Introduction
This article has
been written with a view to outlining an overall strategy for
nationalist groups to follow – a course of action. In the weeks
since the APEC demo, it has become clear to more than a few observers
that our communist and militant anti-racist (Antifa) opponents are
incapable of debating with us intellectually, and indeed are
incapable of intellectual expression. A long, intellectual article
posted at the New Right blog will have, in the comments section,
abuse and threats of violence from our communist opponents – and
never a discussion of the ideas and personages involved (e.g.,
Babeuf, Stalinist economics, Lorenz von Stein, de Benoist…). And,
again and again, we at New Right (as do many other nationalists in
Australia, whether they be German or not) get tagged with the
‘Neo-Nazi’ label – this is despite the fact that we here, at
this site, have made our opinions clear on German National Socialism
and the phenomenon known as Neo-Nazism (or Nutzism, as we
disparagingly call it).
Having said that, the reaction from our communist opponents is, I think, beneficial. It can only benefit our cause, as I shall explain below, and part of our strategy ought to be to continue to provoke similar reactions in the future.
Having said that, the reaction from our communist opponents is, I think, beneficial. It can only benefit our cause, as I shall explain below, and part of our strategy ought to be to continue to provoke similar reactions in the future.
1. What is a Neo-Nazi?
Neo-Nazism is an attempt to revive
German National Socialism in the modern era. As we know, German
National Socialism was a form of fascism. There are a number of
definitions of what fascism actually is, or was. Fascism can be
defined as a radical form of socialism for the petit bourgeoisie
(Hayek’s definition, and the definition of many other free-market
conservatives who locate German National Socialism on the Left of the
political spectrum, not the Right); or as an attempt to introduce a
Traditional order in the modern world (which is how Evola understood
it)… What distinguishes German National Socialism from other forms
of fascism (Quisling’s, Mosley’s, Mussolini’s) is its adherence
to the Führer principle. Simply put, National Socialism needed a
Führer figure to hold it all together, and was nothing without him.
As the German historian and liberal anti-Nazi Martin Broszat writes:
National Socialism was not primarily an ideological and programmatic, but a charismatic movement, whose ideology was incorporated in the Führer, Hitler, and which would have lost all its power to integrate without him. Hitler was never merely the spokesman for an idea that would have had an equivalent importance and existence without him. On the contrary, the abstract, utopian and vague National Socialist ideology only achieved what reality and certainty it had through the medium of Hitler. Thus there could be no effective opposition against Hitler in the name of the National Socialist ideology. Where this was none the less attempted, as for example by Otto Strasser and his mainly intellectual following, the features of the National Socialist ideology, which were composed of emotions, resentments and dreams, were exchanged for an ideology directed towards concrete material action (which was consistent in that respect and naturally permitted no omnipotent Führer) and failed to appreciate the charismatic foundation of the National Socialist movement. It had been far more typical of the general attitude of Party functionaries from the various ancillary organisations of the NSDAP before and after 1933 that however much they thrashed out bitter quarrels amongst themselves they did not as a rule turn against Hitler, but tried to win him over to their respective interpretations of the National Socialist ideology and programme. That is they basically recognised him as the interpreter of the correct ‘idea’ and did not question his supreme authority to rule on ideological matters too. (Martin Broszat, ‘The Hitler State: the foundation and development of the internal structure of the Third Reich’, 1969, p.29).
So, in order for there to be a
Neo-Nazism movement, there has to be a neo-Führer, who takes
Hitler’s place symbolically as the integrating, charismatic head of
the revived Nazi movement. The communist and militant anti-racist
opponents of Western nationalism understand this instinctively: which
is why, whenever they are on the look out for a ‘Nazi’ revival,
are always hunting for the ‘new Führer’, whether he be Dr James
Saleam, the ‘Reverend’ Patrick Sullivan, David Palmer, Jack van
Tongeren.
On the other hand, it could be argued
that there can be a ‘Führer’-less form of ‘Neo-Nazism’. The
NPD is accused, by the German and international media, of being
‘Neo-Nazi’ all the time, even though it has no charismatic
‘Führer’ figure. In all fairness, the NPD does have a few things
in common with the old German National Socialist and fascist
movements. For starters, both are mass-movements, which emphasise
extra-parliamentary organisation; both form women’s and children’s
groups, and other groups which embrace people from all walks of life,
all professions, with the intention of being more than political
parties; both are on the Left, politically speaking, in many of their
social and economic policies; both are radical and uncompromising;
both have suffered persecution at the hands of liberal democratic
States; both tend to make a mystique of street action and
confrontations with communist opponents; both of course, are German
and nationalist. One could, on that basis, apply the description
‘Neo-Nazi’ to the NPD. But, again, there is no Führer, and my
argument (and Broszat’s) can be no German National Socialism, old
or new, without a Führer-figure.
One of the problems of identifying the
likes of the NPD with ‘Neo-Nazism’ is that so many other
ideological groupings have appropriated parts of the National
Socialist doctrine. Do we castigate the Greens, for instance, for
being environmentalist, when one of the first environmentalist
politicians was Adolf Hitler? A few scholars acknowledge the
influence Hitler’s National Socialism had on Swedish social
democracy – the welfare-statist brand of socialism which, in turn,
influenced the British Labour Party (in the 1960s) and the Australian
Labor Party (in the 1970s). In fact, one of the definitions of German
National Socialism could be: welfare-statist social democracy plus
dictatorship.
Incidentally, one can see how the
Führer-as-integrator principle works for other political ideologies.
Chavezism, for instance, is inconceivable with Chavez: in that
respect, Chavezism is more ‘Neo-Nazi’ than the ideology of the
NPD.
The advantage of the communist
application of the Führer principle is that it discourages
questioning, thinking and debate. Were the followers of communism
allowed, for once, to question where socialism is going, what they,
through their activism, are doing to achieve it, what a communist
Australia would actually look like, communism would collapse. Or
rather, belief in communism would collapse. Socialists would ask, for
instance, how it is that mass immigration of Africans, Muslims and
Indians helps the Australian working-classes – when these
immigrants (especially the more disadvantaged ones, like the
Sudanese) would compete with Australians for welfare benefits. And
what on earth do gay rights have to do with socialism? Surely
capitalism cannot be to blame for discrimination against gays? And
why support socialism in Cuba when Cuba uses fierce state repression
against gays? There are no answers to these questions: which is why
the communist Führer principle is needed. It keeps communists from
thinking.
2. What is wrong with Neo-Nazism?
To me, ‘Neo-Nazism’, particularly
in its Nutzi, uniform fetishist form is a bizarre, antiquated and
ultimately self-defeating ideology. Enough of it has been said here
elsewhere at the New Right site. (See the article, ‘Freaks in the
movement’, archived here).
But, obviously, what I and many other
nationalists dislike about ‘Neo-Nazism’ is not what our opponents
on the mainstream Left dislike about it. To them, the objection to
‘Neo-Nazism’ is simple. During the Second World War (itself
started by Germany, when it invaded Poland in 1939), Germany gassed
eight million people, using weapons of mass destruction, and threw
the corpses into giant ovens. Some were turned into soap; others into
lampshades. The horrible, shrivelled corpses at Dachau and
Bergen-Belsen are testimony to the evil of the ideology of German
National Socialism, which committed the most terrible crimes of the
twentieth century.
Now, according to the communists and
the Antifa, the ‘Neo-Nazis’ want to bring back that order, and
start gassing, not only Jews, Poles, homosexuals and gypsies, but
anyone who is not a white European or of European descent. Alan
Moore’s classic 1988 graphic novel, V for vendetta, offers a good
summary of the communist and Antifa view of Western nationalism –
and the consequences of a ‘fascist’ return to power. The graphic
novel depicts a dystopian Britain in the late 1990s, where
1930s-style fascists have taken over the world and have killed a good
many Jews, homosexuals, Pakistani and Caribbean immigrants in death
camps, and like Dr Mengele, carried out sadistic medical experiments
on the inmates. The mainstream Left sincerely believes that
propaganda like V for vendetta depicts nationalist goals accurately:
they believe that we nationalists are all working together towards
the same goal – of eliminating, through death camps, the ‘racially
impure’ (whatever that means) members of Western society.
The Antifa demonise their opponents,
making them out to be satanic. Militant anti-racism plays on nothing
but fear: it is pure emotion. And it is purely negative, as well: ask
them what their political policies are on inflation and interest
rates, for instance, or conscription or abortion or the death
penalty, are – and they have no answer. Because of the lack of
foundations, the lack of arguments, they can only appeal to fear.
They are more a belief-system than a political ideology, and with
their appeals to fear and irrationalism, plus the almost religious
attribution of satanic qualities to their opponents, they resemble a
cult, like the Raelians or the Scientologists.
In the Antifa and mainstream ideology,
the New Right and the National-Anarchists are part of the same
‘Neo-Nazi’ conspiracy. A few individuals of the mainstream Left
have expressed their trepidation that naïve youths (who have been
insufficiently indoctrinated, i.e., not converted to
Marxist-Leninism) may go over to the National-Anarchist side, not
understanding that the National-Anarchists are ‘Neo-Nazi’ fakes.
In the communist scenario, the naïve youths, after becoming members
of a National-Anarchist group, will eventually led down the path to
‘Neo-Nazism’. Possibly, the new National-Anarchist recruit will
be brought to a secret cavern by the other members, where he will
find framed portraits of the Führer and George Lincoln Rockwell, and
swastika flags, on the walls. The secret ‘Führer’ of the
movement shall doff his anarchist garb to reveal a homemade
brownshirt uniform. He will then unveil a fantastic plan to take over
Australia and build death camps, run by blonde, Nordic women in ‘Ilse
the She-Wolf of the SS’ uniforms, and fiendish doctor-sadists like
Mengele.
Regardless of whether or not one
believes in a National Socialist gassing of eight million people, the
interesting thing is that the communists have a long backlog of
atrocities of their own to atone for – and they do not apologise
for them. While many nationalists push a revisionist line, the
communists do not. Confront a communist with the nine million
Russians killed by Lenin and Trotsky – during the Red Terror, and
the mass famine deliberately triggered by the Bolsheviks to pacify
the Russian population – and he will shrug and regurgitate the old
Leninist cliché that ‘One cannot make an omelette without breaking
eggs’. Then there is Mao, whose Great Leap Forward killed 18 to 34
million people (depending on whose figures you believe); Pol Pot; and
lesser-known figures like the Ethiopian communist Mengistu Haile
Mariam. Even Castro, who is fondly regarded by Australian communist
groups, killed thousands after his takeover of Cuba.
My point is that, given communism’s
track record, people ought to hold communism’s past atrocities
against Australian communist groups like Socialist Alliance,
Socialist Alternative and others. How do we know that these groups do
not have a secret plan to collectivise Australian agriculture, and
starve millions of Australians to death? Will Australian soldiers be
rounded up, Khmer-Rouge style, bound with nylon ropes and have their
necks broken with blows from pick handles? (Or perhaps they will be
given the softer, North Vietnamese communist version: internment in a
‘re-education’ camp until they get their thinking straightened
out?). And what of the capitalist class? Will the Packer family be
liquidated on the spot, or will they be forced to work with their
hands (for the first time in their lives) in the fields of our
newly-collectivised farms, while communist overseers, wearing black
pyjamas and carrying Kalashnikovs, jeer at them and curse them? (‘No
rice for you today, Mr Packer! Work harder!’).
3. The reality
I am, of course, being facetious here.
The Australian communists do not have the demonic drive of a Lenin,
Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, Pol Pot, Mengistu: they do not have what it
takes to bring about a revolution.
Even more important is the fact that no
communist revolution has come about by the revolt of the working
classes against the capitalists. All the communists in history have
won power as a result of war. Lenin won power only after Russia’s
catastrophic defeat, at the hands of Germany, in WWI; the Bolsheviks
emerged from the ashes of the Russian Civil War as the most powerful
and unified force, and took advantage of the subsequent chaos to
impose a dictatorship. Likewise, every subsequent revolutionary owes
their successes, not to mobilising the working classes, but from
defeating their opponents on the battlefield. (One exception is
Mengistu: but Mengistu came to power through a military coup, and was
able to used soldiers to liquidate any bourgeois-liberal, monarchist
or rival communist opponents).
The truth is that the old-school
communist revolutionaries had a unique genius, lacking in today’s
Western communist parties, for exploiting the political opportunities
that arose as a result of chaos. That chaos is not present today, and
it is unlikely that today’s communists would know how to harness it
to their advantage.
And so today’s Australian communists,
who are schooled in the theory, but not practice, of communism,
naively believe that power will be theirs for the taking, once the
inevitable downfall of capitalism gets going. Marxist theory proves,
scientifically, that the capitalist mode of production will go the
way of feudalism – into the dustbin of history. All the communists
have to do is agitate at the universities and TAFEs (by selling the
Green Left Weekly and trying to encourage students to attend
pro-Chavez rallies), march at trade union anti-Work Choices rallies,
and run in elections. Then revolution will come about. Australia will
turn into Cuba, except it will be a Cuba where people of all sexual
orientations will be free to do their thing…
In truth, the only communists to hold
true to historical communist practice are a few isolated groups
around the world who have taken up the path of armed struggle. The
Maoists in Nepal, who adhere to a Pol-Potist ideology and are engaged
in an off-again, on-again war against the Nepalese State, are
classic, old school communists. Given the disarray of the Nepalese
politics, it is not inconceivable that the Maoist revolution could
succeed, and a handful of revolutionaries could end up imposing their
will on a reluctant, and hostile Nepalese population. Naturally,
however, such conditions are not likely to replicate themselves in
Australia.
4. What to do
Unfortunately, much confusion exists
among nationalists as to who our enemies are. Nationalists tend to
speak of ‘the Left’, and lump together all the disparate factions
of the Left into a single group: ‘lefties’, ‘crusties’ and
the like. But the fact of the matter is that the communists, and the
anarchists, for instance, are unaware that we nationalists exist –
at present. The only faction of the Left who are aware of us, and
consider us to be a serious threat, are the Antifa, the militant
anti-racists – who strive selflessly to avert a second Holocaust by
posting photographs, names, addresses, telephone numbers, etc., of
nationalist activists on the Internet.
It should be mentioned that it is
doubtful that the Antifa are really ‘Left’ at all. Although they
adopt a Trotskyist rhetoric (‘smashing fascism’ is a Trotskyist
phrase), they do not seem to support communism or anarchism – nor
even the watered-down social democracy of the Labor Party. No, they
believe in racial harmony and the brotherhood of man – and the use
of violence to enforce it. They believe in the same pan-racialist,
multi-racialist ideology as the Labor Party, or the Democrats, or the
Greens – but, in their case, they make that ideology political.
Schmitt defines the ‘political’ as any conflict that is raised to
the level of war between two or more parties: and certainly, the
Antifa are political by Schmitt’s definition. But they are not
Left, and, in Australia, they are not do not possess the numbers, the
discipline and the organisation of the European Antifa. (According to
postings on Stormfront, European nationalist activists are
disappointed by the calibre of the Australian Antifa. Indeed, the
Antifa in the Netherlands, for instance, is so powerful that it
controls neighbourhoods, and hides illegal immigrants who are being
sought by the police there). Here, their warfare is psychological.
They could not summon up the numbers needed to ‘smash fascists’
at an APEC or anti-Work Choices rally; the communists, however, can.
The point is, though, the communists
are not aware of us. They do not acknowledge we exist, and to them,
we are an irrelevancy. After all, history is inevitably progressing
towards communism: does not the hostility of the Australian
electorate towards Work Choices show this? We nationalists do not fit
into the grand scheme of things. To the communists, nationalists are
‘Nazis’, and ‘Nazism’ was a tool of the German capitalist
classes, who sought to lure the German working-classes away from
communism. The capitalist class of Australia, however, is not, at the
moment using ‘Nazism’ and ‘Fascism’ to trick the Australian
working-classes; it is using the Australian Labor Party. Fortunately
for communism, the Australian proletariat will eventually wake up to
the Labor Party. The upshot is that communists and other like-minded
progressives need not pay any heed, for the time being, to the
‘Neo-Nazis’ of New Right and other nationalist groups.
Were they to notice us, however, their
reaction would be along the lines of: the ‘Neo-Nazis’ of New
Right, National-Anarchism and other nationalist groups are in the pay
of the Australian capitalist class and possibly the federal
government itself. These ‘Neo-Nazis’ are trying to lure the
Australian working-classes away from their salvation, communism.
Really, all capitalism is ‘fascist, racist, imperialist’ –
‘Neo-Nazism’ is capitalism with the mask torn off. The solution?
‘Smash fascism’, use violence, use any means necessary…
The communists can be expected to say
many things along these lines, and no doubt they will end up
alienating potential members (e.g., left-leaning university students)
with their hyperbole and bellicose rhetoric in attacking us; they
will also, inadvertently, generate more publicity for us than we
could manage to achieve ourselves. It is also possible that, by doing
so, they will succeed in making us more attractive to the politically
uneducated (that is, not indoctrinated with Trotskyism) university
student.
I will, at this point, digress, and
bring up the subject of Hugo Chavez, and in particular, one of the
techniques he uses to get attention for his ideas. Recently, Chavez
announced that he plans to bring his ‘Bolivarist revolution’ to
Venezuelan high schools, and alter the content of high school text
books along ‘Bolivarist’ lines, filling them up with the
crapulous mumbo-jumbo of communist and other progressive ideologues
(including the Colombian guerrilla groups). The reaction to Chavez’
announcement was entirely typical. Liberal democrats, in Venezuela
and the United States, reacted with outrage, and demanded that Chavez
adhere to the norms of free speech and liberal democracy. Chavez’
supporters (and he has many) reacted with enthusiasm.
Nowhere did anyone declare that Chavez’
policy was well-intentioned, but needed to be examined more closely,
etc., etc., in the way that the Labor Party, for instance, reacts to
any of John Howard’s policy announcements. No: Chavez polarises
people, he splits them down the middle. You either love him or hate
him. But this is precisely what Chavez wants. He wants the liberal
democrats, the Bushophiles inside and outside Venezuela, to hate him;
and he has, over many years, become awfully good at it. He
instinctively knows what to do in order to get his opponents frothing
at the mouth, hurling invective and hyperbole, making themselves look
foolish, and piquing the interest of the otherwise apathetic masses.
And he has done this, not once, but many times; he is, to a certain
extent, a one-trick pony, pulling off the same stunt again and again.
His opponents have such little regard for him that they do not see
how they are being manipulated by the master. The solution to
Chavezism? Incorporate him into the system, and treat him with
respect: hold press conferences with him and George Bush, where the
latter defers to him as respectfully as he would to Ehmud Olmert or
Ariel Sharon.
One can see the parallels with
Australian nationalism: all the communists at APEC had to do, for
instance, was to invite the National-Anarchists up on stage and ask
them to speak; the audience would have listened respectfully, and
applauded – just as they did with the indigenous Australian woman
at the start, and the North American conscientious objector – and
National-Anarchism would have been neutered.
This will never happen. The communists
can be expected to react with hostility and hyperbole, every time;
and the same reaction can be provoked every time. In that sense, they
are as predictable as machines.. The communist policy is always the
same: no platform for fascists! No free speech for Nazi scum!
So how do we provoke them? How do we
get their attention? Well, we only need to repeat APEC a thousand
times over – APEC with more and more permutations. But it is
essential to keep up the ‘Left’ talk, the ‘Left’ symbolism,
the ‘Left’ imagery, the ‘Left’ sloganeering’, and the
‘Left’ methods of mass organisation, mass activism,
extra-parliamentarism, and anarchistic, non-hierarchical,
decentralised organisation. Such an approach will ensure that the
communists will work themselves up into a state of hysteria: we are
using their symbols, their ideas, to lure the naïve young away from
progressive, multiracial, tolerant communism and towards ‘Neo-Nazism’
and capitalism. They will be unable to help themselves, and unable to
see that the best means of ‘smashing’ us would be to give us
equal rights and equal time at their rallies, and possibly in their
publications as well.
The Australian communist groups appear
to recruit using what I call ‘chaff-cutter’ methods. They attract
literally hundreds of young Australians, mainly students. But many of
the prospective new members are naïve about the communism of a
Socialist Alliance or Socialist Alternative: they believe that these
organisations are liberal, like the mainstream political parties –
that they encourage free thought and free debate. But the prospective
member learns, very quickly, that Lenin and Trotsky had, in advance,
worked out the answer to every political problem in existence – and
that he had better recognise this or ship out. Subtle, and then not
so subtle, peer pressure is used to bring a recalcitrant into line.
Eventually, the prospective member gets fed up and ceases his
association. He is a liberal and an individualist – both traits
fostered by our liberal democratic society – and, at the same time,
like many idealistic young people, wants to do something good and
progressive. But the inflexibility which lies at the heart of any
Marxist-Leninist party, and which is communism’s greatest strength
(and greatest weakness) repels him.
The scenario is not all bad, however,
for the communist group: a small minority of the prospective recruits
will stay on and the communist group is left with a small hard-core.
Communism is, above all, a ruthless ideology, which often turns on
its own (there is no need to cite the many examples from history).
But their recruiting and indoctrination policies – more reminiscent
of a cult than anything else – get results. The wheat is separated
from the chaff.
Here, though, we nationalists can step
in – and pick up the chaff. And, it has to be said, we are not
going to expand as a movement by recruiting the same old faces from
Stormfront Down Under – the same old white nationalists and
Australian bush patriots who have been hanging around the nationalist
scene for years and years. No, we are only going to expand by
recruiting people who have a fresh perspective which comes from being
on the outside of the existing nationalistic scene.
In this connection, it is advisable
that nationalists go out and attend as many political meetings as
possible: lectures on Lenin, Trotsky, Chavez, etc., delivered by
Socialist Alliance, Socialist Alternative, Resistance. But not only
political meetings of the left; nationalists should attend also
meetings of the mainstream parties like, here in Australia, the
Liberal party, the Greens, ect.
The best course of action is to go there, as normal, intelligent people, and ask questions about their beliefs, and try and engage them in the debate they are so averse to. This is a New Right Australia strategy.
5. Mistakes made
Recently, a nationalist friend of mine
– a man with a long and distinguished career in Australian
nationalist activism – showed me a nationalist publication which he
had helped edit and publish. It was a handsome production. But, while
looking through it, I found a caricature of an African immigrant –
a giant African immigrant, stalking the streets of some Australian
city, with a knife in his hand, and, needless to say, up to no good.
I chided my friend for inserting such a crude caricature with
overtones of old-fashioned racism: it could have come straight off
Tom Metzger’s website. My friend joked, half-heartedly, that at
least the cartoonist didn’t draw blood dripping from the African’s
mouth. I rested my case.
On the back of the publication there
was a reproduction of a beautiful painting, done two hundred years
ago, of the inauguration of Australia’s first Governor-General.
Looking at the picture, I found myself confused as to who the
intended target audience of the magazine was: monarchists? Old
Australian types who voted for Menzies in 1949? Often this Australian
nationalism is an emotional nationalism, with no intellectual
foundations, no ideology. Ask them to define what is ‘Australian’,
and they will have no answer.
Even if one is not a republican, one
will find such imagery incongruous. Granted, governor-generals are
part of Australia’s past: but the emphasis is on the word past. Any
young person (and the only people who could revel in such patriotic
Australian imagery must be very old indeed – at death’s door if
they voted for Menzies, anyhow) would find such a nationalist
publication off-putting – as dull as a school trip to a museum of
Australian history.
As for the cartoon of the African –
and there were similar crude caricatures throughout the magazine –
there are other, more tasteful ways to address the question of
immigration. Link immigration to globalism, for one; or point out how
immigration drains Australia’s resources (e.g., water resources)
and is bad for the environment… No need to use pictures of blonde,
nordic women cuddling blonde, nordic babies, either.
Oddly enough, I agreed with around 90%
of the publication’s content: the difference between their
approach, and New Right’s, was one of emphasis, and of imagery.
Thinking it over, I saw that the whole problem could be summed up in
the form of a parable.
Suppose that Henry Lawson, or Jack
Lang, or some other Australian ‘bush’ socialist could be
transported in time to 2007. We nationalists would explain to him
that the old Australian Labor Party, which championed white working
man’s racialist socialism, has ceased to exist; in its place is a
party of namby-pamby multi-cultism. The union movement, too, is no
longer interested in fighting immigration: all it wants is the
abolition of Work Choices and federal and state Labor government.
Indeed, the union movement has lost the political power it once had –
only 17% of the Australian workforce is unionised. The way forward
for socialism – for a system where labour dominates capital, and
not the other way around – is to restructure the entire political
and economic system. That means changing liberal democracy. But that
goal, in turn, can only be achieved by building up a mass movement on
the streets, which will bring about radical change through mass
pressure. To build a mass movement, we need to bypass the unions and
the political parties, and start taking our message – of racialism
and socialism – directly to the masses. What’s more, we need to
talk the language of today – not the language of 100 years ago.
Unfortunately, our way is, for the
moment, blocked – by communists, who, like parasites, attach
themselves to every progressive cause, whether it be
anti-globalisation or the trade union struggle for better wages and
conditions. They are unpopular, in the minority, and they adhere to a
theory which has been falsified by history. But they are convinced
that their cause is the only moral one, and every political ideology
contradictory to their own (including ours) is evil and immoral, and
should be destroyed, by violence if necessary. Their bark is worse
than their bite, but they are still numerous enough, and hostile
enough, to prevent nationalists from reaching the masses and becoming
a true, mass political force. And so one of the prime necessities of
our movement is to unblock the communist blockage…
And that is what I would tell Henry
Lawson.
In relation to this, it should be
asked: why, if the communists have been going at it for so long, are
they so unsuccessful? The communists enjoy all kinds of advantages
that we nationalists do not: the media coverage they receive is
generally favourable (e.g., see the media coverage of the APEC
demonstrators); they can display their names and faces without
impunity (at least, they will not be treated as harshly as a
so-called ‘Neo-Nazi’ nationalist); they have numbers, nice
newspapers, propaganda fliers, badges, flags, banners… And they can
attend any demonstration for any cause whatsoever –
anti-globalisation, anti-WorkChoices, anti-war – without being set
upon by the other demonstrators. And, furthermore, most of Australia
seems to support their positions on, for instance, the war in Iraq,
or WorkChoices (or perhaps it is the case that the communists attach
themselves to popular causes). And yet, they have made little to no
headway in all the years they have been here: the communist
revolution is further away than ever, and they cannot get one MP
elected to state or federal parliament…
The answer, or the beginning of an
answer, came to me when I was leafing through old issues of the
Australasian Spartacist newspaper from the 1970s. This is a
long-running Trotskyist-communist newspaper, which began in 1973 and
which is still running today. More or less, it makes a cult, a
fetishistic cult (like the Nutzi-cult of Hitler), out of Trotsky and
Lenin: every political event – from the war in Iraq, to a trade
union dispute in Sydney, to a scuffle between two rival communist
groups holding stalls at a university – is interpreted from the
perspective of Trotskyist Marxist-Leninism. The frightening thing is
that there is no difference between the writing style, and ideas, of
the 1970s issues written thirty years ago, and the issues written
today. Which raises the possibility that the same person has been
writing all the articles for that newspaper all along – and getting
nowhere. This obsessiveness, and the refusal to countenance anything
other than orthodox Leninist and Trotskyist view of socialism and
politics, makes me speculate that the authors of Australasian
Spartacist, and other communist publications (like the Green Left
Weekly) are literally insane.
And this is why the communists have
been failing in Australia for so many decades: they cannot ditch
Lenin and Trotsky. It is not that Australians do not want radical
socialism; it is that they cannot understand what two dead Russians –
who died a long time ago – have to do with a political struggle in
Australia today. (The same could be asked of many nationalists today:
why is Hitler, for instance, so important?).
6. Conclusion: The strategy of tension
Something else that leapt out of those
old issues of Australasian Spartacist was an account of the famous
‘Battle of Lewisham’ in Britain in 1977, which was an epic
confrontation between the British National Front and hundreds of
communist protestors in South-East London. The clash was violent,
leading to hospitalisations, and the police use of tear gas, riot
shields, etc., against the protestors. Reading the venomous account
of events from the communist perspective, I was reminded of the (far
smaller, by comparison) Battle of APEC. Economic, and to a great
extent, social, circumstances in Britain in 1977 differed from those
of Australia in 2007: but otherwise, nothing has changed. The
National Front in the 1970s was a mass-movement with a popular base,
and left-leaning; it won a certain amount of support from the British
working-classes, effectively challenging the communists and
socialists in what the latter two regarded as their own domain. The
communist response was to ‘crush fascism’. Hence, the ensuing
confrontation at Lewisham.
Perhaps (depending on whose account you
believe) some members or supporters of the National Front, who were
still bourgeois in outlook, and still held to liberal democratic
ideas, found the idea of a political confrontation with communists
off-putting; that is, they did not want to suffer verbal abuse from
communists, and have bricks thrown at them, and be assaulted. Which
is a natural enough reaction. But they did not realise, and many
nationalists in Australia today do not realise, the political value
of these confrontations. Suppose that 500 or a 1000 nationalists from
all around Australia joined up to march through Sydney or Melbourne.
The police would be out in force, as would the media; and so would
the communists. The spectacle would ensure more media coverage for
nationalism than we could generate by ourselves (through
pamphleteering, etc., or through websites); and, at the same time,
events would radicalise our membership and draw them closer to one
another. And the communists would do all of this for us for free. If
we are to look at it in economic terms, the return from a
demonstration pays even more than the investment in pamphlets and
websites.
And all of this can be done tomorrow.
Some liberal media commentators will argue that events like the
Battle of Lewisham came about because of the high inflation and high
unemployment in Britain in the seventies; which is untrue. All one
needs is a large body of nationalists who are prepared to go out and
demonstrate: then the communists will show up, and behave like they
have behaved for the past ninety years. Like monkeys in a zoo cage,
they will jump up and down, shriek and spit. And the average
Australian will wonder what all the fuss is about, and some of them
may even become interested in nationalism as a result.
The essential thing is this: all
demonstrations have to be well-organised, for a worthy cause, and
above all, disciplined!
We at New Right do not endorse
violence. One can, however, use the metaphor of war: that is, any
confrontation with communists is a battle in a political war. A good
many nationalists in Australia and elsewhere are in political
fairy-land; they think they can form a nice little bourgeois liberal
democratic party, and be treated with the same respect, and enjoy the
same rights, as all the other liberal democratic parties. But, once
their parties get up and going, they due for a shock. The communists
will use non-liberal democratic means to deny them their rights. And,
possibly, a more effective Antifa will spring up and oppose them with
the same means.
Christian Blocher’s Swiss People’s
Party (SVP) recently held a rally which was set upon by the Black
Bloc of Left-wing Chaotics (an Antifa Black Bloc), who caused an
enormous amount of property damage and disruption. The group was
arrested, and the rally went ahead. Christian Blocher’s party
posted a triumphant account of events here. But Australian nationalists
cannot expect to get off as lightly. Which is why we must take the
war (again speaking metaphorically) to the enemy.
And, while I am not a militarist, I
must state my belief that this kind of confrontation is good: it
cleanses, it purifies, it bonds the ‘soldiers’ – who are made
up of disparate social groups who may have otherwise never have come
into contact with one another – together. And, psychologically, to
go on the attack is much better than going on the defence: which is
the posture many nationalists take now, confining their ‘activism’
to the Internet and not trying to get their ideas out to the
Australian community. Which is why we at New Right Australia/New
Zealand endorse a strategy of tension. And we endorse direct
political confrontation, with the goal of smashing political dogmas,
and forming a real social alternative.
-----------------------------------------------
* Facebook: National-Anarchist Movement (N-AM)
Posts
