‘tolerance’, ‘freedom’, ‘understanding of other cultures’.

One does not have to oppose ‘tolerance’, ‘freedom’, or ‘understanding of other cultures’ when advocating a nationalist state, but merely demonstrate how they are more tolerant, offer more freedom and more respect for other cultures than modern day liberalism. It serves little purpose to put down ‘left wing’ ideals as feel good do-gooderism because most people actually DO want to feel good and to do good, and there is nothing wrong with that if done thoughfully. It serves little purpose to criticise opponents as being bleeding heart softies because most people DO have a sense of compassion. This approach finds a limited audience.

Positive nationalism isn’t about criticising the motives of those who seek to better get along with other cultures and end ethnic conflict, but rather in taking those concerns, recognising them and channeling them into a movement which is better suited to these ends. For instance, one who supports the plight of the Tibetans might be shrugged off as a ‘bleeding heart’ and cast aside by the more traditional right wingers. Positive nationalism is about reaffirming that idea that cultures and peoples have the right to self determination and applying it to ALL peoples, INCLUDING those of European descent. Not only should the Tibetans have a right to a nation where they can practice their own culture and not be outpopulated by others, but even YOU should live as they do, in a more organic, cultured society. Parallels can be drawn and just as the Tibetans wish for their own identity to be preserved, this sense of belonging and identity should be encouraged in others. After all, a nationalist is a nationalist, and one who carries out a similar struggle elsewhere is an ally and not a foe simply because they are not part of our nation.

Someone who says “Muslims Out!” can be opposed very easily. Someone who is arguing that the nation should be run by the people, for the people and that the people should be able to practice their own culture and preserve their own identity will encounter much less opposition. That is not to say they will encounter none, as there will always be opposition from political fringes. If like the BNP people within a movement are setting up community events, helping the public and taking care of peoples concerns, it becomes much more difficult for people to oppose the group or movement and still stay on side. After all, if the movement is positive, seems beneficial and is offering much to you and your children, then you are less likely to take opposition to it seriously or consider them as being legitimately interested in you.

One has to ask themselves the question how one can be a nationalist and oppose other cultures and races. Nationalism is an international affair, an idea which isn’t specific to one nation, but represents an ordering of all nations. True nationalism can not exist in isolation, as an island amongst countries with differing and possibly hostile ideologies.

A positive and productive force

Framing New Right ideals in a manner which seem attractive to the general public and difficult to oppose without seeming negative and heartless is more of a political strategy than a new direction for the movement. Only a movement which truly represents and believes in it’s own ideology can be successful in carrying that movement forward. Liberalism has its own ideological foundation which to most people would appear dry, academic, irrelevant. But it also has its public face, it’s public espression of its ideals which are big on sentiment and short on rationale. It is because of this sentiment that Political Correctness and liberalism has become so ingrained in the psyche of many people. This strategy was it’s key to success, just like many other movement before it. Nationalist movements, whether it is the New Right or National Anarchism need to present themselves to the general public not as a set of ideologies and philosophies, but rather as a positive and productive force which carries with it promise for the improvement of the nation and of the state of affairs in general. It is an important strategy, and one that is necessary in creating a grassroots movement whose ideas spread and are adopted en masse. It is a strategy that can only be successfully carried out with a deep seated conviction and acceptance of a more positive nationalism.

The New Right/National Anarchists have not only attended demos, but held community days, supported resident action groups and some NR/NA activists are members of the SES and the volunteer fire brigade, assisting the community in a positive and tangible way.

A movement must inspire hope, have vision of something better and some means by which to attain it, rather than have merely negative visions of the future which the movement is supposedly working to avoid. It must be productive, creative, novel, inspiring and appeal to peoples base instincts and wishes. A nationalist movement must convey the image of the type of nation that it seeks to create, and present this image to people as a better alternative. It must not denounce liberalism for appealing to base instincts, but rather out-do liberalism by showing itself as being even MORE tolerant, respectful of cultures. It must show how it is more about protecting culture than those who claim to respect culture. Not only do we think that all peoples have their right to live in their own autonomous states free from global assimilation, but we extend this to ourselves, a concept that one is hardpressed to oppose without coming across as a hypocrit. Not only do we oppose the outpopulation of Tibetans, or the disappearance of cultures around the world due to global corporatism, but we oppose outpopulation of anyone ANYWHERE, or the dehumanising sterile economisation of ANY society ANYWHERE. Many other who preach tolerance and respect for other cultures however, have no issue in Western peoples being marginalised or having their racial and ethnic heritage lost to a globalist agenda. Carefully done, the New Right and National Anarchists can demonstrate that they hold up ideals of tolerance and a respect fo human diversity to a greater degree of integrity than those who claim to be champions of tolerance and diversity. This isn’t about trying to be more pious than the pope, but in putting forward a movement which is far truer to these goals than the movement which has become the status quo, which is replete with hypocrisy, double standards and supremacism.

The New Right attended the torch relay in Canberra carrying a banner bearing the slogan “We are all Tibetans”. The New Right attended, not as nationalists purely acting in the interests of their own nation, but as nationalists supporting the very ideals of nationalist. The plight the Tibetans face, facing “ethnic seeding” by Han Chinese mirrors that of the Western world, where the changing demography is used as a hammer blow against western nations and western culture. Nationalists in Tibet, fighting to secure their own culture and ethnic heritage, are carrying out a struggle which parallels those of westerners fighting to secure their own culture and heritage. Such nationalists are not rivals, or natural opponents, but rather allies fighting against the same homogenising, globalist agenda.

Conclusion

Positive nationalism, that is, a nationalist movement which put forward positive ideals and offers carrots rather than extolling the virtues of using the stick is a vital strategy in the efforts of propagating a grassroots movement. By putting forward flyers, posters and writings which offer better, more desirable alternatives and by taking part in activism which has clear and visible benefits, one can create an association between the movement and positive thoughts and feelings in the minds of others. Rather than being associated with fear, doom and conflict, one can build associations in the minds of others between their movement and more positive thoughts and outcomes. This will colour peoples view of the movement and of the people who take part in the movement. The people who take part in the movement will not be seen as reactionary troublemakers, but as enlightened, thoughtful and positive individuals who are in touch with peoples desires, their concerns and wishes.

It must come, not from merely a change in propaganda but through and honest desire to fulfill this form of nationalism. Those who wish to promote such a form of nationalism, must themselves become such nationalists.

A simple example would be defending the rights of people to express Christmas greetings rather than immediately jumping on minorities as the reason that displays of Christianity are kept sedate. While one cannot tackle the issue of the emerging taboo of saying “Merry Christmas” without addressing how multiculturalism has lead to the problem, the focus nevertheless should be on what the solution would lead to, rather than the problem. No one would have ever thought in the 50′s or 60′s that a little extra tolerance of the changes brought about by liberalism would lead to many suburbs changing their demographically so drastically, or entire suburbs or even cities having a natural born Australians being the minority. But nevertheless, this is the case because people accepted the premise and therefore accepted the movement, even though there was never a clear understanding of what was really being tried to achive. Likewise, even though many in the movement remain sceptical, and rightly so about peoples acceptance of what the New Right or National Anarchism might need to do to implement it’s ideals. The first step must still be taken, and that first step is the acceptance of what NR/NA stands for. For many people, that do not accept the New Right because they do not understand what it is about. NA/NR is metapolitical, it is neither right nor left, but rather, it challenges established political dogmas. When people have accepted and embraced what a movment stands for, and what it is trying to achieve, the political climate then changes, and the implementation of those changes, which might have seemed impossible before, can now take place.

(1) BBC TV channel 2 UK television program “This World”, 7.00 to 7.30 pm, Thursday 14 June 2007
(2) http://www.australian-news.com.au…
(3) http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/06/bnp-battle-to…

*Dennis Kastro is a new contributor to the New Right Australia / New Zealand website. He can be contacted through sydneyinfo@newrightausnz.com

As an example: mention the 1932 opening of the Sydney Harbour Bridge to any older Australian, and the first image that will spring to their mind is a man on horseback, galloping forward to slash the ribbon with his sword, before the ‘official’ representative could get to it. The swordsman was a member of a political group called the New Guard. And while this stunt was not especially humorous, it was certainly eye-catching – it remains in the mass mind to this day. In that same city in 2007, the crew of television show The Chaser made world headlines when they infiltrated the APEC forum (one of them dressed as Osama bin Laden), making a complete mockery of the forum’s expensive security measures.

In general, the media doesn’t give coverage to alternative politics (the recent 9/11 Truth Forum in Sydney was completely ignored, even though one of the speakers was a prominent Japanese MP). But ‘fringe’ views can get past the editors if they are presented by means of some humorous prank or stunt. Humour equals saleability…it’s as simple as that. People like to laugh, and the editors know it. For the mass media, the dollar is the bottom line…and the skilled prankster can actually make this work in his or her favour. A prankster called Mark Pauline claimed that “the media can never deny coverage to a good spectacle. No matter how ridiculous, absurd, insane or illogical something is, if it achieves a certain identity as a spectacle, the media has to deal with it.” In other words, instead of letting the mainstream media pigeonhole and stereotype them, activists using humour and spectacle can turn this around and actually use the media.

This was confirmed by a spokesman for the environmental group EarthFirst!: “The media need stories – they want to run them, especially the television media. What they don’t want is some meeting or run-of-the-mill visual situation they’ve seen a million times before. You give them something different and they actually get excited about working on the story.” Perhaps (shock horror!) it might even lead to greater accuracy in their reporting.

Humour also wins favour with the common man in the street. Stridency and self-righteousness turn people off – but humour can get them on side. It’s considered ‘cute’, and could even help you attract the opposite sex. As punk singer Jello Biafra said, “historically the ‘Merry Prankster’ has had a lot more to look forward to than the humourless politico who sits around moaning about ‘the struggle’.” And trickster characters have a rich history in mythology and literature.

Targets for political pranks are rife – for instance, the legions of pseudo-left academics who condemn ‘privilege’ and praise ‘globalism’ whilst making over $100,000 a year. The obnoxious billboards of Benettons are just begging to be creatively altered, as are posters for phoney humanitarians such as the rock group U2. I remember seeing footage of U2 on the news a few years ago when they were touring Australia. Bono, the singer, was here to lecture people about giving more money to Africa. Then the cameras showed the band members leaving the airport – in four separate limousines! One limo just wasn’t enough. For the cost of a stretch limo you could probably feed an African village for twenty years. The band are currently engaged in trying to build a skyscraper in Dublin – an act of cultural vandalism if there ever was one.

U2 have already been the target of an amusing prank in the past. A band called Negativeland put out a CD entitled ‘U2′, with the name prominently featured on the cover so people would think it was a U2 album. When people took it home and put it on, they found it was a recording of someone insulting and attacking U2! The bloated multi-millionaires failed to see the funny side and (predictably) sued Negativeland.

A punk band called CRASS (posing as Creative Recording and Sound Services) managed to get some tacky music (with subversive lyrics) inserted as a flexidisc into a bestselling teenage bride magazine. CRASS also leaked a faked conversation between Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan discussing the possibilities of launching a nuclear war. The conversation was spliced together from radio and TV statements, but was taken seriously by the media and caused an uproar.

When the US Forestry Service (responsible for a lot of old growth logging) put on a ‘Smokey the Bear’ birthday party for 300 children, an EarthFirst! activist hired a Smokey the Bear costume and walked through the crowd handing out anti-logging flyers. The kids were treated to the bizarre spectacle of the rangers trying to arrest Smokey at his own birthday! This made front page headlines the next day.

A media prankster called Joey Skaggs tricked a room full of journalists and news readers (including some famous ones) into getting down on their hands and knees and roaring like lions. He simply issued fake press releases, pretending to be a trendy new therapist called ‘Baba Wa Simba’ (the Lion King), and the journalists fell for it hook, line and sinker. The journalists were induced to take part in ‘roaring sessions’, which many reported on positively afterwards. People can be fooled into believing almost anything if it’s seen to emanate from some ‘official’ quarter. There are no end to the ways in which consensus reality can be manipulated.

Websites are also fair game. A musician from a band called Feederz once set up a site parodying CNN. To add authenticity, when someone clicked on the masthead they would be taken back to the real CNN site. As a result, some of his fake stories actually found their way into mainstream papers. It was seriously reported that Saddam Hussein was training suicide camels, and that he had plans to blow up Pearl Harbour!

A group called the Yes Men set up a fake website for Dow Chemical. On the anniversary of the Bhopal disaster (where thousands were killed by chemical contamination in Bhopal, India) they were contacted by the BBC (who thought they were genuine representatives of Dow), and proceeded to give a statement saying that Dow claimed responsibility for the disaster and were now going to do something about it. Because of this the real Dow was embarrassed into cleaning up the mess.

A group called the Cacophony Society once held a fake welcoming party for a new Starbucks, which seemed to praise Starbucks while actually ridiculing everything they stood for. A member of the group spoke of the successful nature of this strategy “where you pretend to side with the thing you really hate. It makes it hard for the subject of the protest to get rid of you.” Similarly, the aforementioned Yes Men have done speaking tours claiming to represent the World Trade Organisation. Taking WTO logic to its ultimate conclusion, they delivered lectures with messages like ‘sweatshops are great’. The same tactic could easily be employed by nationalists or National-Anarchists. For instance, a nationalist posing as a pro-multiculturalist could get invited onto a public forum, and then give a speech saying that “multiculturalism is great, because it causes social alienation and helps advance our ideal of a rootless global population, more easily herded into line…”

Obnoxious advertising billboards are excellent targets for humorous or creative political statements. A group called the Billboard Liberation Front, established in 1977, have published a handy guide for billboard alteration at: billboardliberation.com/guidebook When doing a prank like this in an area with surveillance cameras, it might be an idea for the prankster to wear some kind of ridiculous disguise.

Pranks can also be played on establishment politicians. Once when Richard Nixon was giving a speech from a stationary train, someone put on a conductor’s cap and waved the train out of the station with Nixon still in mid-speech. A Texas politician called Tim Moore highlighted the way in which representatives often pass bills without even understanding the content, by convincing his fellow pollies to pass a motion commending one Albert de Salvo (actually the Boston Strangler).

Pranksters can even run for office. Local elections are easy to run in, and candidates with a humorous platform often attract a protest vote from those who are sick of the lies of the mainstream candidates. When Jello Biafra ran for mayor of San Francisco, one of his policies required all corporate businessmen to wear clown suits between the hours of nine and five. He finished fourth out of ten candidates – quite a respectable result.

The contemporary art world is also ripe for satire. Australia has a well-known history of literary pranks, including the Ern Malley hoax, where two writers created a fictitious modernist ‘poet’ to expose what they saw (rightly or wrongly) as the shallow nature of literary modernism. Another one was the Wanda Koolmatrie hoax, where a writer called Leon Carmen posed as an aboriginal woman in order to get his book published, thereby illustrating the biases inherent in the publishing industry.

In Austria, a group of artists who wanted to expose the pretensions of the art world created a non-existent writer called Georg Paul Thomann, and it actually worked. Newspaper articles were written about him because he was perceived to be a ‘somebody’…even though he was fictional and his work was non-existent! This fake ‘artist’ was even chosen to represent Austria at a world art fair.

An artist called Jeffrey Vallance couldn’t get a major gallery to show his work, so he bought a number of power point wall sockets from the hardware shop, and covered them with his art. Then he went around the art gallery in a tradesman’s outfit and replaced all the wall sockets with his own ones. Next he printed up programs, and invited his friends to view his work on the art gallery wall sockets. He sent a program to the art gallery itself – and they were so shocked they didn’t do anything about it. The employees hushed it up, in case they got in trouble! The wall sockets weren’t removed, and it was only two years later that they were finally painted over.

Schwaller de Lubicz defined magic as “the science of the right gesture, the right word, at the right moment.” That is what a successful prank is – an act of magic. I hope this short article has provided suggestive ideas for anti-global activists of all stripes, whether National-Anarchist or otherwise.

Hail to the clowns.

The global May Day events by workers the world over stand for the rights of the people to determine their own destiny as workers or students, it also stands against Corporations and Government standing over working families struggling to make a living. To demonstrate our support for a fair go for Australian workers, some local National-Anarchists decided to mobilise in the Melbourne CBD and join the planned march.

We had discussed our aims and tactics a week or so previous to the date of action and comrades were designated tasks. Our banner was designed and made with the help of a local fabric business and read “People Before Profits,” the people are more than worker bee’s or economic beings, we have an identity and spirit much deeper than our careers or petty consumerism.

Once the day arrived, we met at a designated location with time before the march to discuss in more detail what our “plan of action” would be. The conversation became more casual as we waited for the neo-Communist and Unionist groups to begin their march from Trades Hall. Our main goal was to make a presence representing National-Anarchist ideas in support of struggling working folk, our secondary aim fell in line with the Strategy of Tension; showing the traditional Left that they no longer had a monopoly on their sacred May Day and we have as much a right as they do to march.

As 2pm came we heard the drums and chants of the roughly 400 Unionists and Communists; we dressed in our National-Anarchist uniforms, prepared our banner and waited for the right time to join the march. As the last of the marchers passed us, we entered Swanston St in single file and held our banner up for all to see.

As we entered in behind the marchers, two mounted police officers asked what our intentions were and why our faces were covered; our designated police liaison explained that we cover our faces to protect us from the persecution of the other political groups and our intentions was to hold a peaceful march like everyone else. The police seemed to have no dispute in us expressing our right to protest and we continued on ahead.

We continued to march down Swanston behind a “Your Rights at Work” van that held the rear of the Unionist contingent. We flew the banner of National-Anarchism for all passersby to see. We were the targets of many photographs from intrigued pedestrians and we received some positive feedback about our slogan. It is a definite that the New Right Aus/NZ website received some extra hits later in the day.

It was at this time that Anthony Main from the UNITE union noticed our presence and suddenly got all angry at us being around. He went and exercised his civic duty of informing the police [of the Government, which he hates?] that we have no right to march on a public street in Melbourne and that they need to move us on. He then made it his business to begin abusing our cameraman, trying to get in his face, spitting his venomous hatred as later described by our camera wielding comrade. Anthony came across as a very angry and hateful man, threatening us with the “construction heavies” further up, he reckons they’d come down and “give us a hiding.” Why not do it yourself, big man?

Despite the aggressive abuse from Main, our determined activists kept on marching; we would not bow to the demands of some angry, egotistical leftist. Despite the peaceful marching from our group, in contrast to the abusive demeanor of our opposition, it was the police that instructed us to leave. We accepted the lawful request from the police; we left the marching column and honourably left the scene, having achieved both of our aims for the day.

We moved to another location to take more photos of our banner and we discussed the previous half hour of excitement. The National-Anarchists had once again taken our message to the street and once again, as at APEC, we had exposed the hypocrisy of the so-called left. The left has since the beginning labeled any group critical of their own as intolerant, fascist and hateful, yet we exposed quite plainly the insidious hatred behind the average leftist.

During our debrief and photo taking session, some young passersby asked us what we were about and were quick to join us for a group photo in support, perhaps the next lot of National-Anarchist recruits for the next demonstration.

Soon enough our objectives were complete, the group left in separate directions and a good day of National-Anarchist activism was had by all.