Tuesday, July 14, 2009

A Consideration of Value and Money in Society

Part I of Nationalist Alternative's Economics Series
"A Consideration of Value and Money in Society"

by Michael Kennedy

On what ‘Value’ means

Money can be seen as a representation of the inherit value of human labour, thought and of raw materials. Money itself is a conceptual tool created in order to quantify the value of goods and services which are traded. Currency can be considered as the form that money takes, whether dollars, pounds, beads, gold or poker chips.

Understanding the relationship between money and conceptions of value is vital in understanding broader economic trends, and the impact that those trends have on society.

Monetary value exists quite simply because there is a desire or a need for something that is not freely available. This object or service can only come about through labour, manipulating materials or from the minds creative process. Food has value to us because it is useful to us, it sustains life, stops hunger and is enjoyable. Its monetary value however comes from the fact that food is not freely available. It must be grown, transported, picked, cooked, stored etc. That is, in order for food to be available someone must use their intellect, labour and their materials. Air on the other hand, is so freely available and abundant, that nothing at all needs to be done to have it. Therefore, despite the fact that one would die faster without air than without food, air might have value to life, but monetarily it is worthless. A portion of air does not represent any labour or thought and the materials are too abundant to require any labour or thought to acquire. Though the gases that air comprises of do have value, you cannot sell air. The only air that is sold, is air that has been manipulated, either filtered air or compressed air and the value is increased because of the processing and addition of a storage container.

The three sources of value:

There are three common sources of value. Intellect, labour and materials. Intellect is the thought processes which either create new tools or objects, new structures, or the process by which materials are manipulated to create objects which are useful to people. Labour is the manipulation of matter and energy to provide goods and services of value, and materials is the matter and energy used and the final products.

Money is a means of exchange, essentially an intermediary between objects of value. While bartering goods is essentially identical to paying for goods with money, bartering has limitations. Namely that it is harder to value objects and services consistently and fairly and that bartering requires one to store the goods they are bartering with, and hope the providers of goods and services they require will accept their goods as payment. A child care worker for instance, would not be able to barter his or her services with a plumber who has no children. A farmer who grows fruit seasonally would come across difficulties because essentially he or she only has wealth so long as the fruit keeps.

Money becomes the intermediate storage of value, and it becomes the promise of goods and labour in the future. The farmer with seasonal fruit can offload the fruit, acquire money which essentially is a store of value, and then exchange that value stored in the money for goods and services at a future point in time, at his discretion. In these simplistic scenarios, we highlight that money, or more specifically, the currency, has a fixed value and that money is a tool used to encapsulate that value by representing value in a specific quantity of currency. So a shirt sells for $60 because $60 is the quantity of money (in dollars) which the seller believes represents the value of the materials, the labour put into the materials and the intellectual effort expended in order to create the shirt. The profit margin is really nothing more than an over valuation of the labour and intellectual effort behind the product or service. This is an over valuation which the customer is willing to accept and which the seller can use to expand their wealth and their business capabilities.

To go back to the barter example to make this point clearer, if a farmer with oranges was to trade his fruit with an apple farmer who for some reason REALLY wanted an orange, the orange farmer would be able to get more apples than usual for the trade. This might seem irrational but is in fact perfectly logical because valuation is a personal judgement that varies from person to person. As we by nature will seek the most desirable outcome, we are willing to spend large quantities on drugs if we are addicted to them, because the 'cost' of not having the next fix is greater than the cost of getting the drugs. Someone with an expensive drug habit, even if it is alcohol has made the decision that the experience of drinking, or avoiding abstinence is worth a large portion of their labour.

The example mentioned previously regarding the shirt shows an idealistic scenario where the buyer is aware of the true value of the shirt and is free to make the decision. In reality, this is rarely the case, as corporations collude to restrict choice, as they obscure knowledge about the product and monopolies arise which can essentially create a scenario where the customer cannot have any say in judging the worth of the product or service being supplied by the monopoly. Microsoft for instance, by engaging in monopolistic practices, has managed to dominate the PC market by making sure it is the ONLY software company distributing operating systems pre-installed on PC's. Ignorance of alternatives leaves people with the false conclusion that the prices charged are necessary, and Microsoft's advertising and PR statements, by creating fear, uncertainty and doubt about other products create in peoples minds a distorted and incorrect framework by which they judge the value or the worth of the product. This can occur at smaller levels too, with small businesses, agents and independent sellers taking advantage of the poorer bargaining position the buyer is in. There are many examples as such, i.e., any product advertised by creating fear in the customer that choosing a competitors product will lead to undesirable outcomes or any product sold at extraordinarily high prices because it is in shortage. A housing market bubble created due to shortages, or perceived impending shortages is another clear example.

The issuing of money

Much has been said about how central banks can seemingly issue money from thin air. Many point to this as some form of global scam, or sleight of hand. While the conditions by which the money is issued, and the quantity issued is certainly open to criticism, the fact that the money supply is increasing and that money comes seemingly from thin air is perfectly logical.

In any growing society, valuable goods and services are created. People are born, and with them come the capacity for labour, invention and the creation of new goods and services. Materials are extracted from the earth, processed and used to manufacture goods which are of greater use than the raw materials that comprise them. Human labour combined with materials creates useful products and services of value where none existed before. The fact is, the vast quantities of food produced, cities, technology, knives, clothes, automobiles, roads, statues, toothbrushes, art, and music all seemingly came out of thin air. Settlements were built where little else existed. A deposit of copper ore has limited value to people because of its limited usefulness, but processing that copper ore can create electrical cabling which is of far greater use. This ore is dug from the ground, turned into wire, and this copper wire enters the economy. This wire which did not exist as part of the economy is introduced into the economy.

As money is a representation of value and wealth, as the wealth increases, extra money must be issued into the economy to be used as an intermediary. The money is backed by the goods and services within the economy, which theoretically can increase indefinitely. Therefore, the mental tool used to represent the value within the economy, money, must be able to keep up. Currency appears to be issued from thin air because from casual observation, items enter the economy from thin air. Having currency backed by gold only backs one object with theoretical value, with another object of theoretical value of which there is a finite amount. The confusion comes from a lack of distinction between money and currency. Money is an intellectual construct whereby value can be quantified and where a trade can be carried out in two stages, where an employee provides labour for the economy, receives money which is a promise of access to future goods and services and then later uses that money to redeem those goods and services. Currency is the physical, or paper or electronic representation of money, the actual dollars used, or the actual gold. Currency does not need to have intrinsic value and only really has value because of a universal recognition that this item can be used to trade valuables for other valuables. Gold is no exception, though it is more useful than paper notes, but not because gold bullion is useful, but because gold is useful in the manufacture of electronic components. Gold however has been considered valuable in the Old World universally and historically, for quite a long period of time. Gold is the only precious metal available in alluvial form and which can be extracted from the ground in a metallic state instead of an ore. This, and it's lustre, malleability (useful in making jewellery) and long standing reputation as a precious metal, a symbol of wealth and status has ensured that gold remains valuable.

The concept of value extended

If human beings were so simple as to only require goods, services and materials then we could fairly easily qualify what goods are of value and what aren't.You could rely on a vast centrally planned economy like in some Communist examples (Chile) to describe and set an enormous array of prices, in one document for any conceivable good, service or material. In reality, the situation is far more complex. People need more than just bread, water and shelter and certainly people want more than just mere survival. People desire status, entertainment, desirable surrounds, security, social bonds, contentment, among many other things. In a simple economy, money acts as an intermediary for trade between tangible goods and services. As an intellectual construct it serves this purpose, but psychologically speaking the distinction people draw between the value of a potato grown from the ground, and the value of a house which has a view is somewhat vague. The monetary system is quite simply not suited to deal with the complexities of the human mind and the way the mind assigns value.

So far, we have looked at wealth creation through the introduction of goods and services into the economy which did not exist. However, as we have become accustomed to using money as a panacea to assign value, we have also used money to represent other more ambiguous forms of value.

The house by the beach cost a fixed quantity of money to build, however upon being sold, the price paid does not reflect the actual value of the house, but rather the perception of value. If beach front property becomes more popular, then people can be convinced that is of greater value. To a degree this is true; however it is not true in the same way that cotton in the form of a shirt is of greater value than a cotton plant. The former is temporary, a mental construct from based on perceived changes in value due to competitive pressures or social standing, the latter represents an increase in value to the economy which is tangible and usable.

So the increase in housing cost as witnessed in the early years of the 21st century led to the following scenario. A fixed item, in this case the house, demanded a greater proportion of goods and labour in order to acquire it even though the house in question essentially remains unchanged. This is a different scenario to the once off profit made when an item is given a fixed value. Someone purchasing a house for $250,000 and then selling the exact same property in the roughly the same condition for $450,000 would claim they have 'made' $200,000 dollars. But wealth is created through the intellectual and physical labour of people, and the creation of goods. Earlier it was discussed that food grown, ore extracted and services rendered enter the economy from 'thin air'. Here we have another value which enters the economy from thin air, the perception of the increase in value of an item of static value. However, unlike goods and services, which you can see, touch, buy or at least make measurable use of, this value is purely theoretical.

What 'wealth' is created here? The answer is none, though modern economic systems allow one to use that wealth and convert it into goods and services. In this scenario someone hasn't made wealth, but rather appropriated money, the promise of future goods and services, without inputting the equivalent value of goods and services back into the economy. This is essentially how people can 'make a living' without working, and many people who are taken in by this allure of 'wealth creation' do not understand that there is no wealth creation, but rather it is appropriating wealth which existed elsewhere. The financial systems in place, have allowed such a transaction to take place. So the seller sells the house and the buyer is put into a position where they must input more into the economy than was originally required. As this increase in value also is considered an increase in value of the total value of the state, an asset bubble can lead to additional money being issued into the economy and in wealth being stored in property. Given this situation, the bubble must be maintained to prevent economic problems caused by the re-evaluation of the asset in question, and as the bubble cannot grow indefinitely, the conditions for an inevitable crash are created.

The important point is that people do not draw distinctions between a micro-economy growing due to the creation of wealth, and a micro-economy growing to people perceiving a rising value. As money is missed into the economy to accommodate for the inflating value of static items such as properties, or shares in a company who's performance has not substantially altered, this money is backed by very little other than the whims of the market. With nothing more than a change in opinion, this value can disappear and the value that entered the economy, also disappears. The money that was issued to facilitate these transactions remains, so we are left with more money representing an economy of less value. The value of the currency adjusts accordingly and inflation occurs.

No free lunch

To illustrate the following point, assume there are two nations on an island. Nation A enjoys a high standard of living. The people who live within this nation are relatively productive, civilised, tend not to commit many crimes and create a pleasant society. Nation B has a lower standard of living. Nation B has higher crime, greater disparity between rich and poor, is dirtier and has less developed infrastructure. The people in nation B are just as productive as nation A, but tend to maintain and accept, a much lower standard of living. Whereas people in nation A expect low population densities, people in nation B are more tolerant of crowding. People are free to move from one nation to the other and the two nations trade with each other. People in nation A earn more than nation B.

The first obvious point is that citizens of nation A are much less likely to move to nation B, than vice versa. The second one, is that due to the better quality of life in nation A, nation A is of greater value, that is, the home environment is of greater value because it is more desirable. This form of intrinsic value is often unmeasured and disregarded, and not considered as the measurable value held in the economy is, particularly in the "modern" Western World.

A contemporary real life counter example is the small Asian nation of Bhutan, where a former King of Bhutan, King Jigme Singye Wangchuck coined the phrase “Gross National Happiness” in 1972. This index is a collection of various measurable and qualitative factors such as political, social and mental wellness, among others. While all these factors essentially become qualitative when factored into an index, it can be argued that the intrinsic value in living in such a society would increase or decrease more or less in line with such an index. This index is considered so important, that the new constitution adopted in 2008 states that government programs must be measured by the happiness they produce, and not by the economic benefits that might arise.

Recently, this index has been falling, paradoxically due to economic growth. British economist Sir Richard Layard who has specialised in the Nation’s happiness index states

“There's a lot of evidence that a rather cohesive societies often experience falls in psychological well-being when they go into economic take-off.”

While this might appear counter intuitive, what is happening is that the intrinsic value in their social structure, their culture and way of life is being sacrificed at the expense of more immediate economic value. This is occurring largely due to increasing commercialisation, which may be beyond the control of Bhutan's government. Value in one area (the economy) is growing at the expense of value elsewhere (value of culture, of the traditional lifestyle). In the economic sphere, there appears to be growth, but at the other side of the equilibrium is the loss of quality of life, the loss of happiness and contentment, something often ignored. Has the overall value of the nation increased? Or has the wealth and value of the nation simply been transformed and moved elsewhere?

Back to the example of nations A and B, people running companies in nation A might realise that people in nation B are working the exact same jobs, and being just as productive, yet willing to accept a much lower wage. Companies in nation A then engage either in off shoring and outsourcing, or recruiting citizens of nation B to live and work in nation A. The citizens move to nation A and allow the companies to increase their profits. A familiar scenario for anyone who lives in the western world. The government of nation A exclaims that this is good for the economy, as companies are making more money and driving up the stock market and the population generally agrees.

However, gains such as these don't come for free. Someone has to pay, somewhere, somehow. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Citizens of nation B move to nation A to certain areas and those areas start to become more and more like the areas found in nation B. Working conditions in nation A lower as its citizens have to compete with nation B Like the equilibrium discussed earlier, the apparent economic gains made by nation A, are mitigated by the loss of quality of life, of the peoples well being and happiness. This loss then directly translates into financial terms, as some suburbs lose value, as peoples wages lower, as lack of job security prevents people establishing loans and so forth.

The value of the area drops, and the value, or quality of life drops as well. Job security drops as jobs disappear overseas and competition for jobs and space increases. Crime increases, wages are lowered or curbed, forcing citizens of nation A to compromise their quality of life. Essentially, to allow economic gain in one area of the nation (within the companies balance books), a cost has been borne elsewhere, amongst the citizens of the nation.

At its most basic level, a financial transaction has taken place. The quality of life that one would normally expect to afford for their particular income is lowered, as the income which others can gain, is increased. Because the correlation between these two is abstract, a direct link is rarely made and people just see it as social progress. The economic progress experienced by some is made possible by others accepting corresponding regressions. Value has been transferred from one entity (the community) to another. The problem with this transaction is that it is usually done without the full understanding of the community, or their consent.

Another example would be changes to urban planning to allow for greater population density. While greater population density can lead to savings in building infrastructure, these savings are negated by the lower quality of living in high density areas. Subdividing property can seem to increase the value of land, but the increase in density leads to additional costs.

Good economic policy must look not merely at dollars and cents, but the total value of the nation which goes far beyond things which are held as being traditionally of monetary value. Changes in living conditions, in the demographic make up of the country, in the quality of life actually have very real economic impacts in ways which are overlooked.

Looking at the bigger picture

If you only look at the dollars and cents of any national economy, you are only looking at a portion of the equation. By only looking at a portion of the equation, what can appear to be a boom in reality isn't when non-fiscal ramifications of economic policy are taken into account. These aspects are usually the most important to people, as a good economy is only useful in that it provides a better standard of living. To have economic growth and greater profit at the expense of living standards is counter productive. Taking as an example, the off shoring of employment to other nations where a lower standard of living is maintained, and thereby lower wages, might appear good policy in terms of direct measurable metrics, it comes with a sacrifice which negates any financial advantage. From a nationalist perspective, this arrangement is undesirable as it is a transfer of opportunity out of the nation into another nation for the benefit of what is usually a handful of individuals.

The economic systems and conventions that a nation adopts should first and foremost be those which allow the nation the greatest opportunity to improve living conditions. The economic system and conventions, much like the concept of money itself, must remain tools which serve the people, rather than systems requiring the servitude of the people.

“The economy is not an end in itself. It is an element in the life of societies, among the principal ones but only one element”


“Bhutans falling Happiness Index”

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Can't get a lease on an inner city place?

By Carla O'Hara and Brian Hudson

The Sydney branch of Nationalist Alternative is currently engaging in a campaign to reach out to help young Australians in the dire predicament of finding and securing a lease on inner city accommodation.

A rental crisis is not just looming its occurring right now and many Aussies are increasingly finding themselves outmanoeuvred and ousted from an ultra competitive, inner-city rental market. Forced into unsuitable accommodation, including squats, the idea of plentiful, cheap, and geographically close student accommodation is as dead in the water as a free university education.

Local students are totally marginalised in the struggle for increasingly scarce resources, including accommodation and casual work. This effectively means they are being forced out of their traditional living space in the pursuit of Australia’s third largest export: Education. This is the white-elephant standing in the room no one is willing to address.

In 2009, Melbourne University students with no alternatives for accommodation resorted to squatting, only to be faced with eviction by the university. Squatting is becoming more common among students and the financially disadvantaged in Australia’s capital cities. In Blacktown alone, the Department of Housing has 1800 people on a waiting list for a home, while St Vincent De Paul has recorded a six fold increase in homeless families as the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) begins to bite.

Australia was in a housing shortage as early as 2006, in the wake of house prices lowering and the home sales market stagnating. Fewer people are now buying homes, and the statistics show that 1 in 4 Australians are faced with the prospect of securing a lease. Net population growth fuelled by immigration is currently at 170,000 per year and rental prices are increasing rapidly as demand for rental units is outstripping supply. In 2008, The Australian Property Monitors (APM) showed there had been double digit rental increase in each Australian capital city as a result of the rental crisis. Reminiscent of the Great Depression in 1930 are the long queues of hopeful tenants lining the streets for inner city leases. It is not unusual for the number of people turning up to a rental inspection to vastly outnumber those of a sales inspection. Some real-estate agents have reacted to this purely as an economic opportunity using what are now called “rental auctions”, which see potential tenants bid against one another for the opportunity to secure a rental property. Effectively this puts local students out of the market, and this sordid profiteering means the inner Sydney rental market is a barbaric free-for-all in which the biggest wallet wins.

The executive officer of the ACT Tenants Union, Deborah Pippen, said the rental auctions are unfair. “It leads to an uneven playing field for tenants. It artificially drives up rent prices,” she said.

To add to Aussie rental woes are media reports of ruthless real estate agents who force evictions to gain commissions from new tenants. This high demand/high turnover/high stakes situation is the reality of inner city renting today. Agents end tenancies without grounds to simply profit a 1st week re-letting fee, a fee that all agencies charge landlords upon signing up a new person.

This is only the surface of the anti-social behaviour of which some in the Real Estate industry engage in. Any other industry which impacted so negatively on people would be judiciously scrutinised, yet despite the obvious problems, the Real Estate Industry seems to enjoy a privileged position.
Real Estate is the only profession in which you don't need a university education. Real Estate agents, rather than providing a service worthy of the fees paid to them, are exploiting their position as property middlemen to pit renters and buyers against each other purely to profit even further.

The Real Estate industry has been turned into a business which uses fear, uncertainty and doubt, and blatant lies to manipulate the market. This can be seen in the current real estate climate, with buyers and renters being given the impression that it’s 'now or never', while at the same time, admitting to sellers that the market is shaky. This climate of doubt and fear, of promises of easy wealth, takes a fair share of responsibility in creating one of the biggest economic and social problems facing the country, that being housing affordability and the subsequent housing shortage.

The rental market has become so tight in Melbourne and Sydney with vacancy rates at historic lows of 1 percent; landlords can be scrupulous in their tenancy requirements. Some like Kerry Arbon who had been on a Melbourne apartment hunt for over five weeks, said he had applied for about a dozen properties without success. Despite a well-paid job and a good reference from a previous landlord, Mr Arbon said he believed he had not been short-listed for any of the properties. For hopeful tenants, being turned down is a real and daily occurrence.

Nationalist Alternative is aiding younger and disadvantaged supporters and members by securing lease contracts on their behalf, and co-ordinating individual students into collective houses. Nationalist Alternative is also building networks that seek to cut out the rental agent middleman, reducing costs for landlord and tenant.

In this way, Nationalist Alternative is committed to supporting struggling Australians such as local students, who may be suffering financial hardship, through no fault of their own under the excesses of liberal democracy, of which the GFC (Global Financial Crisis) is but a symptom.

Australians interested in more information, please contact Nationalist Alternative via the ‘Contact’ section of the website or email us at natalt@ymail.com.

Localised Failure of Liberal Democracy and Opposition to the Newport Mosque

By John Harper

Newport is an inner western suburb of Melbourne, back in July of 2008, activists of Nationalist Alternative, were notified by several supporters who lived and/or are living in the area and had received leaflets, to become involved in the local campaign to make the Council more accountable in regards to its planning decisions, whether for a new concrete carpark, shopping mall or otherwise. As Nationalist Alternative are strong supporters of the idea of local people having a say regarding the future of their own community and in proposed developments, we decided to investigate further. The planning decision in question was :

The building plans for a large mosque on Blenheim Road, Newport that could fit hundreds of people
(see artists impression of the mosque above).

An organisation/s of concerned citizens had formed due to the noticeable negative impact this development will have on the surrounding area. With proposed prayer times ranging from 4:20 AM to 11:10 PM and the prospect of increased traffic, noise and competition for the limited number of car park spaces planned for the area, anyone, even politically correct liberal progressives can see the significant change such a building would bring.

Nationalist Alternative attended meetings, donated funds towards hiring legal representation for the action group and spent evenings volunteering services for the resident activist groups, including distributing their leaflets, advertising their meetings, and collecting signatures and donations and providing moral support.

NatAlt was able to build good relations with the group and with certain key members. As many of the residents are politically inexperienced and often don’t appreciate the deeper underlying issues, it was encouraging to hear people express their thoughts and show us that people are not apathetic and do have an awareness of changes occurring within their community.

The council has a greater obligation to the community aside from ensuring that buildings meet zoning laws and construction requirements, but also in being sensitive to the needs of the community, the culture it has and the wishes of the residents as to the type of community they would like to live in. Developments must therefore take into account the impact they have on the culture, the way that these developments will alter the surrounding area and the suburb in terms of demographics and how such changes will impact on the lifestyle of residents.
Outrageous but not surprising were alleged comments by a councillor, when it was put to him by a resident group member “have you read and reviewed our submissions to council opposing this development?” to which was answered “No”, but you are invited to come and help turn the sods of dirt on the building site with the local Islamic community”.

So to residents, it was as if the decision had been made already and the council was just going through the motions. Unfortunately a few months later in 2008, the council voted to approve the development. Despite overwhelming resident dissatisfaction with the proposal, the council appeared committed to continuing the development, a fact not lost on the disaffected residents.

In response to this, NatAlt chose to lend support to one resident from a action group who chose to be a candidate. NatAlt distributed a flyer advertising the councils decision and detailing how the council appeared committed to approving the mosque regardless of the residents wishes, or without any concern to how this would impact the area. Not only was the flyer one to inform residents, it was a call to kick the incumbents out and an endorsement of the community activist who was running for council.

Despite the sensitivity of the issue and the propensity for people to be critical of community members who express concern over such developments, NatAlt recieved negligible opposition to our efforts. We will continue to play an active role in this issue and help represent the understated and often ignored wishes and concerns of the local community.

Lessons for Nationalist Activists - Relevance and Flexibility

Illustrating the relevance, particularly on a local level, of workingwith Australians on issues that are of importance to them and their dailyconcerns we note the following words of some nationalist activists onthe scene:

“We participated in our own door knock down many streets close and far to the development and whilst most residents did not want to become directly active, nearly all to a tee asked us to dispense withdisclaimers and other information and just ask them “Mosque? Yes or No”, to which 9.5/10 answered a resounding NO.”

We could have attended and simply hit the area with purely abstract political material,replete with esoteric political though straight out of a European think-tank and dressed in the black bloc look of our fellow nationalists in Europe from where we in Australia adapt the look. (and utilize for different ends as per other images on this site). However in light of the above, in this instance, Nationalist Alternative worked and dressed normally, both as non aligned residents attending meetings and leafleting on the issue along with local residents as well as in our own capacity. We supported and pushed the demand that council consider more closely and with greater sensitivity the needs of the residents, planning AND Cultural impacts and not blindly push forward developments (Of any nature mosque or carpark or shopping centre megaplex) that will have a negative impact on the community.

Residents have the right to make their voices heard, demand more accountability from indifferent and often major party dominated councils and to have the opportunity to exercise our democratic right to influence the development of our suburbs. Our people demand and require a greater input on the future of our own community, both locally and as the Australian nation.

Stickers and Posters - Range 1

Celebrity Child-Pets

by Carla O'Hara

The traditional family unit, now considered cliched is 2.1 children, a house (with over-inflated mortgage), quarter acre block, a dog, a cat, and everything else that encompassed ‘keeping up with the Jones’s’. This passe stereotype has forced the celebrity class to distinguish themselves and their wealth from the rest of us.
Celebrities indulge in drug abuse, sexual debauchery, cosmetic surgery and lavish, outlandish lifestyles, which, for the most part, is unusual and abnormal. In recent times, the celebrity class has gone one step further and sought another way to distinguish themselves; in addition to having biological children, they adopt children from the third world.

Celebrities guilty of this vice include Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Meg Ryan, Joely Fisher, Ewan McGregor and James Caviezel. U.S. pop star Madonna was allowed to adopt a second child from Malawi on Friday June 12, 2009 after the country’s Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling in a case that has been criticised by local rights groups.Superficially, they are adopting for reasons of philanthropy and altruism; in reality it is a way to justify child poaching. As a way of distinguishing themselves for the rest of society, they have themselves a new kind of pet - the third world child.

Perhaps I am being unfair to compare adopting of a third world child to the buying of a pet. However, the question should be asked, how could a person of high moral character go to an orphanage of a poor country, ask the children to be paraded and then “pick” the lucky one? The concept is reminiscent of a pet store, with puppies and kittens in the window. It has a lot to do with the Politically Correct idea that ’sacrificing’ your own children to help more disadvantaged children is considered a virtue. Celebrities are financially far more capable of doing this (as adoption is costly). By adopting third world children, they can get positive PR by being at the cutting edge and by being seen to be leading a ‘progressive’ new phenomenon.These celebrities adopt from the third world, not to help the third world, nor to help children. Otherwise, why then do they not adopt or even consider fostering children of their home country?

Once adopted, these “child-pets” have their own nanny to take care of them in their day to day activities. Every now and then, the celebrity pulls out their “child-pet” to perform for media cameras. As Sarah Silverman (a supposed “politically incorrect” Jewish comedian) once said;

“I think if you adopt, you really have to go brown with it because otherwise you don’t get the credit.”

Perhaps it is more accurate to compare these third world adoptees not as pets, but to slaves brought to the West by the African slave trade. During the 16th century, buying people from overseas was effectively as simple as it is today. Only this time, we allow our purchases to sit at the table and eat a meal with us and our biological children.There also seems to be little discussion of how those in the third world consider the adoption of their children and use of them as tokens by celebrities. Liberals would be distraught to hear the following comments by Somalian blogger Bashir Goth in a 2006 post regarding his failed adoption as a child by an American nurse.

"I cannot but admire my father’s wisdom in following his parental inclination of no other love or material comfort ever equalling that of a father looking at his own child growing before his eyes and passing down to him his people’s culture and history. I wonder if my culture and my village would have a home in my heart if I were raised abroad.”
He confirms the importance of parents bringing up their own children within the context of their people and associated culture and history.

Voltaire said “It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere“, it is doubtful that the adoptees themselves realise that they are in shackles. Are they free to return to their home? Are they free to live with their own people, with their own culture? What will be the effect on the psyche of the child when they find out they were taken half way around the world from their true identity so their adopted parents could appear more PC and trendy? Alienated and used, like a commodity along with the perfumes and clothing that grace the magazines their celebrity parents appear on the front covers of.

What would be the effect on their psyche when they read their mother, Angelina Jolie’s comments on her biological birth?

“I love it. It makes me feel like a woman. It makes me feel that all the things about my body are suddenly there for a reason.”

And compare such words with those of Sarah Silverman’s about only getting credit if they are brown. Angelina Jolie is renowned for the diversity of her adopted brood. She says that each child is taught their biological language. Angelina’s adoptees, who learn their biological language amongst a foreign land and culture, cannot be compared to children able to live amongst their own people and culture. For Jolie to suggest that money can provide the adoptee with a better economic future, without realising it, she has actually placed a value judgement on the culture and people of her third world adoptee. Such behaviour pushes Western and Imperialist ideals onto non Westerners, whilst simultaneously suggesting that other non Western value systems are not valid or worthy. It is supremacist in its very nature, as it parallels historic assimilation of the heathen peoples of Africa, and a return to the psyche of White man’s burden.

The white man’s burden is responsible for the alleged kidnapping of over 100,000 Aboriginal children from their parents who were then subsequently placed in religious institutions. La Trobe University’s prominent Jewish Professor Robert Manne declares:

“It was not from harm that the mixed-descent children were rescued, but from their Aboriginality”.
Professor Manne is more apt in his description than he realises. Whether or not the Aboriginal Stolen generation suffered harm at the hands of their own people is largely irrelevant, what is poignant are the long term psychological impacts to those children raised by White Australians. In our efforts to help, to educate, and provide a better future for Aboriginal children, we are now suffering the burden of an invasive protective policy. In February of 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd apologised to the Australian Aborigines:
“especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.”

Yet, in November of 2008 it was revealed that one in six Aboriginal children in NSW was in the care of the State, a total of 4000 Aboriginal children, compared to 1000 in 1969.
The true cost of assimilation of third world adoption and the removal of Aboriginal children from care has and continues to be the White man’s burden, in essence, an absence of nobility for all involved. If we really care for ourselves and for the third world and the indigenous populations, we should simply for good and for bad, let them be.

Westgate Bridge Cleanup

Recently some members of Nationalist Alternative met to reclaim the parkland and waterways under one section of the Westgate Bridge. Tidying your own backyard used to be an unspoken principle of the Australian way of life and behaviour, an attitude widely held amongst the populace. Unfortunately scenes of filth and mess are all too common in today’s individualist society where worship of the credit card takes precedent over most other items. Only the most obvious and busiest thoroughfares of our cities are now kept clean while the rest decay. The grassed area next to the waters edge (2nd image) and the vegetation along the lake edge (3rd image) were thoroughly cleared and left spotless for the enjoyment of locals. In only a few hours multiple bags of rubbish were carted away and as a breather we thought we would take some images.

Nationalist Alternative Manifesto II

by Steve Wood

1. Introduction: Nationalist Alternative tactics

This section of the Nationalist Alternative Manifesto shall examine the question of political tactics – that is, how to go about achieving one’s political goals. Ultimately, the goal of all politics is the gaining of power. Power for nationalists is the ability of a people to exercise self determination on all levels, complete unhindered independence including the right and ability to defend and maintain it. This may occur through democratic elections, through civil war, through a revolutionary uprising, through peaceful separatist aspirations, through a coup d’├ętat...
Politics comes without a manual, without a set procedure. One has to discover how politics works – how one goes about getting, and keeping, power – through practice, through trial and error, and through the study of the past. We need to learn from mistakes made in that past and move forward, in a positive and determined manner.
Here we shall be studying some of the techniques of Communist organisation – in particular, democratic centralism. (It should go without saying that Nationalist Alternative is not endorsing Communism, Bolshevism, of any kind, and actively opposes it. If anything, we are an Anti-Communist group as much as we are an Anti-Globalist group and therefore against any Imperialistic ideology).
Now, isn’t Communism dead and buried, with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and the turn away from socialism by China after 1979? Yes and no: certainly, Marx’s theory of history, which is at the core of Communist ideology, has been disproved. But, on the level of street politics, the Communist groups are very much alive. (One could point out that, electorally, Communists are still successful in some countries: Communists have won office, through elections, in countries such as Nepal and Rumania. But it is examples pertinent to Australia which shall concern us here). The anti-globalist and anti-capitalist street movements are dominated by the Communists; and the two main Communist factions in Australia, Socialist Alliance and Socialist Alternative, dwarf Australian nationalist groups in terms of size, organisation, funds and in sheer street power.
Finally, the Communist groups in Australia constitute a radical extra-parliamentary opposition, which is something many Australian nationalists aspire to. And, like Australian nationalists, they have been, and continue to, suffer persecution and harassment at the hands of the liberal democratic state, and, moreover, have done a good job of surviving.
These are the reasons why the Communist example is worthy of study and emulation.

2. Democratic Centralism

Lenin, in his classic, “What is to be done” (1902), outlined the key tenets of democratic centralism. I shall list some of them here:

a) A party must develop an ideological position through vigorous debate, adopt it through a binding vote, and then stick to it, through thick and thin. In a congress held over a number of days, the membership of a political party (or rather, the delegates sent to the congress to represent the membership) debate amongst themselves and adopt a constitution, a program (which sketches out the aims of the group over the long-term) and a resolution (which considers political developments in the recent past and prospects for the near future). In future congresses, constitutions and programs are amended by votes from the delegates – paragraphs are struck out, new ones added – and new resolutions adopted.
After that, the membership agrees to abide by the program and resolution, when representing the party’s position to non-members. ‘We believe that...’. The membership does this even if an individual member does not agree with it. (This is a common enough phenomenon in mainstream, liberal democratic political parties: the MP in the Labor or Liberal Party has to support the position adopted by the party membership at the time, even if he does not agree with it, and refrain from criticising it in the public eye).
b) Only paid-up, card-carrying members are truly members. Often, in politics, a member of a political group falls into the habit of saying such-and-such a group of people are ‘with us’, are ‘part of our organisation’. At the time Lenin wrote “What is to be done”, Russian socialists were inclined to view certain factory workers and trade unionists they had encountered as ‘members’ – simply because a Russian socialist activist had handed out a pamphlet to that factory worker (who had some good words to say about it), or had managed to get that worker to come to one or two meetings. Lenin took the view, through, that the real test of one’s conviction was membership: was the factory worker, trade unionist, intellectual, willing to join the party, take out a party membership card, abide by the party rules (as outlined in the constitution) and pay dues – promptly, and in full? If not, that worker could be regarded as a sympathiser, perhaps even a supporter – but not a member. Only a party member is willing to put his money where his mouth is.
c) Conducting of meetings in an efficient, orderly way. Most formal organisations – whether they be bowling clubs, corporations, Rotary clubs, town councils, political parties – conduct their meetings according to a set procedure. That procedure is formally known as ‘parliamentary procedure’ (even the meetings are not, of course, held in parliament). These rules may specify that meetings must have a chairperson, a secretary, minutes, an agenda, a set hierarchy for certain motions (e.g., a motion to adjourn a meeting, to debate a certain position, to bring up an item of unfinished business from the last meeting, etc.). The set of rules known as ‘Robert’s rules’ is the most famous, and well-used, parliamentary procedure.
The rationale for this is as follows. Politics is time-consuming business, and consists mainly of chores undertaken to support the functioning of the political organisation, such as fund raising, the creation and distribution of literature and work into obtaining and maintaining facilities. In order to prevent a meeting from degenerating into a purely social event, one has to organise – take care of the chores and get them out of the way as quickly as possible. Which is why Lenin stressed formal organisation. While holding a meeting with minutes, a secretary, a chairperson, is dull, it is the only way of organising large numbers of people and get those chores done in a reasonable amount of time so that most of the efforts are directed to actual beneficial activities. Conducting meetings in a formalised and structured manner are necessary step in ensuring that items which require discussion and analysis are addressed thoroughly and timely. A successful political organisation will find the right balance between the formalised organisation necessary to make effective use of available resources, and the flexibility necessary to change where necessary and take into account changing and extenuating circumstances.
On top of that, formal meetings are democratic: each of the members has an opportunity to speak freely. Records of meetings (in the minutes) help work out what was decided at a past meeting, what actions, future events or positions of ideology or organisational arrangement were agreed upon, thereby avoiding time wasting disagreements in the future.
This ensures accountability in individuals who can be honestly measured post agreement on what actions they take that have differed from what the group decided upon. This further prevents individuals who may carry a particular critical skill or possession of a critical piece of infrastructure like ‘the website’ from simply flouting the group decision and acting inline with their own wishes. This has occurred numerous times in groups that prefer next to no organisation. That is why it is very important to try and work together as a team for the greater good of the group.
Minutes or the like, are especially helpful when particularly bitter individuals who came out on the minority side of a group vote on a controversial topic want to continue the arguing over and over again. Further, it should be obvious to the reader, when considering our arguments for at least ‘some’ formal organisation, that troublemakers or plants much prefer a cloudy working environment where nothing is ever ‘locked in’ - in terms of positions on ideology, how recruits are vetted, procedures, public image to be adopted at a particular event etc. Such lack of clear and sometimes explicit agreement and rules is exactly what troublemakers require to undermine the entire organisation’s efforts.
Clarity and accountability are especially important in regards to the question of handling money – which is probably the greatest potential source of dissension and conflict in an organisation. This is why there must always be total transparency in relation to money matters and there also needs to be strict rules and procedures that need to be adhered to.
The exact nature and level of detail in said minutes will of course be determined by the group concerned and security issues around personally identifiable information. Security and privacy should always be a priority and group members need to be selected to handle those aspects for the group. Those selected for security roles must obviously be trustworthy and constantly vigilant to any threats that may occur.
d) An organisation needs a formal structure. Not only do meetings need to be structured formally, so does the organisation itself. The smallest unit of organisation in a Communist party is a cell, which is made up three people, in a trade union, university, professional association or whatever. Then comes the party branch, then the district organisation, then the equivalent of a state and federal organisation. The district, state and federal organisations have their congresses every few years, when they adopt resolutions and make amendments to the constitution and party program; the branches and cells meet more regularly. As in a liberal democratic party, the rank-and-file membership elects delegates to the district, state and party conferences. So the structure of a Communist party is, in its way, genuinely democratic.
(For a small, fledgling organisation, the act of setting up organisations at the district, state and federal level seems presumptuous, grandiose. But one has to start somewhere. At the first Bolshevik party conference, nine delegates showed up, and a central committee of five was elected. Those five were arrested the next month by the Russian secret police).

3. How nationalists can apply Democratic Centralism

These are the tenets of democratic centralism. At the time, critics of Lenin accused him of being too authoritarian and bureaucratic, too obsessed by control. But Lenin was contesting the notion that revolutions are spontaneous and happen by themselves, without conscious direction, or organisation, from political activists. The two main ‘spontaneous’ groups were the anarchists, of course, and (surprisingly enough) certain of the Marxists, who happened to believe that revolution, the overthrow of capitalism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat was inevitable, and so not much needed to be done.
Marxists are still debating whether or not Lenin was right. The point is, though, the same criticisms Lenin made of Russian socialism could be made of nationalism in Australia today. There is too much disorganisation, too little activism directed towards a particular political goal or in fact any goals (social, financial, organisational objectives), too little agreement on what those political goals should be, and too much of a feeling that ‘being nationalist’, ‘being racialist’ and just gracing internet forums and pub meets only (pure socialisers) suffices – one does not have to join a political organisation devoted to actual politics.
A partial remedy is to adopt a version of Lenin’s democratic centralism and apply the four points listed above to nationalist organisation and practice. That way, nationalists shall deploy themselves with professionalism and most importantly purpose. Not only of the Communist groups, but the mainstream political parties (such as Liberal and Labour) as well.
The application of democratic centralism is, in fact, a simple procedure: meetings among branches need to be held regularly, and conducted according to Robert’s rules (of which a good summary can be found in the book “Robert’s rules for dummies”). Because branch meeting are small, one can adapt these guidelines and rules to ones own situation). A constitution can be written up fairly quickly by simply adapting the constitution of existing political organisations. The core tenants of the members can be incorporated, and safeguards put in place to ensure the foundation stones for the groups creation can never be removed. A small, even paltry, monthly membership fee needs to be charged to those who wish to move from Nationalist Alternative supporters to members, simply because people value what they pay for and consider it an investment in their personal, family and unborn offspring’s future by way of enabling the range of activities and capabilities of an organisation dedicated to such goals. And, finally, recruitment needs to be done on a ‘quality, not quantity’ basis. Building a core of competent and capable activists across the working, small business, middle and ‘professional ‘classes’, with skill-sets that can be leveraged towards organisational goals, is imperative.
Furthermore, one can start building a movement - a parallel society where any one individual can go for his needs, personal, economic, educational, social or otherwise is achieved by networks of capable skilled people, not hordes of drunken thugs. As a means of giving people incentive to join something they may put considerable time and effort into, such practices help provide clarity. It is a given that people naturally contribute to activities they feel are worthy pursuits. If their heart is not in it they will eventually leave. No amount of glossy coverings, charismatic individuals or constantly repeated slogans alone will keep them despite an initial honeymoon period.
Communism, historically, has always recognised that a committed member, of good quality, is worth twenty or thirty uncommitted members: the good member will turn up to every demo, every meeting, etc., and so small but determined group of activists will have an effect out of proportion to their numbers.
Finally, there is ideological purity. Nationalism is not a political movement driven by constructed ideologies, but rather a political movement which recognises innate human needs, desires: unlike other political ideologies, which are based on the intellectual constructions and seek to dogmatically follow words, nationalism is based upon observation and recognition of the nature of humanity. All the same, a nationalist group has to maintain a democratically set party line less it simply becomes a friction ridden mess with no direction, much like today’s multicultural society. Amongst nationalists, debates can occur as to what the composition of a nation is, and the relationship and importance of culture, ethnicity and religion to a nation. For instance, in the Netherlands some Dutch nationalists may agree that Muslim immigrants who will not, for various reasons assimilate are not suitable candidates for future immigration, but may disagree on whether relatively more assimilable Chinese immigrants make suitable immigration candidates.
If such an ideological dispute is allowed to fester, the organisation may break into two: which is why the party leadership must give a firm ruling from the start, and make sure that members comply to that ruling. (The point comes when members who continue to disagree with that ruling, and go out of their way to tear down the party by publishing criticisms of the ruling on the Internet, have to be disciplined or expelled, or of course people can choose to depart in the same way they joined - voluntarily). This is all unfortunate, and the nationalist activist hopes that such disputes do not occur within his organisation. But disputes like that will crop up, and so the organisation must have the mechanisms (as outlined in its constitutions) for resolving them.
Then there is the problem of entryism. Most people associate entryism with Communism, particularly Trotskyism, which historically has relied on the tactic. But entryism occurs within nationalist circles as well. According to rumour, activists from the National Party (an agrarian socialist party) infiltrated One Nation in the 1990s, with the intention of wrecking it from within. A purge of the infiltrators would have solved the problem. This is not Stalinist paranoia: it is reality. A party has to struggle to survive, and often politics is the survival of the fittest. The better organised groups (like the National Party) overpower, and eventually destroy, the lesser organised (like One Nation).
We would add that conviction in the rightness of a nationalist ideology is measured by the passage of time and association, whereby the interested individual has participated in various events and by their having undergone some reading on the organisation’s viewpoints and structure. Also, they have demonstrated behaviour consistent with an agreement with said viewpoints and structure.
For instance merely the upfront providing by a member of, say, a ready supply of cash and face value enthusiasm on its own is not enough. A genuine commitment free of hidden agendas, whether for their own ego or to further the plans of another group, is what is required. This is not only to avoid the possibility of state based penetration. Many an organisation or group in Australia has been twisted, thwarted, led down time wasting directions or simply been grabbed hold of by ego-led men purportedly from the same movement. Entryism by such people or persons, to either cause an organisation to fold or become absorbed into another entity, may be for money or quite often simply to forward their individualist sense of ‘pride’ and power measured through metrics like ‘how many members my group has versus yours’, ‘to prove their ideology is superior’ or to ‘to prove their method of organising is superior’. Such individuals always reveal themselves over time, even if only by small slip-ups in speech here and there. Such people should be exposed and kicked out of a strong, self-respecting political organisation, regardless of money input, pseudo-enthusiasm and participation in many events which seemingly made them an ideal member.

4. Movement and Party OR Movement versus Party

It is often said, in nationalist politics, that ‘We need a movement, not a party’ – that, in other words, we need to do what the NPD and the BNP are doing, which is grassroots activism, community activism, community building, and that sort of thing. The proponents of ‘movement-ism’ seem to be basing their thinking on a New Left-ish understanding of politics – that is, that politics is the work of the masses, of the people, of special-interest and pressure groups, who go out and form mass-based, loose, spontaneous organisations (which are not really organisations, but clusters of people) that go out and engage in grass-roots activism. Others take the contrary view, seeming to state that ‘We need a party not a movement’ or ‘The party (as in politically registered one to contest elections) builds the movement’.
The truth is that both approaches are needed. For some people, reading press releases, platforms and hearing speeches output by a party may be enough to inspire them to at least register with your group and vote for you every three to four years. These people are excited by visions, concepts and plans for the future that have not yet (at least on the grand scale) been implemented. They identify because the party’s visions and concepts, which to them are put forward encapsulate their own opinions, values , dreams and hopes. They feel empowered, a voice has been given to their values and opinions, which previously had been absent from liberal politically correct discourse. Then there are those for whom seemingly abstract debates mean little and who start to identify with your group only when they see concrete evidence that your extra parliamentary work , support networks and activities are representing and directly aiding them, and the interests of their community and families.
Community projects of the kind the NPD and the BNP engage – helping the elderly carry their shopping, cleaning up graffiti and so on – are excellent propaganda, which also benefits the party; they are ‘propaganda of the deed’. They show the indigenous German and British communities that the NPD and the BNP are people who genuinely are concerned about the communities they live in. And the community pays those parties back – by voting for them at election time, because the positive word of mouth about the political organisation has circulated through the community, cutting through the negative image presented by the media. In turn, the hard won political representation is used to enact legislation which further enables the community to proper and foster its identity and survival and to repeal harmful legislation that hinders and disadvantages its work.
It is not for us to say whether it is a movement or political party that comes first, in fact a lot of social research merely raises the point that ‘discontent’ of some sort exists (comes first) amongst individuals or a population and that then leads to actions to attempt to correct the real or perceived injustice. So people who form parties or movements are acting from the same source but choosing different organisational methods to achieve it.
Social movement entrepreneurs, think tanks and protest organizations are the catalysts which transform collective discontent into social movements; social movement organizations form the backbone of social movements. Nationalist Alternative seeks to be such a catalyst, a vanguard organisation for the Australian nation (people) both in activism and in intellectualism (Think-Tank) and hence part of the ‘nationalist’ movement. In an attempt to further professionalism and goal driven purpose it is constituted like a political party but is not a ‘party’. Once the formal structure akin to a political party is in place, the organisation for community projects can get underway. After all, community projects requires discipline and co-operation – and a political party-like organisation confers an almost military-type discipline upon its members. Hence, the ‘party’ works together to help create the ‘movement’. Assuming conditions of discontent (always present in the unjust liberal democracy), a think-tank (or plural) provides the ‘spark’ of solutions/critique/deconstruction that illuminates possible pathways to solving the issues at hand. The associated (or not) organisations, informal networks and/or party are the ‘seeding’ vehicles to help the greater nationalist movement to grow. Together they are the roots of the plant, and the movement and party both grow together as the plant becomes a sapling and grows taller and then sprouts branches and leaves.
It is our belief that a broad three-pillar strategy encompassing the below is an effective combination to proceed with.

Struggle for the ‘street’: extra parliamentary action, grassroots community work that engenders a positive image, local issues, working ‘outside’ the liberal democratic state;

Struggle for the ’mind’, acting as a ‘Think-Tank’: insightful cutting articles, and the dissemination of material in any form that de-institutionalizes and breaks the chains of existing liberal/Marxist/Imperialist/Neocon/universalist beliefs, norms, and values, and establish new forms that spearhead nationalist, particularist and ethnic identity;

Struggle for the ‘parliament’: an eventual participation (once progress in the previous two areas has been achieved) in elections and the current political process in order to leverage the effectiveness of the first two elements and struggle for self determination.

Finally if we are serious about a sustainable future for European and the Australian people, we must continuously and objectively critique and compare our various methods, ideology, organising arrangements, goals (or lack of), behaviour, relations with fellow groups, public image and everything we project to the public.

Nationalist Alternative Manifesto I

1. An introduction

This is the program of Nationalist Alternative, an Australian nationalist organisation which is primarily an activist movement, but constituted like a political party.
Nationalist Alternative aims at finding, and developing, an alternative to the excesses, social unrest, greed, despair and arrogance of liberal democracy and universalism.
The primary aim of Nationalist Alternative is to reaffirm Australian cultural and national identity and restore the sovereignty and independence of the Australian nation. It is the belief of Nationalist Alternative that the modern liberal democratic state uses abstract concepts it deems absolute for all people, and then presumes at imposing its rules, from the top down, upon populations that have little in common culturally or ethnically. It classifies all human beings according to function and income, thereby stripping all particularities of differing people to one common denominator.

Such a state - where people are mere economic cogs - is declared by liberal democracy to be a “country”. It is a mere social construction, where the profit motive and economy is king, a marketplace only. It consists of constantly conflicting interests, ethnic tensions due to irreconcilable cultural values, alienation, unhappiness and no real consensus amongst its disparate constituents.

A nation, in contrast, is a living community, in which its values and heritage are inseparable from the philosophy of its rulers, and where the tools of politics and economics serve the cultural objectives of its people, not the oligarchs of world finance. As human beings we inherently want more than function and income. We want a place in a community, a culture that affirms the values we feel to be true and an organic base from which to build for a better future.
A nation is not a constructed concept but a ‘positive’, i.e., a factual description of the natural order of things since humankind’s earliest beginnings, which progresses from the family, familial clans, tribes and ties of kinship bonding the larger ethnic group as a homogenous people.
A nation can only be legitimately defined from people with a pre-existing bond who recognise that a higher order nation exists among them.? Contrast this with standard practice in liberal democracies, where the nation is defined from above by institutions and the population is coerced into accepting their national definition.? This disempowers people and does not allow people to identity or attribute their own national identity based on kinship and close cultural ties.
The Australian nation is the natural grouping of the Australian people, a living cultural entity, bonded by their common Anglo-Celtic-European cultural, ethnic, linguistic, spiritual, behavioural and biological heritage. This concept of the nation stands in contrast to that of the liberal democratic one, in which atomised citizens compete against billions of other unremarkable, non-distinctive other atomised citizens. This conception of the nation uplifts the people, providing hope, and helping them see beyond purely selfish pursuits, as they are now part of a culture, working for the health of that entity as well as fulfilling their personal lives.
Nationalist Alternative seeks to:
* Preserve true human diversity, plurality and difference, in the face of that which seeks to destroy it namely universalism, liberalism, imperialism and radical egalitarianism, enforced through human rights totalitarianism that is rampant in the ‘undemocratic’ liberal democratic state;
*Resurrect a national-communal based society with an economy harnessed as a tool to further the needs of the Australian people but is not an end in itself;
*Replacement of ‘universal’ values with cultural values specific to the individual nation concerned;
* Practice delayed gratification for future generations:
“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in”;
to this end, we reject only living in the present, the worship of hedonism and personal pleasure as ends in themselves, and posit that sustainability of bio-diversity whether animal, plant or human requires protection and preservation of environmental, ethnic and cultural diversity now.
* Nurture a social consciousness which includes consideration of future generations and a long term outlook which extends beyond individual election periods and individual life spans.
*Further, we actively resist policies brought about by the practice of universalism, radical egalitarianism and human rights totalitarianism. For example, the policies of unlimited Chinese and Indian immigration into Australia; the undeniably massive flow of unwanted non-white migration into nearly all Western nations; the suppression of free speech by Orwellian political correctness and associated vicious ‘anti-vilification’ censorship laws; the globalisation of the world’s cultures into one Mc Culture, collapsing of hundreds of spiritualities into one or two religions only; the imperial march of humanism and enforcement of the ‘liberal democratic’ political system on peoples that reject it; the enforcement of the? ‘free market/laissez-faire? fundamentalist’ economic system everywhere. All of these agendas are pushed by the universalistic doctrines of capitalism and communism with their ‘open borders’, one world, one size fits all globalisation ideologies.

2. Why White Australia failed

It should be stated from the outset that any Australian nationalism must be for Australians: if we are nationalists, we must be nationalists for the country we live in, die in, enjoy prosperity and opportunities in, receive benefits in, enjoy the environment in and take advantage of by the mere fact of living in. This may be obvious - the concept that nationalism is local - but it needs to emphasised, simply because Australia has so many non-Australian (white) Europeans who are politically active on behalf of their own countries. In this country we have the strange phenomenon of what we call ‘expat nationalism’: that is large numbers of immigrants, who are biologically white, and come from Europe (mainly Eastern and Central Europe) who, even though they have lived in Australia for two, or even three, generations, have more nationalistic feeling towards their home countries than their adopted motherland If it is announced on the news that Ruritania has annexed a portion of Lower Slobenia, thousands of Ruritanians - of all ages, and both genders - can be guaranteed to organise a massive rally through the city streets, marching, banging drums, waving flags (of their home country) and generally agitating on behalf of the cause of their home country Ruritania, displaying more zeal, zest, initiative for the problems of that country than any Australian political problem.

Unfortunately, the influx of the (biologically white) European immigrants into Australia in the 1950s and 1960s helped pave the way for the arrival of the later, non-white immigrants from Vietnam, China, India, Lebanon, etc. How? Simply, Australians got used to living, side by side, with immigrant communities that would not - and perhaps could not - assimilate, having their own ethnic press, radio. These were Diaspora communities which could not fit into the Anglo-Celtic mainstream. (We have heard, on more than one occasion, Greeks calling the Anglo-Celtic Australians ‘white’, as if they - the Greeks - were not white). The arrival of these (irreducible) immigrants in the 1950s and 1960s, opened the way for the arrival other, self-isolating, self-segregating immigrant groups in the 1970s and after - immigrants who, this time, were non-white. Those sections of the Eastern and Southern European migrant communities, who were vociferous champions of ‘multiculturalism’, i.e., anti-assimilationism and Diaspora-ism, removed the ideological defences against mass, non-white immigration.

At present, a great many of our fellow Europeans from Southeast and Eastern Europe realise the folly of those earlier policies they had adopted so eagerly. As decades rolled on a slow realisation dawned that they, the immigrants from Europe, were used as the shock troops for the advancing non-white immigrants who followed on their heels. It slowly became apparent that the multicultural engineers cast them out in preference to the “new cause celebre” - the Vietnamese boat person, the Chinese, the Muslim, the Sudanese refugee. Now that these ‘real’ minorities were arriving, the Italian, Greeks and Yugoslavs were to be no longer embraced - after all, they are “just” white people from the continent Europe, like the Anglo-Celts.

Perhaps the realisation of these facts is why there was a noticeable amount of Italian, Greek, Polish and other non Anglo-Europeans amongst One Nation’s membership despite the media painting it as purely Anglo-Saxon. It is why the Europeans in Australia are reacting to the changes wrought by immigration and multiracialism in the Australian society which they have adopted as their own. That society has changed dramatically from the Western, Christian nation that they emigrated to.

Now, Nationalist Alternative welcomes members from Eastern and Southern Europe: in our experience, South-Eastern European nationalists in Australia - Serbian, Croatian, Hungarian, etc. - often display a greater energy and vigour than many Anglo-Celtic ones (and it goes without saying that immigrants from Italy, Greece, Poland, Estonia, etc., are infinitely preferable to immigrants from Bangladesh and Vietnam). And all Australian nationalists can learn from the experiences of the excellent nationalist groups in Europe (such as the Magyar Garda in Hungary, Forza Nuova in Italy, Golden Dawn in Greece, etc.). At the same time, any form of Australian nationalism has to champion the cause of the dominant ethnic minority which developed it over at least 157 years from (1788 until 1945), who happen to be Anglo-Celtic, Anglo-Saxon. Just as Argentina - a country which is, more or less, a European colony in the middle of South America - owes its culture and institutions to South-Western Europe (in particular, Italy and Spain), Australia owes its to North-Western Europe, in particular, the British Isles. Australia is, culturally and ethnically, a Commonwealth country - like South Africa, New Zealand and Canada. So while Australia is a white country - along with Bulgaria, Poland, Lithuania, Italy, Greece - it is more accurate to say that it is defined largely by its Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Celtic character and further shaped by struggle and history since 1788 into a uniquely Australian identity. To some extent at the turn of the last century many Anglo-Saxon Australians were still beholden to, and happy to take orders from, an overseas entity, namely, ‘Imperial Britain’ over an independent nationalist Australia. But nationalism must be local.

It was the failure to recognise this fact, in combination with the ‘White Australia’ policy. The creators had admirable intentions towards protecting its European populace but which unwittingly became instrumental in helping the spread of the multiculturalist and then multi-racial virus and dismantling barriers against non-white immigration. How? It boils down to the psychology of identity, and the perhaps even unconscious but deep seated biological prioritised imperative of family that in tribes that forms ethnicity, and then race. (A biological linked concept of identity most liberals deny outright, believing only in environment as a factor in development of identity). Ben Chifley, Arthur Calwell and the other great Australian politicians were the architects of the post-war immigration policy, which led to many thousands of Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Serbs, Croats, Slovenians, Poles, Hungarians, etc., into the country simply on the basis that they were white. These post-war White Australia proponents believed, instinctively, that all white men, all members of the white race, were brothers, which indeed on a racial level we are. And we know now, after many decades of expatriate nationalism, and agitation by certain prominent elements of for instance Greek- and Italian-Australian communities for more and more ‘multiculturalism’ in Australian life, how that turned out. The results have been so bad in Australia that a pure and strict doctrinal application of white nationalism has been shown not to work, simply because it is not true that at a deep seated biological level, the umbrella of race by and large trumps tribe or ethnicity: a fanatical expat nationalist will always feel a greater allegiance to his home country than the Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Celtic Commonwealth of Australia. (It was only in the 1950s that large numbers of non Anglo whites started to arrive - i.e., ?after 160 odd years of nation building and nation-defining events). The expat nationalist, in order to ensure the survival of his Diaspora group, will reject any assimilation, and champion immigration on principle. ?(The dreadful irony is that often the European expat’s home country - e.g., Greece, or Italy - is drowning under a flood of non-white, non-European sub ethnicities like Turkish, Arab and African immigration).

It may well be that the timing of the immigration was decisive. That is to say, multiculturalism really attained prominence after the Second World War, in Australia at least. Before then, expatriate nationalism was not encouraged. In America, a great flood of immigration, from South-Eastern Europe and Russia, took place around the turn of the century. The American racialist author, Lothrop Stoddard, and others denounced it, and as a result, anti-immigrant laws were passed in 1924 (which were only dismantled in 1965). What is noteworthy about the American example is that immigrants were very much forced to assimilate - i.e., schooling in the English language was compulsory. America did a much better job of remoulding those white European immigrants, making them adopt a more Anglo-Saxon identity, than Australia did in the 1950s and 1960s: the result is that the fourth- or fifth-generation Italian or Polish American is more American, and more Anglo-Saxon, than Italian or Polish. In Australia, the European immigrants were more or less left alone, not forced to conform or assimilate, and even encouraged, especially in the Whitlam and Fraser years, to form diasporas and see themselves as being apart from the Anglo-Saxon host population. Which is why expat nationalism has been handed down, from generation to generation).

What are we basically enunciating here in regards to assimilation? In contrast to liberalism’s homogenized world of fractured cultures and peoples, Nationalist Alternative advocate a diverse, harmonious heterogeneous world of homogenous peoples, each rooted in the nation’s culture and soil. So in any given nation whether an ‘old world’ nation or newly formed one, longevity, harmony and strength arise from its collective inhabitants, pulling in the same direction not apart, being dedicated to their particular nation foremost. This includes the truism that independence and sovereignty only exist when decision making is made entirely by the nation not by overseas and external forces. This does not in the least mean pure isolationism or lack of co-operation and dialogue with nations and cultures different from ours. Hence, whilst we do not want an assimilated world or global melting pot of human sameness, homogenous nations implies homogeneity and assimilation within those nations, not just across race and ethnicity but of course culture.

Assuming existing homogeneity in the first place, if you have chosen to travel to a new land where you intend to live in, raise children in, be protected in, then you also have duties to that national community which you desire so much from. Anything else places one in the realm of purely a selfish individualist, concerned about himself or at best his immediate family only. Such an individual is merely an economic migrant happy to cherry pick whatever community he visits, and move on after a few years. Such behaviour is similar to a corporation that discards a region when it is no longer the cheapest cost base from which to manufacture from. Without dedication to your own nation and its associated culture and territory, the seeds of disharmony, the conflicted loyalties, start to threaten the long term survival of a truly independent, sovereign nation of people.

Nationalist Alternative is against the bastardising of culture and identity and prefers to foster a national identity in which assimilable elements can participate in, and in which there is an expectation, and reason to become part of.

As well as that, we have the strange cultural phenomenon, perhaps unique to Australia, of the ethnic ‘car hoon’. The ‘car hoon’ is a lout who spends all day hot-rodding his car, driving it around like a maniac and doing burn-outs, playing ‘doof-doof’ (loud thumping techno and hip-hop) music with super-bass speakers. He wears a uniform of track-suits, baseball caps, gold chains, his main hobby is body-building, and his nationalism consists of rioting whenever international tennis competitions (with players from his home country) are in town, or at the time of the FA World Cup (he of course barracks for the team of his own country). In this subculture again, which is maybe unique to Australia, we see white (for some reason predominantly South-Eastern Europeans) joining with non-white descendants of other immigrant families, the two groups, white and non-white, essentially dressing, talking and behaving like each other. Biologically white Greeks, Italians, Serbs, Croats, etc., and non-white Lebanese, Turks, end up becoming transformed into the one amorphous sub-cultural type - they even speak English with the same accent. This is a disproof of at least ‘absolute’ white nationalism - the notion that whites, instinctively, will feel solidarity with one another against the non-white and a cultural affinity which transcends nationality and ethnicity.

This is a strange phenomenon which could possibly not occur anywhere else except in a multiculturalist context. In the European mainland, one does not come across the subculture mentioned here. Certainly, there is boorishness in Europe - soccer hooliganism, the ‘chav’ phenomenon in Britain, and so forth - but not the multiethnic, expat nationalist ‘car hoon’, replete with gold chains and the rest. Italy, for instance, has its share of boors (as does Britain and Germany): but it is also one of the fashion and style capitals of the world, and, historically, one of the centres of Western European culture. It could be argued that what is really distinctive in Western painting and music is mostly Italian. As well as that, Italy is one of the richest countries in the world, and both Italy and Greece are two of the richest countries in Europe. A massive class divide (as well as cultural divide), or, more accurately, a gulf, exists between the Italians and Greeks of mainland Europe and the Italian and Greek immigrants here. If the Diaspora populations of Southern and South-Eastern Europe were magically transported back to the homelands of their grandparents, they would feel out of place. At the same time, however, these immigrants do not feel a sense of belonging to the Anglo-Saxon culture, hence the hostility and resentment to the ’skips’ (that is, Anglo-Australians), the ‘whites’, exhibited by these groups. The immigrant diasporas, then, feel caught between two worlds.

The source of this sense of diffusion lies within the multiculturalist ideology itself. Multiculturalism is, if anything, a series of metaphors: a country must be like a ‘rainbow’ of many colours (and none predominating); a ’smorgasbord’ with a wide range of ethnic delicacies. It is regarded, by today’s politicians, journalists, academics, that Australia consists of so many different ethnic groups, and that the Anglo-Saxon founders are henceforth relativised, one group among many, no longer the top dog, only one more face in the multi-coloured crowd. Token differences must be preserved - ethnic groups are encouraged to stage their own cultural festivals, folk dances and the like. But, because no one group can be allowed to achieve eminence, no one colour in the rainbow can be allowed to stand out, all groups must be placed at the same level, in terms of value. That is, all groups must be equal. And that has the side-effect of belittling, even destroying, those cultures. Italians, for instance, cannot be encouraged to think of themselves as belonging to a country which has made supreme achievements in the field of painting and music, for example (e.g., the operas of Verdi are at the same level of value as Hmong folk music). So multiculturalism, in its drive for relativism and equality, ends up giving a token version of the different nationalities and ethnicities around the world.

At the same time it suppresses the expression of a genuine deep primary culture of the original dominant people. If it is obvious? that assimilation on a global scale results in the death of diversity due to one huge melting pot of forced conformity, then multiculturalism is not the solution but the problem. By creating an all-encompassing superficial ‘rainbow’ culture and by demanding that it should be imposed say everywhere, true diversity disappears, as there is eventually not one place in the world where one culture is allowed to be the primary one - it must always be the skin deep smorgasbord. It is little surprise that many people upon returning from visiting ‘world’ cities likes Sydney, New York, London, Paris, Toronto, Vancouver often remark that ‘its just another big city’.? These cosmopolitan cities all have their little Chinatowns, Little Italys, Irish pubs, Little Indias and ‘great shopping’ zones. Experiencing one is increasingly not too different from another and each time you receive a ‘taste of all cultures’. Surely a trip to a mostly homogenous part of highland Scotland, hinterland Germany, jungle Cambodia or mountainous Peru is special because it is original and one experiences the virgin culture of the people that reside there. Should we inform Tibet or Iceland that they are culturally deficient and that, in order to correct this (lest they be racist), they should zone a little Chinatown, Little Italy, Irish theme pubs and shopping malls?

It is also interesting to note the stark observation that so-called ‘anti-racist’ activists never seem to demand non-white countries legislate multiculturalism and multiracialism - just those with currently majority white populations.

To conclude: whilst inter-white solidarity is something we strive for, especially given the low percentage of Europeans left in the world, it is essential to recognise the fact of the strong biological urge for ethnic or tribal identity and thousands of years of separate heritage amongst Europeans. We can then work as ethnic nationalists who must bond together in a pan European (co operative) stance to protect our common bond of race whilst still able to preserve our particularity and differences.

Nationalist Alternative, in addition to being Pan-European in its position, internationally calls for an end to ‘petty nationalism’ whereby various European nations or ethnic groups are pitted against each other - such as Irish versus English, or Macedonian versus Greek, or Croatian versus Serb. There are European examples of political co-operation that we agree somewhat with, in its attempt to both protect the separate European identities, and not degenerate into petty nationalism.

At the same time, it is arguable that those globalist forces, who would like to see a ‘one’ world grey- or brown-coloured race and one world culture, realise they need to proceed down that ‘melting pot’ path in slow steps and therefore would prefer it if Caucasians throw out the rich diversity of difference that exits amongst our sub tribes in Europe, the multitude of cultural and ethnic particularities - i.e., the Celt, Slav, Teuton, Anglo, Latinii or Italian, English, German, Russian, Greek, etc. Arguably even some current national definitions in Europe today are too broad; like the category “French”, for example, which includes Franks, Bretons, Corsicans, Normans. All of these groups were compounded, in the French Revolution in 1789, as French by mere citizenship alone, which is in accordance with the civic-state definition of nationalism, which regards any person as being a member so long as they possess citizenship. By forcing the diverse Caucasian tribes to only identify as white and ignore our close but separate histories and cultures, they then have the European peoples conveniently boiled down to just one category, having extinguished all other differences.

For those opposing global one-ness or same-ness that classification leaves humanity only three categories away from the one brown universal man, when those factors also combine all Asian and African differences into the simplistic ‘yellow’ and ‘black’. There are approximately 192 different countries in the world, and many more ethnicities. Acknowledging that fact preserves the diversity of genes, culture, spirituality, and is vastly preferable to three categories only.

3. Old World and New World considerations: the New World tribes.

What of assimilation: can it occur? The answer is, in Australia, it already has. The colonies of the West, such as America, Australia, Argentina, were formed by an assimilation, a fusion, of Western immigrant identities. The first settlers in America were British, French, German, Scandinavian, Swiss; their respective national identities, over time, dissolved, and re-formed into a new, distinctly American one. Likewise, the Argentineans (a country made up Spanish, Italian, Irish, German immigrants) and Australia itself (Irish, Scots, English, Welsh). Indeed, the new type of American, Argentinean and Australian is also genetic, biological: there are peculiarly American facial features, for instance, which make Americans distinguishable from, for instance, British or Australians. The result is that the phenomenon of an expat ‘Norwegian nationalism’ in the US, or a ‘Welsh nationalism’ in Australia, is absurd, at least before the advent of multiculturalism, for the reason that Scandinavian-ness, or Welsh-ness, has long ago disappeared. Australia’s cultural roots, and genes, are in the Commonwealth Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Celtic nations. For that reason, an immigrant from Britain or New Zealand, or a white refugee from South Africa or the former Rhodesia, will find it easier to ‘fit into’ Australian life than an Italian or Bulgarian. Each country has its biases - Argentina towards Southern Europe, South Africa, Australia and Rhodesia towards North-Western Europe. This fact needs to be acknowledged.

(Which is not to say that a future Polish or Hungarian immigrant to Australia could never become ‘Anglo-Saxonised’ and then further uniquely ‘Australianised’: the American example, from around the turn of the twentieth century, shows that this process can occur. But the process is impeded by the ideology of multiculturalism, which, as explained above, actively encourages the European immigrant not to assimilate to the culture of the host population, and belittles the host culture itself).

Given that, it would be understandable if the ideology of Nationalist Alternative were to be only located in the rich veins of Australian nationalist tradition of Henry Lawson, Alfred Deakin, William Lane, Jack Lang, and the rest. But Nationalist Alternative wants to up to date, even cutting edge, with today’s (Western) political thought: for that reason, much of the Nationalist Alternative ideology is based on the ideas of certain contemporary European thinkers though not solely, as shall be explained below. So called ‘Bush’ nationalism has its roots in the Australian nationalism of around the turn of the 20th century. The advantage of the ideas of the Nouvelle Droit and thinkers related to the Nouvelle Droit (such as Guillaume Faye), is that - unlike Henry Lawson - they are more contemporary, and tackle contemporary problems. No one is doubting that the analysis of Australia’s problems (e.g., the threat posed by Asian immigration to the Australian way of life) by the likes of Lawson, was, in its essence, correct. ?
In fact much of the writings and social analysis of Australia’s early nationalist thinkers is timeless - such as of capital using immigration and indentured labour against the Australian working and middle classes.

In fact as far as symptoms like say immigration are concerned, the position advocated by early Australian nationalists of demographic extinction of the Australian ethnicity due to one particular immigrant group over all others - Asian migration - continues statistically to be accurate. However, it is argued by some that we should only shout and scream about Islamic migration, because Asian migrants supposedly ‘integrate better’, keep their heads down, work hard and are ‘nicer’ in their social interactions with others. However, in terms of the long-term survival of the nation, the immigrant groups who are not overtly different and anti-social (i.e., become involved in crime and other socially destructive activities), constitute the greater danger. Observations of ‘niceness and hardworking’ whether true or not are mostly irrelevant, because as nationalists, we oppose not the mere fact of the existence of other non European people groups, but the causes like capitalism, which in its universalism and greed seek to destroy, in pursuit of profit, the preservation and dignity of the bio-diversity of humankind. Universalism will ultimately result in no distinct people groups and cultures - ?whether Asian, African or European. That is, a future scenario where a people, the Australian people, is outnumbered, holds no societal positions of decision making or authority and is reduced to a bossed-about minority. This does not uphold the principles of autonomy and global plurality whatsoever.
As far as symptoms go, injustice is injustice, whether that iniquity comes in the form of an aggressive ‘in your face’, difficult-to-assimilate migrant group, or a more socially amenable group that appears to integrate. Both result in the same end.
Nationalist Alternative uses modern nationalist and racialist European theory to look at the same problems from a different angle then that of just the early Australian nationalists, though as mentioned, we acknowledge their ongoing relevance.

4. Nationalist Alternative’s basis in the European New Right

The presuppositions behind the ideology of Nationalist Alternative are based on the thinking of the European New Right - a group of (mainly Continental) European intellectuals whose ideas are very much compatible with the contemporary nationalist struggle in the West.
A few paragraphs from Tomislav Sunic’s ‘Against Democracy and Equality: the European New Right’ (2004, 2nd edition, Noontide Press), will summarise some of the key New Right concepts:
The [European] New Right argues that, with minor exceptions, both modern liberalism and Marxism wish to impose on all nations the idea of equality, human rights, democracy, and economic progress. To counter this globalistic and universalistic trend, spearheaded by the Soviet Union [the first edition of this book was published in 1990] and America, the New right urges all nations, and particularly European nations, to disengage themselves, culturally and politically, from both superpowers, from both liberalism and Marxism, and join in the common fight for the “cause of the peoples”. In other words, instead of vague belief in universal human rights, the New right stresses the primacy of national rights; instead of abstract and elusive dreams of egalitarian democracy, and the myth of eternal economic progress, the New Right espouses the return to the “roots”, and the foundation of organic societies. [Sunic, p. 112].
Going further in this vein, Sunic writes:
For the New Right and its “ideologue” Louis Rougier, the organic community is the only valid reference for someone’s rights, whereby a person’s rights can be enhanced, measured or curtailed only by the degree of a community’s generosity or the lack thereof. To the advocates of universal human rights, the authors of the New Right oppose a view that each person is first defined by his birth, heritage, a country of origin, and the value system inherited from his community. De Benoist wittily remarks: “I see a horse, but I do not see horsehood”… Similar view were once jokingly expressed by the conservative Joseph de Maistre in his sharp critique of liberal democracy in France. he wrote that during his travels had seen “Poles, Russians, Italians, but as to man, I declare have never seen him”. [Sunic, Op. Cit., p. 142]

So a person - at least, politically - is defined by the community he lives in:
De Benoist argues that man can only define his liberty and his individual rights as long as he is not divorced from his culture, environment, and temporal heritage. “[Man] does not live on Sirius, he does not live on a lone island, or in the kingdom of the blessed, but here and today, and in a very specific society”. [Sunic, Op. Cit., p145]

So why does the New Right oppose immigration and multiculturalism? The answer, paradoxically, is that it causes racism:
Krebs [Pierre Krebs, a prominent New Right author] writes that contemporary racism and violent nationalism usually occur in multi-cultural and multi-racial societies, notably when a dominant and larger ethnic group feels that an alien minority or smaller ethnic group threatens its national and historical identity. Accordingly, a large nation coexisting with a smaller ethnic group within the same body politic, will gradually come to fear that its own historical and national identity will be obliterated by a foreign and alien body unable or unwilling to share the same national, racial and historical consciousness. When negative forms or racism and racial exclusion occur, they can basically be traced to the individuals and peoples who feel more and more alienated from their former communal bonds. Krebs implicitly argues that in multi-racial and multi-cultural environments, abstract human rights will make very little sense. Indeed, such environments may become eventually harmful to all ethnic and racial groups coexisting with each other… Consequently, according to Pierre Krebs, and Hans Eysenck, the aberrant and inevitable aggressive behavior that usually accompanies racism is in part a response of a stronger group to the prospects of impending uprootedness. [Sunic, Op. Cit., p. 136]

5. The Human Rights Cult

The New Right strives, intellectually, against two kinds of totalitarianism: human rights, or humanitarian, totalitarianism; and monotheistic totalitarianism.The cult of human rights is pro immigrant: much of the non-white immigration into the West is the consequence of humanitarianism. The first wave of Vietnamese boat people - all 48,000 of them - arrived on Australian shores in the late 1970s, and were taken in and made citizens, all in the name of “humanity” (the Asian nations of Indonesia, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, being less “humane” than we, rejected them). Now the Africans - and the Iraquis and Afghanis - are the new victim class; humanitarian liberals insist that these people be allowed to emigrate here in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions. Today, socialist priests, immigration lawyers and social workers agitate for more and more immigration from the Third World, in particular, from Africa, in the name of humanity.No-one is allowed to dispute with multiculturalist humanism. Many nationalists have been fined, and even sent to jail, on the grounds that something they have written or said has offended the ‘dignity’ and ‘human rights’ of minority groups and has ‘hurt their feelings’. The most recent example, reported in the mainstream media, is Brigitte Bardot, who has been fined (yet again) for denouncing the ritual slaughter of animals by Muslim immigrants living in France. These are the self-appointed anti-racist watchdogs, with (largely undefined) powers to fine, and even imprison, Westerners who ‘offend the feelings’ of immigrants. One of the most notorious is the Canadian Human Rights Commission.The human rights ideology, and the accompanying totalitarian repression of anyone who disagrees with it, has its origins in the French Revolution. In the ideology of the Jacobins, the community or tribe with unique ethnic and racial characteristics has been replaced by ‘Man’, or, the ‘Citizen’. The end result is a progressive political system, which recognises the equality, the sameness, the rights of all human beings (which are human rights, not the rights of a particular group, i.e., the Corsicans, the Bretons), eradicates all racial, ethnic and even linguistic differences. As de Benoist writes, in his essay ‘On Identity’:

The current denunciation of demands for identity, in the name of the “Republic” or of globalization is a repetition of the Jacobin assimilation discourse, which saw the will to maintain traditional identities as equivalent to a refusal of “progress.” The arguments against “communitarianism” used nowadays are exactly the same that were used earlier to oppressminorities or to eradicate regional cultures and languages. The paradox of this fight against particularities lies in the fact that, historically, it has always been waged in the name of a connection that is just as specific, but was presented as universal, and relied on its alleged universality to legitimate its designs for assimilation or domination. It is obvious in the Republic’s fight against regionalisms. As Savidan notes, “Brittany’s identity has not been negated in the name of the Ile de France, but in the name of reason, progress, freedom, equality and the universality of the Law.”
Further, in the same essay, he writes:
Refusal to recognize identities has been especially prominent and constant in the “republican” tradition of French Jacobinism… It redefined the nation as a post-communitarian space, i.e., as a political space based on the normative principle of cultural and ethnic homogeneity. The idea of “citizenship” lost its specific substratum (one is always a member of a given society), and was given a “universal” dimension. From this perspective, every polity implies a clean sweep; each attempt to reaffirm a particularity becomes a secession attempt. To be “republican” would mean to refuse differences, at least their political visibility, i.e., their recognition in the public sphere… I.e., the “Republic” can only be based on the omission or the negation of communities.
Sunic expands on this process of ‘de-ethnicisation’ as defined by de Benoist:

De Benoist argues that the proclamation of the same rights for all peoples leads in the long run to deprivation of each people of its own specificity. “People exist”, writes De Benoist, “but a man by himself, the abstract man, the universal man, that type of man does not exist. For De Benoist, man acquires his full rights only within his own community and by adhering to his national and cultural memory. He writes: “The category of ‘people’ cannot be confounded with language, race, class, territory or nation alone. A people is not a transitory sum of individuals. It is not a chance aggregate. It is a reunion of inheritors of a specific fraction of human history, who, on the basis of the sense of common adherence, develop the will to pursue their own history and give themselves a common destiny”. [Sunic, op. cit., pp. 140-141.]

Sunic adds:
For the authors of the New Right, culture and history are the “identity card” of each people. Once the period of assimilation or integration begins to occur, a people will be threatened by extinction - extinction that according to De Benoist does not necessarily have to be carried out by physical force or by absorption into a stronger and larger national unit, but very often, as is the case today, by the voluntary or involuntary adoption of the Western Eurocentric or “Americano-centric” liberal model. [Sunic, ibid].

It should be added that the “Americano-centric” liberal model is of French origin: privileging ‘Man’, the ‘Citizen’, ‘Humanity’, the ‘Rights of Man’, before the race, tribe, ethnic group, even the nation itself. Indeed, they are the one and same:

The implicit message of the Declaration of human rights involved the assumption that universal human rights precede the narrow communal or national rights and that the American-adopted legal principles could be valid for all peoples on earth, regardless of their national origin. Berard notes that the American and French Declaration, by intending to be universal, in fact became the most pernicious expression of Western… ethnocentrism. The Declaration posits that what is viewed as self-evident by Western peoples, must also be self-evident for non-Western peoples. The end result is the loss of one’s cultural and national memory. Berard writes: “Historically, human rights are the ideological expression of Jacobinism. They become today the expression of Western ethnocentrism (”occidentalo-centrisme”) - the underlying discourse of the new international order. [Sunic, op. cit., pp. 139-140].

6. Monotheism
Another source of the modern-day equality cult, the New Right thinkers argue, is monotheistic universalism: that is, religions like Judaism and Christianity. Sunic writes:
Although egalitarian experiments were known to have taken place very early in history and about which there is scant information, it was with Judaism and, later on, Christianity that we can trace with more consistency the genesis and the gradual consolidation of the modern egalitarian belief…. A number of authors of liberal, socialist, and conservative persuasion maintain that the modern ideal of equality significantly owes its rise to early Jewish prophets. Thus the French author Gerard Walter, in his book ‘Les origines du communisme’, maintains that the roots of the modern egalitarian ideal and the belief in brotherhood and democracy, can best be traced to Judea and early Jewish scriptures. In a similar vein, the American scholar Emanuel Rackman, in his piece “Judaism and Equality”, writes that Judaism derives human likeness from the fact that God created only one man from whom all humanity is descended. [Sunic, op. cit., p. 119]

The New Right subscribes to Carl Schmitt’s famous dictum, ‘Political concepts are secularised theological concepts’, that is, political ideas have their roots in religion. Sunic writes:
For Carl Schmitt, who was already discussed in previous chapters, the “political theology” of liberalism and socialism continues to borrow from Jewish and Christian eschatology, albeit by bestowing its discourse with a more secular flavour. This view is shared by the New Right which also concurs that the ideal of equality, human rights, constitutionalism, and universalism, represent the secular transposition of non-European, Oriental, and Judeo-Christian eschatology. [Sunic, op. cit., p. 123].

So, in the New Right view, the modern day fanatics of equality, democracy and liberty are secularised Christians or Jews (it is no coincidence that commentators have observed the influence of messianic, Christian thinking in the discourse of George W. Bush, who, as we know, believed in democracy and freedom (or ‘moxy an freem’, as he pronounced it) as if it were religion, and sought, like an evangelical, to spread it around the entire world):
The New Right asserts that the belief in equality rests more on the principles of social desirability inherited in secular forms from the Judeo-Christian scholastic, than on the facts established by scientific analyses. According to Pierre Krebs, the contemporary theories of the egalitarian mythos deliberately associate a pseudo science (historical materialism [e.g., the Marxist theory of history] with a messianic catechism (the universalist dogma), which are in turn implemented on each level of society…. In the process of this “levelling”, argues Krebs, the role of heredity, the role of national consciousness, the importance of popular and ancient mythology and religion is significantly neglected. [Sunic, op. cit., p. 133].

7. The New Right and Islam

Islamic immigration is a problem in Europe, and it is fast becoming a problem here in Australia and for that reason, nationalists should pay attention to it. However, it should be stated that, unfortunately, if a nationalist starts speaking in a hostile fashion about the spread of Islam, certain other nationalists will react in a knee-jerk like manner and accuse him of “neoconservatism”. If that said nationalist is only concerned with Islam and blind to problems such as (non-Islamic) immigration, societal decay, consumerism, etc., then quite possibly that nationalist is just solely practising ‘Islamophobia’. Given that Islam is a religion that one can choose, just like Christianity, it may not even be a real nationalist at all. In the Middle Eastern world historically, nationality is not defined by ethnicity or race, but by belong to a particular religion - i.e., Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Zoroastrianism - or a particular sect within that religious groups.

We would also add that we do not see Islam as ‘the’ major threat to Western civilisation but one of many and also do not recognise as a counter to it, the ‘war on terror’ pushed by the neo cons. We should also add that we do not see Islam as the only threat, the major threat, to Western civilisation, but one of many; and that we do not recognise, as the counter to Islam, the ‘War on Terror’ pushed by the neoconservatives. The neoconservative response to Islam is to impose the capitalism and secular humanism of the liberal democratic state model on Arab states like Iraq.

Given that both Islam and neoconservatism are universalist, we are opposed to both; but we would rate the neoconservative model, which currently has nearly all European ethnicities entrapped within its confines, as the higher threat. It is exactly the oppressive chains of liberalism that has stifled a vibrant European and Australian identity, through the messages, implicit in the political discourse and the media, that European and Australian identity do not exist, or if they do, are not relevant.

To the extent attacks on Islam are allowed and seemingly encouraged by the present system, a nationalist should realise that it is only the defence mechanism of one absolutist system, liberal democracy against another, Islam. Having said that, nationalists should make use of any ‘free kicks’ given to them, so to speak, and use them for nationalist ends, and not those of those representing the status quo. Therefore, opposition to Islam (which is, in theory, a religion any ethnic group can adopt) can also be used to resist Arab migration. The Australian public generally consider both to be one and these same, and so some ethnic awareness, and an acknowledgement of the need to defend Australian culture, arises. Nationalists need not let the right-wing conservatives frame and own the debate; by not participating at all in the attack, sanctioned by the liberal media, on the ’soft target’ of Islamism, nationalists allow conservatives to appropriate the cause, to diffuse public sentiment against immigration and divert it, confining to the safe grounds of ‘civic nationalism’.
Given the above qualifier on Islam, it must be explained, then, why a) opposition to Islam stems naturally from acceptance of New Right doctrines; and why b) there should be opposition to neoconservatism as well.

Firstly, though: why? Why should it be a subject for a New Right attack? Because it is a universalistic, monotheism and thereby totalitarian creed making it more than just another ethnic group, but one? Islam for most of its variants is a Sunic writes:
De Benoist attempts to uncover the roots of totalitarianism… in the Bible and the Judaic religious legacy. As we already observed in our previous chapters, for De Benoist the precondition for a non-totalitarian world is the return to religious polytheism and the abandonment of Judeo-Christian eschatology. For him, biblical monotheism is by definition a religion of totality, which excludes all opposing “truths” and all different value judgements. It follows, according to De Benoist, that all countries that are attached to the biblical message show a latent proto-totalitarian bent. He writes:‘ Each egalitarian and Universalist ideology is necessarily totalitarian, because it aims at reducing all social and spiritual reality to a single model. Thus, monotheism implies the idea that there is only one truth, one God, one type of man that could please God. The Bible places on the scene one “God only” (Deut. 6.4) who is also a “jealous God” (Deut. 6.15). Jesus says: “Those who are not with me are against me”. Henceforth, to be against God, means to be for the Evil. And against the Evil everything is permitted; genocide, torture, Inquisition. It is only with Judeo-Christianity that totalitarianism appears in history, at the moment when Yahveh, makes the massacre of infidels his primary task (Deut. 13.9); when he declares to his people: “you are going to destroy all peoples which the Lord, your God, will deliver to you” (Deut. 7.16)’ . [Sunic, op. cit., p. 176].

Now, as many (ex-Muslim) authors have chronicled, Islam takes universalism to extremes. In ‘Leaving Islam: apostates speak out’ (Prometheus Books, 2003), Ibn Warraq quotes the Islamic philosopher Ibn Khaldun, who wrote in his Muqaddimah: ‘In the Muslim community, the holy war is religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and the (obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force’. [Warraq, p. 425].Warraq’s book is an eye-opener, mainly because it is a collection of essays from ex-Muslims who have the ‘inside scoop’ on life, and the attitudes, in Islamic societies. One thing that emerges from the book is that there is no such thing as a ‘moderate’ Islam, any more than there is such thing as a ‘moderate’ communism.The defenders of Islam like to say that Islamic fundamentalism is not the ‘true’ Islam of the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran; in the same vein, the Liberal defenders of communism like to say that ‘Communism (in the Soviet Union and elsewhere) wasn’t Marxism’. It is true that Marxist-Leninism did differ on a few points of doctrine, but: surely the citizens of Red Russia, China, etc., who had Marx and Engels rammed down their throats 24 hours a day, would have noticed any glaring contradiction between the Soviet-style system of communism and that preached in the works of Marx? The answer, as we know from history, is that they did not. And the same is true for Islam. The practices in Muslim countries which so many Westerners, accustomed to a high degree of personal freedom, are in the vast majority of cases sanctioned by the Koran: they are not a ‘deviation’ or ‘distortion’ or ‘perversion’ of the Islamic doctrine. If it were otherwise, liberals in Islamic countries could cite verse and chapter of the Koran and the Hadith (commentaries on the Koran) against the ‘religious police’ who arrest young Iranian men for ‘Western’ spiky hair-dos or young Yemeni couples caught holding hands; or the Saudi courts which prosecute adultery with cruel vehemence while ignoring rape.

It would be all very well if the Muslims restricted such practices to their own countries: but the massive numbers of Islamic immigrants into the West - five million in France, one million in the Netherlands, and so on - are intent on doing the same thing. This is so well known to nationalists that there is no need to recount, at great length, how Islamists attempt to spread similar practices in the West when they emigrate here. It shall suffice to quote from Guillaume Faye, from a talk delivered in Moscow on May the 17th, 2005:

Islam is again on the offensive. With single-minded persistence, its totalitarian and aggressive religion/ideology seeks the conquest of Europe. We’ve already suffered three great assaults by Islam, which today stretches from Gibraltar to Indonesia. The first of these offensives was halted at Portiers in 732 by Charles Martel; the second in 1683, during the Ottoman siege of Vienna; the third [in the form of the present invasion and colonization] is now underway [and virtually unopposed]. Islam has a long memory and its objective is to establish on our continent what [the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolution, the ayatollah] Khomeini called the “universal Caliphate.” The invasion of Europe has begun and the figures [testifying to its extent] are alarming. The continent, including Russia, is now occupied by 55 million Muslims, a number that increases at a 6 percent annual rate. In France, there are at least 6 million. Like those in Belgium and Britain, these French Muslims are starting to demand a share of political power. The government, for its part, simply refuses to take seriously their objective of transforming France into an Islamic Republic by the year 2020, when the demographic weight of the Arab/Muslim population will have become determinant. Meanwhile, it is financing the construction of Mosques throughout the country in the hope of buying social peace; there are already more than 2,000 in France, nearly double the number in Morocco. Islam is at present the second largest religion in France, behind Catholicism, but the largest in the numbers of practitioners.[The republic's president] Jacques Chirac has even declared that “France is now an Islamic power.” Everywhere in the West there prevails the unfounded belief that there’s a difference between Islam and “Islamism,” and that a Western, secularized, that is, moderate, Islam is possible. There’s no such thing. Every Muslim is potentially a jihadist. For Islam is a theocracy that confuses the spiritual with the temporal, faith with law, and seeks to impose its Shari’a [Islamic law] on a Europe whose civilizational precepts are absolutely incompatible with it.

8. The New Right and neoconservatism

The doctrine of neoconservatism is well-known, and derided by all - even the Rolling Stones have written a song about it. It is an ideology cobbled together by a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals, journalists, publicists and shady types mainly from America: Kristol, Podhoretz, Krauthammer, Friedman, Pipes, Sharansky, Feith, Frum, Abrams, Wolfowitz, Perle, to name a few. Bush Jr. and John McCain are the most famous political proponents of neoconservatism.So what is it, in the New Right analysis, that makes neoconservatism so bad? The answer is, its messianic devotion to the cause of American-style democracy, liberalism, freedom, equality, the rule of law (its law), peace, which, in turn, sanctions the use of extreme force, ending up in extreme cruelty, against the countries which do not, in the neocon view, adhere to these noble precepts. Few people can deny, at this point in time, that the democratic crusades in Iraq and Afghanistan, have turned into a disaster for their respective peoples (the benefits from living under “democracy” aside); no-one can deny that the Iraqi and Afghani wars are being waged for what Bush, the neocons and their supporters see as the highest good. The two are not unrelated, as shall be argued below.

One of the biggest influences on New Right thinking is Carl Schmitt, who defined the political as the choosing of enemies:
Using Hobbes as a reference, Schmitt argues that the notion of the political consists in distinguishing between the foe and the friend (hostis vs. amicus). But whereas Hobbes transposes the state of nature to the realm of individuals and states, Schmitt enlarges the same concept by adding to it global significance. In Schmitt’s “state of nature” the subjects are individuals, countries, empires, nations, classes, and races. The process of depoliticization, undertaken by both Marxists and liberals in an effort to create a war-proof world, is a dangerous illusion that runs counter to human historical development. Human history it its entirety is primarily a history of perpetual struggle between foes and friends - the ocean of wars in the parentheses of peace. [Sunic, op. cit., p. 57].

Neoconservatives are portrayed, in the media, as warmongers who desire war for its own sake: but, in fact, they urge war for the sake of peace - and freedom, democracy, liberty, equality. (In other words, they are against politics, as Schmitt defines it). Such a war - a liberal war against the warmongers (like Saddam Hussein) - must take on, by necessity, a vicious character:
Should man - who is by definition a political being - refuse to use the political, he then also renounces his own humanity. And to those who use war in order to stop wars, Schmitt responds, “To curse war as a crime against humanity, and then to require from people that they wage war and that they will kill in war and let themselves be killed for the sake of war to end war, is a manifest deceit”. [Sunic, op. cit., p.59].

Suppose we were to live in a world in which politics had been abolished altogether: would that mean the end of war?

No, continues Schmitt; the decision would be reached to proclaim total war against those recalcitrant individuals or “warmongers” who refused to join this depoliticised polity. But this time, however, the war would be total and of titanic dimension, waged, naturally, in the name of eternal principles of justice and peace. The war against war will thus be conducted, as the definitely final war of humanity. Such a “necessary” war would be particularly intensive and inhuman because the enemy is no longer perceived as a person with a sense of justice, but rather as an “inhuman monster” who needs not only be repelled, but totally annihilated. “The adversary”, writes Schmitt, “is no longer called enemy, and consequently, he is placed aside humanity as an enemy of peace… as an outlaw. Another pacifist vocabulary takes shape, which ignores war, but [knows} only of executions, sanctions, punitive expeditions, pacification, safeguarding of contracts, the international police, measures to protect peace...". [Sunic, op. cit., pp. 58-59].

The same applies when one’s enemy is declared to be “evil”: which is what Bush Jr., Blair and the neocons do regularly: Slobodan Milosevic is evil, Yassir Arafat is evil, Sheik Yassin of Hamas is evil, Saddam Hussein is evil, Osama bin Laden is evil, and now Ahmedinejad is evil. By declaring one’s enemy to be evil, one is sanctioning the most vicious treatment against him - and the civilian population of the countries from which they came. One cannot show any mercy to an individual, or political group, or country which is judged to be supremely wicked.
This is the main consequence of the moralisation of politics - the introducing an element (morals) into a sphere of activity which should be kept free of such things. In justifying his keeping the two separate, De Benoist writes in his essay, ‘On Politics’:

Politics cannot be subjected to morality, and even less confused with it, because they are not from the same order. A political command has nothing to do with a moral duty, with a “commandment” (Gebot) in the Biblical sense; it is only an order (Befehl). Similarly, political action does not depend on “truth” and “falsity.” To make a political decision, whetherby voting or by a governmental act, is to create the necessary conditions for achieving a concrete objective, not to state a truth. Finally, Socrates to the contrary notwithstanding, morality and politics cannot be identified because what is morally just, from a personal and private viewpoint, is not necessarily synonymous with what is politically good from a collective and public viewpoint. Thus, a political choice concerning the common good cannot be decided according to principles of private morality; it is different from a personal moral choice. As Freund writes, “morality and politics do not have the same goal. The former responds to an internal requirement and concerns the righteousness of personal acts, each one assuming fully the responsibility of its own behavior. Politics, on the other hand, responds to a social necessity, and whoever takes this road expects to take charge of the global fate of the collectivity.” [De Benoist, 'On politics', p. 16].

So why is neoconservatism more important, and more dangerous, than neoliberalism? Why is Islam a greater threat than the monotheistic creeds, e.g., Christianity? The answer is: both are political, by Schmitt’s definition. No-one can deny that there are Christians in the West engage in odious activities: there are plenty of Christian groups in Australia who work to bring in shiploads of African refugees, in the thousands, in the name of Christian love and humanity, making no distinction between white and non-white (both are equal in the eyes of God). But the days of Christians seeking to take over the world, to spread their creed by force, are over: whereas Islam never stopped. And the difference between Islam and Christianity is that the former raises the distinction between believer and un-believer to a political intensity: that is to say, it makes war on unbelievers. The same goes for the neoconservatives. The neoliberals believe in markets, freedom, competition, free trade and the rest, and more than a few of the neoliberal think-tanks endorse open borders and mass immigration (finding themselves, oddly enough, at one with the socialists on that issue); but they do not believe in spreading their ideas by force (indeed, they are a pacifist bunch), unlike the neoconservatives. Neoconservatism believes in force, war, to bring about liberal democracy: in other words, it is political.

9. Where we differ from the New Right

We may have given the impression, by this point, that Nationalist Alternative agrees with everything the European New Right believes in; but that is not the case. For one thing, De Benoist is a communitarian, federalist and regionalist because he opposes France’s traditional oppression of ethnic minorities such as the Basques, Bretons, Corsicans, Germans in the Alsace-Lorraine province. Indeed, nationalism itself is a Jacobin plot designed to crush the rights of minorities:

The arguments against “communitarianism” used nowadays are exactly the same that were used earlier to oppress minorities or to eradicate regional cultures and languages. The paradox of this fight against particularities lies in the fact that, historically, it has always been waged in the name of a connection that is just as specific, but was presented as universal, and relied on its alleged universality to legitimate its designs for assimilation or domination. It is obvious in the Republic’s fight against regionalisms. As Savidan notes, “Brittany’s identity has not been negated in the name of the Ile de France, but in the name of reason, progress, freedom, equality and the universality of the Law.” The assimilation of republican values with “universal” values should not fool anyone. The attitude, which opposes the “Republic” to “community” identities, is only a linguistic trick… To proclaim that republican identity should prevail over all others is a way of saying that the connection to the nation supersedes any other connections. As Alain Touraine noted, “The goal is to eliminate differences and real social and cultural identities, and to place the relation to the nation above everything else.” Implicitly, it is a zero sum game where anything granted to specific identities would take away from the “Republic.” Common law is not perceived as what exceeds and includes duly recognizeddistinctive identities, but as what permits ignoring or eliminating them… All it takes to get out of this dilemma is to understand that the nation with its necessary common law can also recognize different identities, it can (re-)build them, instead of ignoring or destroying them. [De Benoist, 'On Identity', p. 35-36].

All this is true enough of France: but what of Australia? One cannot claim that the Australian national identity is (like the French) a construction of universalist egalitarians, bent on repressing inter-ethnic differences and identities. Our country is (prior to the mass immigration wave) ethnically homogenous: there are no Australian equivalents of the Basques, Bretons, Corsicans. Indeed, the Western colonial nations were all largely ethnically homogenous with the national identities of America, New Zealand, developing fairly recently, in countries which (before white settlement) could not be said to exist as such, i.e., as nations.

Secondly, De Benoist takes a soft stance on the number-one ethnic issue in France (and Europe) today: mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East. When questioned on it in a 2003 interview, De Benoist evades it and descends into waffling:

T&P: In your opinion, is communitarianism an effective response to the problem created by the introduction of millions of non-Europeans into Europe? Indeed, isn’t community important because it is a function of its specific place and time? For instance, there exist communities that are more rather than less dynamic, especially in terms of natality. Given the failure to integrate non-Europeans, the utopia of a Reconquista, and a communitarianism cloaking a demographic time-bomb, isn’t this enough to make one pessimistic? AdB: First, let me say that whenever men fail to find a solution to their problems, history finds one for them. Second, history is always open (which doesn’t mean that anything is possible). Finally, in posing a problem in a way that has no solution, it shouldn’t be surprising that one is condemned to pessimism. Today, in Europe there are 52.2 [sic] million Muslims (25 million in Russia and 13.5 in Western Europe), a majority of whom are of European stock [Note: This statement is not credible to me.]. The rest, as far as I know, are neither Black nor Asian. If Europeans are less demographically dynamic, it is not the fault of those who are. If they no longer know what their identity is, again this is not the fault of those who do. In face of peoples with strong identities, those lacking such an identity might reflect on why they have lost their own. To this end, they might look to the planetary spread of market values or the nature of Western nihilism. In an era of general de territorialisation, it might also be useful to think of identity in ways that no longer depend on locale. For my part, I attach more importance to what men do, than to what they presume themselves to be. . . [Terre et Peuple 18, (Winter Solstice 2003), at http://foster.20megsfree.com/468.htm].

Now, politically, such an attitude is disastrous: the indigenous French do not want to waffling and evasions on the immigration issue, and they certainly do not want soft soap. Unfortunately, de Benoist has garnered himself the reputation of being a pedlar of soft soap, which has led to Guillaume Faye’s split from the Nouvelle Droit and GRECE. Indeed, Faye takes a more martial approach to these questions, which is more in line with the thinking of Nationalist Alternative and most Western nationalists.

Secondly, there is the question of the source of egalitarianism: does it stem from Judaism and Christianity? There are two objections to this.

The first is that, according to scholars of Judaism and Jewish culture and history, such as Kevin MacDonald, Michael Hoffmann III, and Jewish writers like Israel Shahak and Israel Shamir, one of the chief characteristics of Judaism is the distinction that religion makes (especially in the Talmud) between Jews and non-Jews. That distinction is, to put it mildly, radically inegalitarian: and certainly the Jewish God, Yahweh, is not the god of all peoples (especially not the god of the Christians, Christianity being a religion which, according to these authors, Judaism vehemently opposes).

The second is that the most radically inegalitarian society that the West has ever experienced - Europe in the Middle Ages - was a Christian one. The Europe of that period was based on a caste system, where everyone’s place, everyone’s role - as a serf, monk, merchant, warrior, ruler - was defined for them by God. That is, the social, political and economic structure, which was non-democratic and hierarchical, was divinely ordained: an Evolian would say that it was ‘Traditionalist’. Compared to then, we live in very democratic, egalitarian and liberal times; so how it is it that liberalism, democracy and egalitarianism have made their furthest advances the more belief in Christianity has receded?

It could be argued, it is true, that today’s Christianity is radically egalitarian, especially in regard to immigration and race. One can find plenty of examples of Catholic and other Christian priests in the West who work ceaselessly to bring impoverished non-white immigrants from the Third World to the West to live here, permanently, to have those refugees enjoy a ‘better life’. Immigration is seen as a kind of wealth-redistribution: if one cannot redistribute the wealth of the Western countries to, say, the African nations, then one must bring the peoples of those nations to the West to enjoy that wealth. This is a way of making people equal. (Jean Raspail, in his classic novel The Camp of the Saints (1973), had one character remark that such priests had, in their ideology, replaced the Kingdom of Heaven with the Kingdom on Earth, here and now, to be achieved by redistributing the West’s wealth to the Third World - a deed which was to be accomplished chiefly by encouraging the Third World to migrate to the West).

10.The pros and cons of populism

All Australian nationalists accept that Australia’s cultural identity, and even the existence itself of the Australian Anglo-Celt/Anglo-Saxon/European biological stock, is endangered by immigration: to judge by the immigration policies of the Australian governments of the past few decades, the intentions of our liberal democratic masters seems to be to turn Australia into a Malaysian-style republic - one third Malay, one third Chinese, one third Indian. Sydney has been hit by a massive wave of Chinese immigration; Melbourne, Indian. (If the multiculturalists have their way, Sydney will be renamed New Shanghai, Melbourne New Mumbai, and Australia itself will be renamed the Republic of Chindia). The question is: what do we who care for this country to do about it? Do we go ahead and form a populist political party? Do we, being an English-speaking, mostly Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Celtic nation, biologically and culturally, follow the BNP model?

Ultimately, daydreams by some of a direct revolution aside, it is arguable whether one can succeed in nationalist politics without the vehicle of a political party, if only in conjunction with other, extra-parliamentary forms of political activity: namely, the struggle to get one’s message across in the political domain, ?in the street (through demonstrations and community building grassroots activities), as well as in the intellectual domain. A political party is very effective in organising large numbers of nationalists for political activity, of raising large sums of money for activism, advertising and the rest. And, for our repatriation policies to succeed, we need the powers that reside in the self-governance of one’s territory: the South African strategy - where leaderless mobs rampage through immigrant areas, trying to persuade them to leave the country through force and terror - is not open to us. Eventually, then, as long as the liberal democratic system presides, it would be good for Nationalist Alternative or any nationalist group to start contesting winnable council seats in conjunction with extra-parliamentary tactics (e.g., building a strong local community presence).

The electoral path is always difficult for nationalists: even One Nation, at the height of its popularity, had trouble getting the requisite 500 signatures (from party members) to register itself as a party competing in federal elections. So we have a long way to go, as do the other Australian nationalist groups (which have, so far, only constituted themselves as unregistered political parties). The question is one of tactics: should we follow the Nick Griffin approach?
Nick Griffin, and the BNP, are controversial topics in nationalist circles. One only has to look at Griffin’s champion of Churchill, his mimicking of Churchill’s ‘V for victory’ sign. Churchill, in traditional British nationalism, is seen as a villain, not a hero. Churchill bankrupted and ruined Britain financially during the Second World War, made Britain into a vassal of America and thus removed Britain’s status as a world power; his actions were instrumental in the decline, and break up, of the British Empire - the most far-flung Empire the world has ever seen. On top of that, Churchill appeased Stalin, helped, along with the Americans, Stalin win his war (through generous Lend-Lease aid) and handed over half of Europe to communism (including Poland, on whose behalf the war was supposedly fought). In short: Churchill, as a politician, was a failure: a statesman aims at increasing power for his State, not throwing it away, or rather, giving it away, as Churchill did. All this thinking is very “Nazi” in Griffin’s view, no doubt, but nevertheless, it is the cold, hard truth.

On top of that, foreign policy aside, can one name one accomplishment of Churchill’s while he was in office? (And remember, he was prime minister, not once, but twice). Churchill’s enemy Hitler had his autobahns, his Strength through Joy leisure cruises, youth labour brigades, Munich Olympics, Nuremberg rallies… Churchill, on the other hand, did hardly anything. He was a negative - a man defined by his opposition to something, not by his deeds.

But Griffin’s championing of Churchill is a clever tactic, in Britain at least. After all, the British liberal democratic establishment venerates Churchill - Churchill, the ultimate British Antifascist, the man who was prepared to destroy an empire (his own) to prove a point, the man who united the British cause with that of the progressive, humanist Soviet Union. By flashing the ‘V for victory’ sign, and waving the Union Jack (and the St George’s Cross) wherever he goes, Griffin seizes the enemy’s own weapon and turns it against them. Like the seafarers of old, who painted eyes on the bows of their ships (to ward off evil spirits), Griffin’s watered-down, respectable, establishment form of nationalism (so redolent of the flag-waving ‘Britpop’ music movement in the 1990s) repels the enemy - who always seek to pin the label ‘fascist’, ‘Nazi’, ‘anti-Semite’ on the British nationalist. Likewise, Griffin’s incorrigible philo-Semitism and Zionism (a tactic Nationalist Alternative rejects) can also be viewed (and is, in establishment quarters) as a cynical stunt. The same goes for the philo-Semitism of the other Euro-populist parties - the Front National, the Danish People’s Party, the Dutch Party for Freedom.

Suppose that Griffin placed a large ‘Free Ernst Zundel’ icon on the BNP website: how would that help the cause of British nationalism, and the British themselves? The answer is, it would not. Zundel is a supremely important figure in German nationalism, but not in British. The truth is that Britain’s geopolitical decline and drifting into the American sphere of influence (which began in the 1930s, but was sealed by Churchill) did not affect British life in an immediately obvious way: not its culture, traditions, sense of decency, the warmth, friendliness and good humour of its people. It was the reverse immigration from Britain’s non-white colonies, acquired as the result of its own past imperialism (and not the United States’ newer imperialism), and the decade of Blairism, which changed that, turning the British into the country of over-paid, binge-drinking, depressed, complaining yobs that they are today. And Blairism, and multi-cultism, is a recent phenomenon which have little, to do with the events of the war. So why go on about Zundel, or Churchill’s perfidy? While the BNP does still have some measure of co-operation with German nationalists, it recognises that the problems of the British must be solved by the British themselves; and that British nationalists cannot expend time and effort on solving Germany’s problems for it. (Indeed, German nationalist groups like the NPD never worry about the British, or French, or the Danes or any of Germany’s ‘European brothers’).

At the same time Australian nationalists must reject any appeals to or pacts with Zionism, which, as a cursory examination of the Jewish community ethnic media reveals, opposes, through various channels and representative organisations, white ethnocentrism and European ethnic nationalism in western nations. Indeed in many cases, such organisations are strong proponents of multiculturalism, and helped craft the racial and vilification laws in Australia that limit freedom of speech and the battle of Australian nationalists in promoting the Australian identity. As for being ‘philo-Semitic’, we simply advocate being ‘philo’ Australian only, and reject culture pandering to non Australian, non European movements.

Griffin justifies the BNP’s ideology on the grounds that its new-found ’sensibility’ and ‘respectability’ has been the cause of their electoral success. Now, we unsure that they have been that successful, electorally: the council seats they have won make up less than 1% of the total. But we believe that the BNP’s policies can be justified on grounds of economy: their activists save more time, more effort, by tackling purely British problems which are part and parcel of recent British political history. Ernst Zundel, the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, and all the other subjects which Western nationalists devote so much time and energy to, are not as relevant to the British cause as the large amount of time given to them.On top of that, the nationalists who have competed in elections (and managed to win seats) have had some measure of success in stemming the immigration tide through legislation. One only has to look at Italy’s Northern League and the Danish People’s Party, which have managed to get anti-immigration laws passed. If centre-right liberal democratic parties have been forced to pass these laws (in order to satisfy their far right coalition partners), so much the better for the people of Italy and Denmark respectively.

What is being argued for here is not “pragmatism”, “revisionism”, “opportunism” (which the likes of Griffin so often get accused of), but economy. This boils down to the principle, each nation for itself. Here, the Anglo-Saxons, Anglo-Celts and fellow Europeans who have become Australian are on their own and need not look for, or at least depend on, Britain, Germany, Russia for wholesale import of tactics or help. Self sufficiency and tactics that will work in local conditions is what is needed.

However: it is not the case that populism is the right way for nationalists to proceed forward. Populism, after all, means doing what the ordinary person, the average person, the man in the street (who is not a politician, or a journalist, or an intellectual) wants: populism aims at breaking down the distinction between the political class (who are separate from the people) and the people - that is, bringing politics to the level of the people, or, more accurately, the little man. Which is why the rhetoric of the populist BNP resembles that of the tabloid Daily Mail, which shares the same concerns as the BNP on immigration, Islam, etc. Unfortunately, the BNP ideology is pitched at the same intellectual (and cultural) level of the Mail, going no further - and at times, it resembles that of a disgruntled, old unreformed Tory, always moaning about the EU, youth gangs, immigration, political correctness gone mad and the like…The correct relationship between the Australian people - who still possess some spark of nationalism and racialism, despite years of multi-culti brainwashing and conditioning - and a nationalist party resembles that between the working-class and a communist party. The Leninist ideology is that a communist party is made up of people who are not of the working-class, but who instruct the working-class, direct it, lead it, educate it; the goal is to foment class consciousness in the workers, and eventually lead them in a revolutionary uprising against capitalism. In the same way, a nationalist party needs to foment national consciousness in the Australian people, and lead them in a revolutionary uprising against the multi-cultist liberal democratic, capitalist system. That revolution may be drastic and immense or a sudden big electoral breakthrough - both unlikely in apathetic recreational Australia - or more likely a slow breakdown in people’s allegiance to the current system and realignment along new lines. An Australian rebirth if you like. The Australian people want race-based immigration policies, but don’t know how to about getting them: indeed, many of them are too terrified by political correctness to stand up to Islam, Chinese immigration, Indian immigration, and the destruction of Australian culture and the Australian way of life. They need a nationalist organisation that will remove that fear, show them the way and lead them forward.We nationalists should put trust in the people, and in Australia, the Australian people. The Cronulla riot, for incident, was a completely spontaneous expression of Australian nationalism and racialism - celebrating and defending the values of Australian culture against Lebanese immigration and Islam. The media tries to link the Cronulla riots to nationalists, but really, Cronulla happened without our help. The incident resembles the spontaneous Chinese peasant risings against wealthy landowners in rural China in the 1930s - which occurred any prompting or direction from the Chinese communist party, which, at the time, devoted its energies to fomenting a proletarian uprising in the cities (it took Mao Tse-Tung to see the revolutionary potential of the Chinese peasant movement).