Overpaid, and loving it.

By Michael Kennedy



The world is stagnating after the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.  The cowboy bandits of Wall Street, the architects of the GFC, perhaps the only accomplishment outside of growing their own portfolio, got off basically scott free.  Many are expecting Global Financial Crisis Mark II.  As every cloud comes with a proverbial silver lining, the silver lining around the clouds of the financial storm is the increased awareness of people that something is wrong, and something needs to be done.  Discussion about the flaws of our financial system are propelled by the sense of urgency and despair.  The "Occupy" movement is gaining traction and gaining support.  They may not understand the issues and have much of an idea of the cause of financial catastrophes, and some may be there purely to try and promote an even worse alternative, but they at least understand that morality has a place in economics.  That's a start, a good start.

The mood has certainly shifted.  Misplaced optimism about a never ending housing bubble is all but gone and something else is happening which is even more foreboding.  The media is now openly stating that the boom is finished, and that things may well be on their way down.

An article in The Age¹ by the economics writer for the Sydney Morning Herald titled "Top Bosses' riches are undeserved"1 doesn't just call into question whether our top CEO's are overpaid, but openly states they aren't.  A bold move, for a mainstream publication.

Her argument is that in Australia, we have many Oligopolies, and that making a profit in an Oligopoly isn't that hard.  Corner the market, and you have your customers hostage.

Our greatest period of economic growth and prosperity, a period when the standard of living was on the increase, rather than the current trend downwards, was during a period when high incomes were taxed quite thoroughly, and where CEO remuneration where closer to that of average worker than today.  Arguments that we NEED to pay our CEO's exorbitant ransoms fall flat as soon as one realises that our current economy is in a miserable state.  The large quantities of money that CEO's rake in and pull from our economy seems inversely proportional to the health of our economy.  Given the sick state of Western economies, we are clearly paying big amounts for nothing, yet CEO's, like snotty school children stamp their feet down and demand more and more, lest they leave.

They know where the door is.

The arguments that they, Free Market ideologues, 'too much Ayn Rand' Capitalists and their assorted lick spittles put forward as justifications are nonsensical at best.

One argument is risk.  CEO's deserve a Kings ransom because of risk.  Given that they shed jobs at an astounding rate, it can be hardly argued that they get paid because they 'risk' losing our jobs.  If the share price of the stock of the company can increase through out sourcing, off to India those jobs go. Also, during a bull market, making a profit and increasing your share price is a given, no risk there. The only personal risk is their career, their job.  But when the WORST case scenario is that you leave with hundreds of thousands, or more likely, millions of dollars, it can hardly be considered a risk. Many Australians would jump at the chance to take a risk, where the losing position is making enough money to be set for life.  Risk, hardly.  A CEO can run a company into the ground, lose hundreds or thousands of jobs and even commit fraud, and come out better off.  Ralph Norris has little to worry about.  A $16 million per-annum pay packet, and a taxpayer guarantee to back up the banks in case they fail.  He has risk, but it is the government which ultimately is stopping the banks from failing, through regulating them, and underwriting them with tax payers money.

Another popular argument is the importance of their job.  Well, when neurosurgeons, ambulance drivers and pilots get paid millions, I'll take this argument seriously.

The fact is, our corporations, our businesses have been hijacked by a boys club, an inner circle of parasites who are merely using the economic instruments that others have built as a vehicle for bleeding our country dry.  We don't live in an ideal free market economy, or even a Capitalist one.  We live in a plutocracy, where corporate interests have bought our politicians, and our supposed "free market" has been usurped for the benefit of a few crony sociopaths who masquerade as entrepreneurs and have suckered many others into believing that they are anything other than socialist crooks.

To go against this excess greed is not advocating socialism, or a desire to be like North Korea.  In fact, if anything, our corporations are replicating that philosophy here.  It is highly unlikely that North Korea's leaders choose to be paid marginally more than their workers.  They no doubt do well for themselves, because they too, of course, deserve it, or so they would argue.  North Korea's boys club is just as busy convincing their populace that their austere lifestyle is necessary, while they horde the excess for ourselves.  Sound familiar?  Profits are privatised and losses are socialised.

Why are there huge remunerations, and why aren't ordinary Australians, who are supposedly now Howards "mum and dad" shareholders simply exercising their right to vote against this excess in companies they part own?  All working people are supposedly shareholders through their superannuation, and we are constantly reminded that we must have a strong share market and not interfere with super profits as it is in our interests.  But why don't we do anything about it?  When you look at who actually owns the shares of these companies, it is generally large financial companies.  You may own parts of Australian businesses through your super, but it is your super fund which votes.   Quite simply, because shares are owned by similar large companies, they are the ones who exercise power, and they would benefit from voting for larger and larger remunerations, as it sets the industry standard which will apply to them.  If you are a high level executive of CEO of a company which owns shares in other companies, then voting for a pay increase in the companies you own, means an increase for you as well.

There are people who are worthy of being wealthy.  People who are truly entrepreneurs, who actually create a business and enhance the nation.  Australians are not succumbing to "tall poppy syndrome", but are rightfully outraged at what is essentially hoarding through unproductive means wealth.  They are outraged that our nation, our livelihoods and futures are being stripped so someone who knows where their next thousand hot meals are coming from, and has already a lifestyle better than pretty much any human who ever lived, can get even more.

True entrepreneurs are people like Dick Smith, who has added to our business sphere, who has supported the nation which game him such opportunity.  Even now Dick Smith is still supporting the nation, arguing against our unsustainable population growth and supporting Australian made products by offering Australian made and owned varieties of popular foreign owned goods. Dick Smith is an example of the type of wealthy person we could use more of, people who's personal wealth represents the wealth that that person adds to our nation.

1http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/top-bosses-riches-are-undeserved-20111101-1mttj.html?comments=302#comments

Beware the Fake Opposition - Cowardly Conservatives

By Michael Kennedy

So where do people get political opinions from? Who are the people who champion particular political schools of thought? What should be obvious is that people make a living and many in the mainstream media, and even alternative media get paid for creating political dialogue. What is also basic knowledge, is that people will only pay for something they want to pay for.

The obvious conclusion to this is that the vast majority of political discussion generated by the media, is created because someone PAID to say it. It is a fact that is too obvious for many people to notice.

The Internet is an exception, which is why both the Government and Big Media are attacking the free flow of ideas and speech.

So when a major “Conservative” columnist, who repeatedly complains about left wing bias in the media, doesn't ask questions as to why he is still paid, then he either doesn't care, doesn't see the problem, or is a sell out. To be a Conservative in mainstream media, one must first accept that one will play by the rules that the mainstream media demands, which usually, almost always, means accepting Political Correctness, if not in heart, then at least in word. To be a Conservative in the mainstream media, one must be what the left consider “Respectable” or “Reasonable”, which means, almost always admitting that Progressivism is the ideological destiny of the west and that this destiny is beyond negotiation.

“Respectable” Conservatives are the Washington Generals to Liberalism's Harlem Globetrotters. The Washington Generals were a 'stooge' Basketball team, created to help showcase the Harlem Globetrotter's basketball skills and to play the role of an opposition team so there was some semblance of a basketball game occurring. They were never meant to any serious competition, just a bumbling, seemingly incompetent (yet still knowing the game) band of players whom the Harlem Globetrotters would regularly defeat.

How do you set up such a rigged game? Easy. Pay for it. Pay for both sides. As our state religion Political Correctness has virtually a monopoly over the media, it can ensure that only people who adhere to it maintain paid jobs as commentators. Just in the same way that the Harlem Globetrotter's games were staged, as there was a particular outcome which was demanded, political debate between “Respectable” Conservatives and Liberals usually occurs in political arenas where Liberalism writes the rules, and dictates the standards.

But it is important to realise that it is not the exact same people who might campaign for hate speech laws, or push for multiculturalism who pay for conservative commentators, but these people generally share an acceptance of PC, of perhaps a varying degree. It is not a conspiracy where a shadowy cabal select all media spokespeople, but it is simply the end result of strong, one sided political pressure and activism which has resulted in a social and legal environment where this political school of thought shapes and sets the tone of debate. As “Conservatives” have to abide by this, only respectable ones make it. Many who disagree with Climatologists regarding Global Warming are aware that peer pressure and selective bias can lead to only one side of the debate being accepted, with any real opposition simply being booted out and only faux opposition being published and respected by the scientific community. It is also interesting to note that there is a notion of being a “reasonable” conservative, but few, if any leftists ever worry about whether they are a “reasonable” liberal or “reasonable” progressive.

“Respectable” Conservatives therefore can't really and usually don't oppose Political Correctness. They barely have the courage to properly call out Marxists as the lunatic relics, who may be motived by hate, from a bygone era that they are and never, ever give support for any real opposition to Political Correctness. They usually lead the charge against people who don't agree with their anti-white agenda masquerading as “anti-racism”. The conservative moment has lost ground, precisely because “Respectable” Conservatives, always, in the end, make the proper propitiations to their PC masters and Liberalism always, in the end, defines what non-PC speech is allowed.

A good example is the Melbourne based Herald Sun columnist, Andrew Bolt. The left hate him, but most importantly, they don't fear him or the commenter’s on his blog. Such is the state of “Conservatism” and “anti-leftism” in Australia, that a self styled leading conservative and champion against Political Correctness cannot bring up any other reaction than smug self righteousness from the left, and does not much more than give the left the opportunity to take part in patronising, insincere 'pity' for Bolts wingnuts. Some progressives may indeed 'fear' conservative rule, such as having Tony Abbot as Prime Minister, but it's hard to find any substance behind this fear. This one one of the few areas which I actually agree with the left here, many of his commenter’s are indeed gutless and pathetic, but for a different reason. However, I disagree that they are ALL misguided, as among his commenter’s and fans are diamonds among the rough and many of these people are aware that they are diamonds amongst the rough.

Unfortunately, some are more astute and have realised that Andrew Bolt's opposition to Liberalism is half baked and perhaps hasn't even been placed in the oven at all. Some of these followers wonder whether he is actually not just another liberal himself, another PC stooge. This author has no doubt though, that Andrew Bolt, like many other mainstream Conservatives genuinely believe, at least to some degree, what they write, and they try to keep within the law. Unfortunately I believe Andrew Bolt underestimates just how little freedom of speech we have in Australia and because he has taken the “Respectable” position, he doesn't realise that in the pursuit of Tolerance, he will be less and less tolerated until he is no longer tolerated at all.

For these people, there are unfortunately no other mainstream spokespeople they can follow or read. For many Australians, they know what we at Nationalist Alternative know, that the 'melting pot' future is not some inevitable result of progress or the result of Western predestination, but merely the deliberate attempt at a minority of liberal ideologues to re-engineer Western societies, a re-engineering in which there is no race. As they plan this for all and only white nations, it obviously means just the white race must go. Some might rightfully call this genocide. They are also finding that that the conservative movement has failed to prevent the encroachment of anti-vilification laws and as such, risks losing the very right to voice its position at all.

Andrew Bolt is a good lesson, a good example to demonstrate why mainstream “respectable” conservatism just doesn't cut it, any why Liberalism always wins in the end. Most, if not all social changes in the past 50 years have been towards Liberalism, with perhaps questionable “regressions” in the economic arena.

When Bolt isn't acting as a representative of the Liberal party, or whining about environmentalism, which accounts for 90% of his writings, he rants against Political Correctness and Liberalism, and the Liberals obsession with race based politics.

A column titled “At least our Macedonians are free” ¹, was a rather trite diatribe against Macedonian “hate speech” against Greeks. His column was a rant against Ms Noreen Megay of VCAT not finding any reason to pursue this “hate speech” further”. He starts by saying “IS it a rule that you have to be Anglo-Saxon to be a racist? “. A fair enough point, if you ignore the fact that ANY white person who objects to ANY white nations becoming a melting pot is labelled a racist, not just Anglo-Saxons. “Respectable” Conservatives are never allowed to bring this up.

What is ignored, is the fact that we have one European group who identify themselves as Macedonians, launching a tirade against another European group, Greeks, and Political Correctness doesn't care about racism AGAINST whites, hence why Noreen Megay of VCAT didn't find any wrong doing. Its not because it was committed by Macedonians, but its was against Greeks, who are Europeans are fair game, just as any other Europeans are far game. Just ask the Germans and Austrians.

But Andrew Bolt never makes this point, or CAN'T make it, because anti-white racism is the unstated holiest of holies in the religion of Political Correctness, and no “Respectable” Conservative can ever point this out or draw attention to it. I would also be willing to bet London to a brick, that if any white person ever wrote anything about a non-white ethnic group in a manner that these 'Macedonians' wrote against the Greeks, he would be leading the light brigade against “racism”. There would be no excuse, no recourse. The wrath of VCAT will rain upon them, reminding everyone else against the dangers of 'racism'.

Bolt then complains about Noreens argument that the audience wouldn't find the Macedonian text offensive by saying “I wonder how this argument would apply to Nazis or Ku Klux Klansmen”.

Later in the article it is unclear as to what Andrew Bolt was complaining about, whether that 'Macedonians' weren't punished by leftist “hate crime” laws, or that Anglo-Saxon's can't get away with violating them. He ends the article with “Do you have to be Macedonian to be free to speak? Are only Anglo-Saxons racist?”. Very non-committal, we would expect nothing else from a “Respectable” conservative.

So given that he is PAID by a media which is supposedly left wing, and that the left support anti-white racism and totalitarian style “hate speech” censorship, it's not surprising that he rarely calls out the “hate speech” laws as unjust restrictions on freedom of speech and thought, and never mentions the double standard of “racism against whites=OK”/”whites not tolerating multiracialism=pure evil”. He does stand up and take note, when they personally affect him, or when he feels they interfere with his version of Liberalism. You can't rail for freedom of speech for all, and remain 'respected' by liberal intellectuals. So Andrew Bolt doesn't. The very hate speech laws which are designed to keep a liberal monopoly on speech regarding immigration and multiculturalism get off scott free here, despite the fact he has a direct vested interest in removing them.

This is the anatomy of pretty much ALL conservative attacks against the left. Starts with a whine about liberalism not being applied correctly. In this case, Noreens decision NOT to follow up on supposed “hate crimes”.

Then afterwards, as always, a sly nod to the anti-racists (who are really just anti-white), that he is still with them. Bolt's comment “I wonder how this argument would apply to Nazis or Ku Klux Klansmen” does just this. It lets the leftist intellectuals know that he too, is as obsessed with “Nazis” and “KKK” as they are.

Why “Nazis”, why “KKK”? Because this is the language that the left use against any Westerners, such as Nationalist Alternative, who might dare point out that mass immigration into Western countries might be destructive to Western culture and incompatible with the continued existence of European ethnicities in these nations. This is the language of 'anti-racism', so if you talk the talk, you hope people think you walk the walk. But despite the fact that the German Nationalist Socialist regime were bombed into dust over half a century ago, and that the KKK is defunct, and that neither exist in Australia aside from a few comical, hard to take seriously 'activists', it's still the language du jour of the left, and it's how Bolt can hint that he is still on the liberal train.

The article ends with the statement “Good on Megay. But the question remains: Do you have to be Macedonian to be free to speak? Are only Anglo-Saxons racist? “. Good on you Andrew Bolt, you tireless crusader against Political Correctness! Thank you for making your position against totalitarian hate speech laws, invented solely for the purpose of suppression of discussion about the dire failures of liberalism so clear. You care enough about it to mention it, and leave people guessing as to whether you actually are with liberals here or not.

But it's not just Bolt who displays this half hearted “I'm a conserative, but don't worry, I'm still with Political Correctness” attitude. Commenter “Hillbilly of Hobart” writes, with the usual explanation about how great multi-racialism is....

Terms like racist and denier have become the weapons used by those who know their position is weak.,to try and shut down any rational debate on matters where people have raised valid and legitimate concerns.

I am proud of Australia’s successful past record in immigration which on the whole has allowed mutually beneficial integration and assimilation of people from over 120 different ethnic, religious and cultural backgrounds.

That has only been possible by having an orderly system where quotas have been determined on the basis of ability to provide adequate infrastructure and support in all areas and having a fair and proper assessment process to determine the suitability any applicant.

This is sadly quite typical. Why someone feels the need to keep telling everyone how they are for multi-racialism and diversity is beyond me. Why go to a conservative website to read this, when you can go to a liberal one? Well, you actually find conservatives bending over MORE than liberals, to show how tolerant they are and how accepting of a melting pot future. It's really nothing more than conservatives trying to prove they are still PC, if not the 'left wing' type. Not that professing Tolerance is going to protect you anyway.




Even Andrew Bolt seemingly praises former Prime Minister Howard of all people for increasing immigration. In this blog post, “Howard shared those boundless plains”².

But no article sums up Andrew's spineless “opposition” to Liberalism and its agenda against the West than this blog post, “Europes changing face”³. Posting pictures of French soccer teams of old and of modern teams, one aspect is striking obvious. In the early 20^th century, Frances soccer team was white, it was French. Now it is predominantly black. Andrew Bolt posts these pictures with not much more than this statement “May I please point out to hyperventilating commenters below that to notice is not to condemn - or applaud.”.

OK, he's not specifically applauding it, which is one step better than some Liberals, who see this as a victory of progressivism over white homogeneity. But he doesn't condemn either, essentially being neutral. Passive neutrality in the face of change is acceptance of the change. It is remaining neutral in the time of crisis, an evil in itself, one that Dante considered worthy of the innermost circles of Hell.

So lets see here, Europe's “changing face” is the result of mass immigration and assimilation, a deliberate policy of liberalism, not the result of tolerance or genuine dislike of racism. Tolerance is demanded after multi-racialism has been forced upon the population, to ensure that it proceeds orderly without opposition.

But conservatives are silent on this transformation, because speaking against such a demographic transformation will always be construed by the left, as “racism” against non-whites. Liberals state, quite clearly that any desire to maintain the European character of France, for example, is akin to racism against non-Europeans. This isn't true at all, and merely a propaganda tool by the left, but conservatives simply won't challenge this rather easy to debunk fallacy.

Why the Left demands “Tolerance”.

It was revealed that the British Labour party in the year 2000 concealed plans to make Britain more multiracial by allowing in more migrants, partly to force multi-racialism and partly to rub the noses of the right in it. Many leftists openly admit that mass immigration should be forced to destroy white homogeneity and some revel in the idea. Andrew Neather, a speech writer who worked in Downing St wrote about a policy paper form the Performance and Innovation Unit

“Earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn't its main purpose – to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date." ⁴.

The Labour party tried to backtrack, but unfortunately this attitude is quite typical of leftist ideologues. This attitude is behind all Liberal governments, including France. In France, this is so open that the current President Sarkozy has said that the French people must change and that there will be dire consequences if they don't intermarry. ⁵

But no “Respectable” Conservative is allowed to bring this up, to directly confront the Left with it. No “Respectable” Conservative would be allowed to keep bringing this revelation from the British Labour party to reveal how “Tolerance” and “Diversity” are used in a hateful manner against the British people. This is a revelation of significantly greater importance than the “Climategate” e-mails, and it's content far more damaging and direct and far less ambiguous about the true motives behind multi-racial immigration, yet mainstream conservatism simply ignores this fact. This should ring alarm bells.

The “Respectable” Conservative counterpoint.

So with the fact that European nations are run by anti-white leftists, it is disheartening to hear that the only opposition to Europe's gradual decline and genocide is from “Respectable” conservatives.

We wouldn't expect Andrew Bolt to stand in defence of the destruction of Britain's and Europe's heritage by Liberalism and neither it seems, do many of his followers.

Jaycee of Melbourne writes,

“From Mr Bolt’s notes…

“May I please point out to hyperventilating commenters below that to notice is not to condemn - or applaud.”


As an individual, I found the comparisons interesting...nothing more. “

Of course. Genocide is “interesting...nothing more”.

Jarrod writes the following, in a response to a comment about the 1936 German team being homogeneous.

“Mon 03 Mar 08 (11:46am)

Unfortunately so!!

I think that the photo’s are a good reflection of a nation (France) who is open to globalisation, and who treats it citizens regardless of colour as French.

It’s a bit disappointing to see that Italy has not followed this trend. It appears that Italy may still be stuck with an out-dated version of nationalism - exclusion, regardless them having a lot of African immigrants. “

Again, ANY white homogeneity is denounced as evil by liberalism. It is a problem that must be remedied. This evil problem must be remedied by mass non-white immigration and assimilation. The solution to the “white problem”, is to remove whiteness. Jarrod, just like all “respectable” Conservatives agree with Liberalism here. What is even more interesting is that both Liberals and Conservatives will tell you that they have never heard of anyone talking about 'whiteness' being a problem that must be solved by mass non-white immigration and assimilation. This would be like a Global Warming sceptic saying they've never heard of “Climategate”. Go figure.

Why don't his readers realise he is not a conservative?

Perhaps the most baffling aspect of Bolt's blog, or any mainstream conservative blogger, commentator or pundit, is why people who actually are against Liberalism and Political Correctness follow them?

These conservatives complain about a left wing bias in the media. These SAME conservatives then get paid by the very same media they accuse of being Leftist. Said media wont pay anyone who writes columns which actually threaten the holy established religion of Political Correctness, so all opposition to Liberalism must play by their rules to be published. Because the commentator is playing by their rules, by virtue of being employed by them and seeking 'respect' from liberal intellectuals any opposition that he is allowed to print, they can't be true opposition. The readers then go on thinking that this conservative movement is the one that is going to get rid of the twisted religion of Political Correctness. Because of this, the readers mindless repeat left wing slogans and enforce liberal ideas with the same zeal as the left, perhaps even more so, because they must prove to the left at every moment, they aren't 'racist', which really means just doing what it takes to get leftists to stop using it as slander against you.

They must still prove to the left, they are “Respectable”, that they are “Intellectual” and that they too agree that white countries should be open for everyone. Saying “I'm not a racist...” just doesn't cut it with the left any more. You have to prove it, and intermarriage is a good way of showing the strength of ones faith in anti-white, anti-racism. But no matter what you do, if the left are the ones who define the rules, they can simply rule that your speech, your opinion is 'hate speech', or 'offensive' or simply 'illegal' and be done with you. They define what 'racist' is, which really is just anything they don't ideologically agree with.

This is the sad state of conservative, mainstream right wing politics in the country. You simply cannot critique multi-culturalism if you accept the basic premise that all white nations MUST become multiracial. If you accept this, then what recourse do you have against hate speech? How can you complain about 'Macedonians' writing slander against Greeks, when you accept Liberalism's anti-racism, which is in reality an anti-white movement?

Because “hate speech” laws are a necessity to ensure that white people accept giving away their heritage and future, what right does someone who agrees that white people must accept this future have, in even questioning the laws which make this possible and prevent this program from being thwarted? And even if you don't accept if, if you agree, that in principle, Western nations should head towards Liberalism, then who are you to argue against Liberals as to how its done?

Never deal with the devil, you will always lose.

On the 28^th of September Andrew Bolt was found guilty of racial vilification. His “crime” was questioning whether white looking Aboriginals would really be considered Aboriginal. As we live in a country which does NOT have freedom of speech, and therefore does NOT have freedom of thought, I am not permitted, lest I be found guilty in front of a judge, in sharing my opinion as to whether Andrew Bolt's statement was reasonable or not. The law it appears, requires us all to believe that he was unreasonable. So sayeth the judge.

Some might see this and think “Well, doesn't this prove that paid conservative columnists are not in bed with the left, as they too are punished by leftist, communist inspired “Hate Crime” laws? No, it doesn't. It is important to remember that there isn't a grand conspiracy here, that News Limited doesn't secretly hold meetings with Socialist Alliance members and Anti-Racist organisations to elect a puppet as a columnist. Conservatives are chosen out of free will, but the system, public expectations and requirements of the vocal, and seemingly powerful leftist activist class is enough to ensure that only “Respectable” conservatives are given a voice. Anyone who they do not consider “Respectable”, such as Pauline Hanson is hounded into submission and destroyed. Even the two major political parties in this country will unite to ensure this happens. Dissenting opinion simply doesn't survive, and by a process similar to natural selection, only “Respectable” Conservatives get any mainstream voice and get treated as being legitimate political voices, at least until someone decides a change is needed. They can serve the function of acting as a pressure valve to real dissent, a way of diverting anti PC opinion to an ineffective outlet.

There is no love for “Respectable” Conservatives like Bolt from the left, and simply because one ensures that they still have a PC outlook, doesn't grant one immunity. Any totalitarian religion needs to become more and more intolerant of dissent if it is to consolidate its power. Those who preach Tolerance become more and more intolerant, especially of anyone who doesn't fit their definition of Tolerant or Inclusive, definitions which can change over time. Being “Respectable”, supporting immigration and assimilation, supporting all white nations become melting pots isn't going to protect you if you are not wholeheartedly Politically Correct. If you hold a view which Liberalism decides is no longer Tolerant, you become a target.

So Andrew Bolt has been found guilty by Judge (I use the term loosely) Mordecai Bromberg of making a statement the JUDGE found offensive. Andrew Bolt either stepped out of line, or more likely, the line was simply moved further to the side of Political Correctness and Andrew Bolt now found himself outside the line. What it takes to be “Respectable” was simply redefined, and he no longer fits the definition.

However, despite the nature of the article which lead to the proceedings, Andrew Bolt does NOT deserve to be found guilty and the verdict is deplorable. It is irrelevant whether his statement was offensive or not, or even if it was the result of less than perfect journalism. More to the point, one shouldn't be punished for saying something about someone else, that a third party thinks may offend. Freedom of speech means the freedom to say things which people might find offensive. To deny people the right to say something that another human being might find offensive is to deny people pretty the right to pretty much any political speech whatsoever. Perhaps we are heading towards the banning of all politics that isn't PC. Freedom of speech means freedom of thought. Curtailing freedom of speech is actually an attempt to curtail freedom of thought.

The lesson here for anyone who holds views against multiculturalism, Political Correctness or liberalism, is that being against racism, being for pluralism isn't enough if you are not wholeheartedly for it. It isn't enough to be against racism but also against minority pandering. It isn't enough to fight against racism, but still believe that European and Anglo countries should be able to preserve their heritage and culture. It isn't enough to accept a 'little' diversity but desire keep it under control. It even isn't enough to be a support of Israel and denounce anti-semitism.

You may be able to get a paid job, appear on TV, you may be allowed, for a while to be considered somewhat respectable but Liberalism has for the last several decades narrowed the range of behaviour, speech and opinion which is considered acceptable. What was once considered inoffensive in the 80's can now land you in court. What is considered allowable now will in the future be unacceptable. Each time the screws are tightened, “Respectable” Conservative opinion will simply be re-branded as hate speech and offensive and if necessary, legislated, as Mordecai Bromberg has done by setting a precedent, out of existence.

1http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_at_least_our_macedonians_are_free

2http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/howard_shared_those_boundless_plains/

3http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/europes_changing_face/P0/

4

5http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3764

To love your country, make it more lovable.

By Michael Kennedy

Nationalism for the people.

Nationalism is often associated with an unwavering national pride, with a love of country, of their nation and unquestionable loyalty. Strong feelings of patriotism, which would be more accurately termed strong feelings of allegiance are usually just called 'Nationalist' feelings and these are often caricatured in the media as an unwavering support of the country, regardless of facts, regardless of what the country is doing to people abroad or at home. My country right or wrong. Perhaps in the true sense of the word, someone who simply accepts as true all the time, without question or analysis, that their country or nation is supreme, superior, the leading example of civilisation could be called a bigot, but nationalism is distinct from simple minded support. After all, it is amazing how many people in the world just happen to be born in the country they believe is the best in the world. Just as its quite amazing how many people just happen to be born into the 'one true religion'.

Nationalism is world outlook. An ideology. A belief that the nation is the most logical basis to build a state or country around, as opposed to other modern ideologies which build states and countries based on the acceptance of certain premises, or simply define and build them by who holds particular documents, or who pays taxes, or who belongs to a particular religion. While modern liberalism states that a country is nothing more than an aggregate of participants, of which the background and cultural heritage of the participants is meaningless (and at the same time very meaningful in multicultural terms, an odd paradox), nationalism states that a country is defined by the very people which founded it, and that it is an organic entity.

A nationalist country is a country which defines itself by the people. Finland for example doesn't define what a Finn is, but a Finn defines what Finland is. Likewise, Japan isn't a country which makes its inhabitants Japanese, but the country Japan is founded upon the Japanese culture and ethnicity. The people define what Japan the state is. Many countries around the world exist on this premise. Ireland, Italy, Greece, Slovenia, Mongolia, Fiji, these are countries which came into existence, not as blank administrative states which just 'happened' to be then filled with people of a particular type, but as creations of a particular type of people. Modern liberalism and its Marxist Socialist big brother work hard at denying this fact, in trying to 'prove' that nation states are artificial constructs, but the fact that these nation states happen to comprise of people who are ethnically and culturally and linguistically related, and that these relations existed long before the nation state was formalised, make this theory laughably absurd. Italy may be a relatively modern creation, but the shared cultural, linguistic and ethnic heritage existed long before. Italy was created because these ties existed. The creation of Italy is not considered the construct of an abstract state, but the unification of Italian states into one nation state, the result of efforts by Italian nationalists. Yugoslavia on the other hand was a single state created from Pan-Slavic ideals, a statist idea which tried to combine various (though closely related nations) into a single state. Italy still exists, Yugoslavia does not.

So a nationalist can be thought of in a strict sense, as one who holds the belief that the nation (in the literal sense) is the most appropriate basis for building political entities on. This is in opposition to the liberal ideal where a country (a term they use interchangeable with nation, as if they are the same thing) is simply an administrative entity, a resource which could consists of any type of citizen or any combination. More importantly, a nationalist works for the betterment of their nation, for its evolution, its cultural growth, its well being, prosperity and sustainability. One cannot improve their own home if they don't admit there is room for improvement.

To a nationalist, if Australia's population was to be replaced, then it would no longer be an Australian nation. We might have a government and political entity called a country under the name of Australia, but the Australian nation would have essentially been supplanted with another one. The globalist opponents of nationalism do not recognise that there is more to being a member of a country than simply having citizenship papers or a passport or having a tax file number. For them, to even suggest otherwise makes one a racist bigot. Clearly the ideas of nationalism are incompatible with the idea that a nation of people shouldn't have a country they can call their own.

For Nationalist Alternative, we quite simply believe that there is more to being Australian that simply being a tax payer, or following the cricket team, or having a passport. We believe that Australia is defined by a particular group of people, NOT vice versa.

Nationalism vs 'blind patriotism'.

But does a nationalist have to love his or her country? Is it necessary to be a nationalist to believe that your country is the best there is, that all is good? Is it necessary to defend your governments actions against critics? Holding the belief that a state needs a deeper, more significant definition that simply being a group of people who hold ideas of 'mateship', eating meat pies and watching football, doesn't mean that one has to necessarily hold the idea that their country is the best there is, that it must be supported despite what it does. The actions of the state, of the government and even of many of its citizens are distinct from what the nation is. What the country has become is again distinct. A nationalists wants the best for their country, but will acknowledge if there is a sorry state of affairs. To criticise Australia’s involvement in the Afghanistan conflict isn't to go against the nation, but to criticise the state. To many modern conservatives, who have also adopted the 'state is the nation' formula, one must support the country regardless, but a nationalist knows that the armed forces are doing the bidding of an administration, not the nation, and realises that there is no contradiction at all in opposing what the troops are doing, but still being committed to their nation.

Likewise, a nationalist may indeed feel dismay at their country, even so far as to hate what its become. Take for example a lady who's husband has taken to alcoholism. She may still love him, may still support him, because he is her husband. But she doesn't have to love what he has become, what he is. She knows deep down that he perhaps is not the best man in the world, she knows what he's doing is wrong and damaging to both him and her. But she cannot in good conscience lash at out those who criticise him, nor lie to herself and belief that these criticisms aren't true. Inside she may be torn between sticking by the man she met and fell in love with, and the man he has become, destructive, despotic and distant.

To love your country, make it more lovable.

For people to love a country, it must be lovable. It must provide fair opportunities for those who work to create them, a space to live, breath and be and to respect the national identity. Nationalism isn't about simply stating that ones country does this, its about making ones own country like this. True nationalists don't just wave flags at cricket matches, they set about making their country one they would be proud to support and live in. They oppose those manipulate the state to the detriment of the nation. A nationalist works for his or her people, and cannot improve their nation, if they don't admit there is room for improvement.

There is little doubt that Australia has become a less likeable country, and there is little doubt that Australians still want to call this place home. Many Australians grew up seeing a generation comfortably calling this country home, being able to buy a ¼ acre block in the suburbs to call home from doing an honest job. Now they struggle to call an apartment home despite both them and their partner working. Single Australians would have a much harder time of it. Australians struggle to move to work and back home in Sydney and Melbourne, fighting traffic. The urban sprawl has laid waste to what were ones green fields, valleys and places children used to play in and enjoy nature. The night sky is disappearing from the orange glow of the city. Wages are dropping relative to the value of the dollar. People in productive jobs are watching fat cat executive ship them off overseas to line their pockets further, and the divide between the rich and the middle class grows exponentially. The politicians in power have utterly no vision, no policy and no compassion for Australians except for photo opportunities during a crisis. Suburbs which were once pleasant places to live are turning more and more into third world habitats. The very face and culture of Australia is becoming more and more alien, as the demographic make up broadens. Multicultural policies are creating suburbs where people are distant from each other, where there is no longer a community, but aggregation of people. Australians are increasingly become submerged in an environment which just doesn't feel like home. Australians are increasingly losing a place which politically and socially is home.

For one to want to work positively for their community, they must feel attachment to it, but all the trends are moving to remove any attachment. Town planning in new urban areas is purely functional and pragmatic, with the seemingly sole purpose of maximising developer profit. The new suburbs springing up on the outskirts of Melbourne are among the most culturally desolate, isolating, anti community areas in Australia.

You cannot restore a sense of love of country by winning the cricket, hosting the ashes or having a diversity day. You cannot demand patriotism, as if it were a switch that could be flicked. You must work toward building a nation that people can be proud of, that they feel attachment to. To have Australians love and support their country, you have to work at making it worthy of support.

This is the true heart of Nationalism. Building and maintaining a country which one would want to be in. It is for this reason that Nationalist Alternative seek to redress issues of unaffordable housing, silly multicultural principles, unsustainable population growth through immigration and economic injustice. We support our nation, and want the state to be worthy of the people within the nation. For us, Australia isn't defined by the government, but by the Australian people, as discussed in our manifesto. Our country is for our people, for ourselves, just as we believe that every other peoples of the planet should have a place they can call home, that they can be proud of. There is no need to say 'my country is the best in the world', but there is definitely a need to say 'my country is the best one for ME', something that ideally every human should be able to say, or at least aspire for.

Nietzsche and the Revenge of the Non-Whites

by David Ellerton

Philosophy and politics don't usually mix. But sometimes philosophy can shed light, in an interesting way, on political problems. The philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, I believe, can be applied to one serious political problem afflicting the West today: I am speaking of the desire, of millions of non-white immigrants to the West, to 'pay back' the white man for hundreds of years of colonialism and privilege.

I will not summarise the philosophy of Nietzsche here; instead, I will focus on one element. That element is revenge, and as readers and admirers of Nietzsche know, revenge plays an important role in that great thinker's philosophy. An account of Nietzsche's doctrine on revenge can be found in a paper by University of Wisconsin professor, Lester H. Hunt, 'The Eternal Recurrence and Nietzsche's Ethic of Virtue', at http://philosophy.wisc.edu/hunt/ER&VIRT.htm .

So what does Nietzsche mean by revenge? It is the desire to right past wrongs:

As he describes it, revenge is essentially an attitude toward time itself: it is "the will's ill will against time and it's 'it was'." It is the result of the fact that, from a certain perspective, the past appears both to need changing and to be impossible to change, so that the will is left painfully powerless, "an angry spectator of all that is past." Among the effects of this painful condition is a desire to cause additional pain, either to oneself or to others: "on all who can suffer" the will "wreaks revenge for his inability to go backwards." (II 20.)(4) Revenge is responsible for the ideal of equality, the urge to punish, and the excessive desire to be just (II 7). Among the other works of revenge are... a longing to escape from this world (II 20).

(All references in footnotes are included in Hunt's paper). So what are the implications of wanting revenge? Is it healthy? Beneficial? Clearly not, according to Nietzsche. It stands in the way of (what we moderns would call) psychological wholeness, spiritual fulfilment. One part of that wholeness is the development of generosity in oneself, what Nietzsche calls the 'gift-giving' or 'bestowing' virtue:

Conceived in this way, revenge has a very broad impact on human life; Zarathustra says, "it has become a curse for everything human that this folly has acquired spirit." The trait he is describing here is purely reactive, negative, and destructive. As such, it is just the sort of trait Nietzsche would see as standing in the way of virtue. In obvious ways, it is the opposite of the spontaneous, enthusiastic, and creative activity he calls "gift-giving virtue" elsewhere in Zarathustra (I 22). Getting rid of revenge, if that should be possible, would plainly be a long step toward achieving virtue as he understands it.(5) In fact, Nietzsche more or less tell us so himself: "that man be delivered from revenge, that is for me the bridge to the highest hope" (II 7).(6)

The implications of all of this are wide-reaching and profound. Certainly, we can all see, in our own lives, a desire to 'right past wrongs'. Perhaps that desire, too, stands in the way of fulfilment. All of what Nietzsche is saying here occurs at the individual, moral level; that is, at helping the individual reach a level of spiritual fulfilment and self-actualisation. Those who embrace revenge deny themselves that fulfilment and become stunted human beings (I will explore, in part, Nietzsche's solution to 'the problem of revenge' later).

But how does the doctrine become political? In order to become political, it must be applied to a very large number of human beings, and here I am thinking of the millions of non-white immigrants who have come to the West in the past thirty to forty years.

In that connection, I found the following comments on a message board to be of interest. They were by African immigrants, in response to an English-language news article, 'Illegal Immigrants to get New Rights in Sweden', at: http://www.thelocal.se/32372/20110303/. I will reproduce some of them here:

22:28 March 3, 2011 by penzy

I have read some of the comments here and I am not surprised even though it is a bit sad the way some people prefer to come and display their overt ignorance for the whole world to see.

Okay so Sweden has decided to be kind and nice to other people in need and some of you have reservations. Rightly so, afterall who would want to be taken by surprise in his own household. But let's get some facts straight.

Some of us (immigrants), are here not because we feel this place is heaven. No, it cannot be. Sweden cannot in anyway take away the kind of atmosphere and environment I get in my continent. But circumstances which did not start so soon dictates that I should be here. And so am here by hook or by crook.

#1. When your great grandfathers came to my continent to kidnap my great grandfathers, they came ILLEGALLY. You called them EXPLORERS! In the same vein, those of us who are here (whether legal or illegal), are here to EXPLORE and you view us as ILLEGALS who should not be here. What do you think my great grandfathers were thinking when you were kidnapping them to come and WORK for you!

#2. After all these years of inflicting such pains on us, you have not even compensated us for the wrongs you did. Infact, you are still enslaving us economically. (Afterall, slave trade was all about economics). You are still coming to buy my cocoa seedlings at a cheaper rate (no, your own rate) and then you bring it back to me at a price beyond me which then encourages people to do what they have to do.

#3. This has led us to come to you and beg for loans. Loans you give to us at a higher interest rate and then you impose your own kind of politics which is capital intensive. That has led to corruption, erode our cultural lives and many more. Why do you think there are a lot of kidnappings in Africa? How come the Ogoni people in Nigeria cannot farm anymore because your desire for oil is polluting their land and taking their livelihood away.

Take the three reasons (there are many more) into consideration and think about it. If only you will be fair to us. If only you will honestly deal with us like you deal with your kinds. If only you will leave us to have our own unique political system, maybe, just maybe, I would be back in my continent basking in sunshine instead of having heavy clothes on me.

You sow what you reap, the bible says. You sowed something and here we are. You came to us in the name of God and now, we are here telling you about this same God you told us about and to share in the profit of what you took from us.

Is this not fair enough?

[...]

Another African gentleman, who is nowhere as eloquent as Mr 'Penzy', more or less has the same message:

23:05 March 3, 2011 by Cuttingedge

Crazy to hear this, whe European come to Africa, Asia and arabian countries and take our every thing, they were not illegal, when we come here to enjoy our natural resorces, which they are still taking from ours, the we are illegal, shame on you, go back to history. wait the fire is coming to you cowards

23:49 March 3, 2011 by Cuttingedge
Look at this crazy Chortlle

From UK, why are u forgeting what you did in Africa you English people, you did everything bad for us, like french, like every European guys and you still doing it using the so called stupid presidents you force us to accept them using our resources. we are here to get our Gold, our diamonds back, got it crazy

The responses, overall, to the news article at this message board were quite intelligent and well-written: there are a lot of educated, articulate and thoughtful people, on both sides of the political fence, in that forum. Most of it, though, I had heard all before (that is, pro- versus anti-immigrant opinons); what struck me was the position of the immigrants themselves. The anti-colonialist ideology espoused by Mr 'Penzy' was fairly typical of the Third World ideologues in the post-colonial era (e.g., the 1950s and 1960s): e.g., the Black French intellectual Franz Fanon, the dictator of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, who was a pioneer of 'African socialism'. Quite a few on the radical Left still uphold it, and, for all I know, it could be still be current in certain African countries today.

Does it represent the view of a number of immigrants to Europe and elsewhere in the West? I think so. But we have to be clear, most immigrants come for economic reasons: they want 'a better life', and feel that they are entitled to it in the West. To do so, they will pay any amount of money to people smugglers, come up with phony stories of political persecution and abuse, submit themselves to any level of hardship, indignity and danger (including drowning, in boat trips from North Africa to southern Europe), and, once in Europe, will work in menial, badly paid and insecure jobs and face risk of deportation or imprisonment in one of Europe's tens of thousands of detention centres - really concentration camps. The motives of the immigrant are not ideological, they are economic. But, when ideology comes into play, it is the ideology of anti-colonialism, and, ultimately, revenge - revenge on the white man.

And this gets right to the heart of the matter. The immigrant ideology is, above all, impudent. A country like Sweden takes in huge quantities of Third Worlders, gives them shelter, food and clothing, and now, thanks to the Swedish government, free education, health care and the 'right' to start a business; what's more, Sweden does so regardless of the effect such policies have on its own people - (e.g., overcrowding, shortages of housing, health care, school places, a growing sense of alienation which comes about through the breakdown of an ethnically homogenous community). One would expect gratitude on behalf of the immigrant - and surprise that a foreign government is doing such a thing (after all, no African or Middle Eastern government would do the same for white people). But instead, the attitude is: 'I'm going to pay you back, white man - for  blood diamonds, stolen oil, and slavery, and all the other crimes of the past... You'll reap what you have sown!'.

Much has been written, by nationalists, on the sanity of the white, Western politicians who are pro-immigrant - are they mad? But little has been written on the question of the sanity of immigrants, especially illegal immigrants. The illegal immigrants are not fleeing some humanitarian catastrophe. In 2010, 128,000 immigrants tried to gain access to Greece, and there is a backlog of 46,000 applications for 'asylum'; clearly, if these were all refugees, they would be fleeing the biggest humanitarian catastrophe since the end of WWII, when millions of (mostly German) refugees fled, in fear for their lives, the advancing Red Army. But Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East and the Sub-Continent (Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bangladesh) are not in such a condition. So the question is, why is it that immigrants do what they do? The British tabloids are daily full of accounts of immigrants (mostly Arab or Indian) trying to enter Britain through the French port of Calais by clinging to the underside of lorries, hiding in garbage bins, refrigerators, tubs of chocolate, etc., being taken to Britain by truck. Given that, and the 'ideology of revenge' described above, one has to question the sanity of many of these people. So the immigrant problem becomes a kind of psychological/philosophical problem.

Nietzsche's answer to the problem of revenge was the doctrine of eternal recurrence. That is, one's life will repeat itself, exactly as it is now, an infinite number of times in the future - and it has done so an infinite number of times in the past. One will live the same life over and over again, experiencing the same hardships and sorrows, and the same joys, without change. The classic Bill Murray movie, 'Groundhog Day' (1993) depicts this idea, except that the Bill Murray character is conscious of living the same day, over and over again.

What does this have to do with revenge? In the theory of eternal recurrence, time really has no beginning - there was no point, in history, when the process of time began. There may have been a big bang, a point where the universe was created. But there were an infinite number of big bangs in the past (as there will be in the future); so, one cannot say where the 'starting point' of time itself was. The implication of this is that there is no point where time (or history) will come to a stop, and all wrongs will be righted. There is no point for the African immigrant to migrate to Sweden, and 'get his revenge on the white man' for 'the crimes of colonialism', because the peoples of Africa will have to undergo their sufferings and hardships (blood diamonds, stolen oil, slavery, etc.) an infinite number of times in the future. In other words, there is no 'happy ending' for the African immigrant, where his people suffer, under the jackboot of the Western colonialists, and then finally become free and take their revenge on the evil whites. As Hunt writes:

For vengeful thinking - in fact, for any sort of intelligible use of the concept of punishment - the story that has the happy ending must not end at an arbitrary place. Suppose that Billy the Kid kills six people and then is captured. Our vengeance - or whatever drive it is that is gratified by punishment - is not satisfied if he overpowers his jailor and escapes. Nor is it satisfied if Billy is recaptured and executed, but somehow rises from the dead and commits six more murders. Our urge to punish will not accept it as satisfactory if we end the story of a punishment at some arbitrary point simply to create a happy ending. Revenge cannot knowingly do such a thing. If Nietzsche is right about the eternal recurrence, however, there is no natural place to end the story of the world. Time is not naturally divided into cycles which, like a replayed movie, have beginnings and ends. There is simply no non-arbitrary place at which we can decide that our story ends and no reason, other than the need for a happy ending, to end it at any particular place. Our desire to create art can be satisfied by such solutions, but our sense of justice cannot.

So far, then, the eternal recurrence frustrates revenge and - so, at least, we can hope - makes room for virtue by making it impossible for revenge to solve the problems that it sets for itself. Revenge aims at the satisfaction of feeling that something is being done about the evil past, but it cannot achieve this satisfaction unless the vengeful subject can think certain thoughts and see things in a certain way. Recurrence makes such states of mind impossible. It does so by healing a fissure in the world - a break in time - that the vision of vengeance requires.

Again, the implications of this are profound, and one could write a (much longer) essay on them. Here we can only state the problems (the psychology of immigration, the non-white's ideology of revenge), and not come up with a solution. Nor can we fully answer the question, 'Is Nietzsche's solution adequate?'. My short answer is, 'No'. One should not underestimate the power of ideas to affect large numbers of people: certainly, the immigrant 'Penzy' came under the influence of someone who themselves was under the influence of a Fanon, Nkrumah, Lenin or Marx. But, all the same, it is too much to hope for  to expect that immigrants, after reading, and taking on board Nietzsche, will stop emigrating to the West in the millions. It would be akin to a mass religious conversion. Millions of people would have to examine their motives, very deeply and thoughtfully, for wanting to live in the West, and ask themselves if they really will find happiness there (a happiness they feel 'entitled' to).

At the same time, certain of Nietzsche's ideas can, I think, have a powerful effect on the white intellectuals who ultimately the determine the course of our civilisation. It is this topic that I shall explore in a future essay.

National Veganism, Paganism and Environmentalism

by David Ellerton

In the year 2010, we saw another farcical election in Australia. The two major parties were so boring, and so out of touch with the public's feelings, that neither of them could secure a majority. The parties were out of touch, especially on the immigration issue. The Howard and Rudd governments, in the past ten years, brought in over a million immigrants into Australia, most of them Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese and Filipino. Perhaps, if Labor or Liberal had offered to cut immigration to zero, and expel the immigrants who've already arrived, they would have won more votes. But, as it was, they were indecisive - not only on immigration, but on the economy as well.

Because of the election, people have been asking me what sort of policies I'd support. My answer is that Nationalist Alternative is not yet an electorally-registered political party. We don't yet have a political platform.

What I can do in this article is to describe, in broad strokes, my own personal world view, my own ideology. I won't be outlining any specific policies. Instead, I'll be talking in broad terms, and hopefully my readers will be able to see, for themselves, what sort of policies would flow from these ideas.

Firstly, my ideology is part of a world-view - what I call a pagan world-view. To explain:

I don't see man as being a creature who is separate from both nature and other sentient beings - that is, mammals, fish and birds. Man is part of  nature and the animal world. Together, they form a whole. In the Christian, Jewish and Islamic world view, of course, man has special rights and privileges. He's superior to the animals. Even the most degraded man - a heroin addict from Footscray or Cabramatta, or a Somali child-soldier rapist - has more rights, has more value, than a beautiful tiger or whale. I don't see man as having a special spiritual essence compared to nature, and to animal life, and indeed, my view is that some animals, and even birds and fish, have a greater value than certain degenerate human beings.

My doctrine is that white, Western man should live in harmony with nature and the animals. One of the implications is that man shouldn't chop down more trees than is necessary, and that man shouldn't eat, skin, exploit or injure animals in any way. I could go through a great many arguments as to why we shouldn't use animal products, and harm and kill animals, but, in the end, it comes down to feeling: either you feel an aversion to hurting intelligent life-forms, or you don't. The white, Western peoples have displayed more of this feeling than any other racial group. It was we who put forward the notion of animal rights, and laws forbidding animal cruelty. Some advocates of animal liberation recognize this: the British pop singer Morrissey, for instance, recently described the Chinese as a 'subspecies' for their treatment of animals - for their flaying, torturing and cooking dogs, and so forth. The British left-wing media were horrified by his statements, and attacked him viciously. One of the things that they didn't like was the notion that some racial groups may have less of a feeling for animal welfare than others.

This leads to my second point. In my ideology, there are great differences, real differences, between racial and ethnic groups, and, indeed, between one individual and another in that group. A certain racial and ethnic group may have splendid qualities compared to another - it may be more hard-working, industrious, intelligent, law-abiding, than another; it may be more healthy, more beautiful. As well as that, one individual may be greater than another; he may be more intelligent, talented, special. In short, genius, and great men, great individuals, exist. This view is in direct contrast to the Marxist world-view, which says that only the mass of people, the poor, exploited mass, who make history and indeed have value. Great men don't exist. What's more, great races, unique, special ethnic groups, don't exist either.

The Left, in Europe, America and Australia, wants to reduce man to the lowest common denominator. That's why they lobby, incessantly, for more and more immigration. They want to turn Western countries into dumping grounds for the refuse of the Third World. Take Sweden, for instance. This is a beautiful, prosperous, clean, safe, country. The Swedish people are renowned for their physical beauty, for their healthy lifestyle, their business acumen, which in itself has led to Sweden being one of biggest exporters in the world, and one of the richest countries. The Left resents all this. Unfortunately for Sweden, the Left has been in control of Sweden for a long time, and so Sweden has been taking in over a 100,000 immigrants a year, most of them from the Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa. The intention of the Left is to degrade the Swedish people. The Left wants to turn Sweden into a dumping-ground for the refuse of the Third World, and give those immigrants the same rights, the same status, as native Swedes who have built up Sweden from being one of the poorest countries in Western Europe into one of the richest. The Left's message to the Swedish people is, 'You're nothing. A burkha-wearing pram-pusher, a Somali child soldier, is just as "Swedish" as you are, and has just as many rights to Sweden's wealth, prosperity, and to Sweden's welfare state, as you do. You Swedes may think you're better than Kurds, Turks and Arabs, but really, we're not. We in the Left are going to bring all the poor and dispossessed of the Third World, all the refugees and the people who can't find jobs back home, over to Sweden. And there's nothing you racist, bigoted Swedes can do about it. Nothing!'.

Now, let me say that what's happening in Sweden is happening here in Australia and all over the Western world. We find the same phenomenon, and the same causes behind it. We have a Left which is committed to the degradation and destruction of white Western man; we also find that the Left exerts so much control that even the so-called conservatives have given in. In the old days in Australia, you could hold racialist views on immigration, and be a member, in good standing, of the Liberal or Labor parties; now, anyone who holds racialist views has been pushed out of the mainstream of politics. The only place left for them is the so called Far Right. Again, that's thanks to the baby-boomer Left, who have worked for decades to achieve that goal.

So, what's the alternative? The only real alternative, in my view is racial groups living separately from one another: Anglo-Saxons living apart from Muslims, who live apart from Chinese, who live apart from Africans, who live apart from Indians. Separateness leads to a kind of harmony, in which all the different racial groups can go about living life, without interference with from the other, and without coming into conflict whilst still co-operating globally. This segregation has to take place at the national level. Australia, Britain, New Zealand and Canada will only have Anglo-Celtic-Europeans, for instance, India will only have Indians, China only Chinese.

The other component of that world view is that there must be harmony within the nation-state. Take economic life. In Europe in the Middle Ages, the different professions organised themselves into a kind of caste-system, a system of guilds. It was a similar to system to the one that existed in societies of the ancient world, for instance, in ancient Rome and India. Under this system, there wasn't any class conflict, any discord, until much later, until the end of the 19th century. That guild socialism is an ideal for Australia in the 21st century. That is, trade unions and labour should live in harmony, in peaceful co-existence and co-operation, with the capitalist and business class.

Then we have to address man's relations with nature, with the environment, and with animals. There's been a great deal of talk about the BP oil slick in the gulf of New Mexico. BP have been attacked for despoiling the environment, in particular, the wildlife, in that region. At the same, there's been a great of hand-wringing over how many fish will be killed, how this will ruin the livelihoods of the men in the fishing industry. Now you can't live in harmony with nature, you can't respect the rights of the wildlife, you can't have a pristine, untouched environment, while you have a fishing industry which kills hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of fish a year. Many of the environmentalists who make their opinions heard in the mainstream media don't seem to understand this.

Environmentalism is, in itself, a good idea. It's very similar to my own ideology. The Catholic Archbishop George Pell condemns environmentalism as a pagan ideology, and he's right. Environmentalism doesn't put man above nature, it puts him at the same level. But the implication of that doctrine is that man is at the same level of the animals as well. A really thorough-going environmentalism would not only fight to preserve the environment, and set aside certain forests and lakes as natural-heritage, protected areas, but preserve animal life from being despoiled by humans. That means, in turn, that mankind must gradually wean itself off its reliance on animal products, and let the animals, fish and birds in peace, in the same way we leave those natural-heritage areas alone, untouched and unspoiled by the hands of man.

The problem with environmentalism is that firstly, it's been infected by the same kind of crazy racial egalitarianism as the Marxist Left. Secondly, environmentalism has become a victim of its own success. It's gone too far. We have compulsory recycling, which is really a useless activity, and would only be useful if there was a war on, and had to ration paper, plastic and the rest. We have overly restrictive rules on, for instance, the burning off of old-growth trees and other vegetation in rural areas, a policy which leads to destructive bushfires which end up destroying animal and plant life. We also have a policy of putting taxes on carbon emissions, which leads to super-high electricity bills. All of this has given environmentalism a bad name. Fundamentally, the ideal of man living in harmony with nature and wildlife is a good one, a great one. But environmentalism isn't the means of putting this idea into practice.

So let's summarise. Animal welfare, conservation, racial segregation and racial harmony, harmony between the social classes: all of this, in my view, forms part of the ideal that we in the West ought to be striving towards. It's all part of an ideology which tells man to accept his place in the universe, and his being part of nature. Most religions will tell you that the divine essence of things, the spirit, doesn't lie in animals, lakes, forests, or even in man's body itself - man has a soul separate from his physical self, his body. Man's physical self, and nature itself - including the animals that live within it - are not spiritual, and so are to be abhorred. That's the Christian, and Jewish-Islamic, teaching. My world view is different. Nature does have a value; so do animals; so does man's body, his race, his degree of physical fitness, health and beauty. There is more spirituality, in my view, in an Australian native forest, or a track and field event with healthy Australian young women, than there is in a grubby synagogue or mosque. That's why I call my world view pagan.

In a future article, I'll to describe the specific and minute political policies which follow from this world view.

Free Market Fallacy

by Michael Kennedy

The Free Market. The ideological pinnacle of neo-liberalism, the idea which will give wealth to all, eliminate poverty, create every kind of good and service imaginable, cure disease, make the trains run on time, save the environment and bring unicorns back from extinction. It is touted as the economical panacea, the cure all for any social or economic woe which may come up. Supposedly, if we are to take its supporters at face value, the free market is the only moral way for people to earn wealth, the only successful financial ideology which can exist. Everything else is just godless socialism. Neo-liberalism, an ideology which puts the market above all, puts the market as the arbitrator of morality, as the determining factor of the future of society. It is essentially left wing liberalism or anarchism applied to money.

In 1776, Adam Smith, a Scottish economist published “The Wealth of Nations”, a book advocating the abolishment of government interference in matters of economic importance and advocated commerce and trade without barriers and without limitations (much in the same way the Liberals advocate movement of people without barriers of limitations). This 'free market' was to be controlled by the 'invisible hand', market forces which would keep unfettered trade, production and consumption in check. The 'invisible hand' would play the role which the government would have played in regulating the free market. Simply put, it supposedly works like this. Rather than have the government intervene on behalf of employees, setting minimum wages, minimum conditions and such, the 'invisible hand' of the free market would provide the same safety net. Supposedly, if there were no regulations regarding employment and employees were also as free in choosing where to work and negotiating conditions, then employers who offered sub-optimal conditions would find themselves unable to hire people, as people would be choosing to work with companies who offered better conditions. So the competition for labour between employers would see those who offered the poorest conditions unable to compete, and thereby having to raise the standard of their wage and benefits to attract the employees they desire. This is the 'invisible hand', an example of the mechanism by which neo-liberals believe their free markets would work. This is supposedly the force which will lift the 3^rd world out of poverty, as jobs go overseas offering these unfortunate peasants jobs which may pay $2 an hour instead of $1. Capitalists regard this as the free market improving the condition of life for these people, completely overlooking the fact that a slightly less evil form of exploitation is still nevertheless exploitation.

Another example which they put forward might run like this. A company which produces products at a great cost to the environment, would lose custom due to people boycotting those product due to the environmental damage their production entails. If customers who had freedom to choose between competitors, then people who value the environment would not purchase their goods. This comes at a financial cost to the company, and they may find themselves in a position where spending extra for 'greener' production would result in greater profits from greater sales. Under neo-liberalism, a company would be free to buy pristine old growth forest, and raze it to the ground for profits. Their solution to those who argue that the environment should be protected, is that citizens who value that forest are also free (should be free) to pool their money to purchase it and protect it. Don't like the fact that a refinery is going up next door and going to drop toxins next to the school? Just get the parents to pool their money together to buy the land! Neo-liberals actually put forward these exact arguments without any sense of irony, sarcasm or shame.

Neo-liberalism also advocates abolition of government sponsored programs, programs such as social security and public health care which are tax payer funded. Again, they advocate that market forces can produce all that is needed. Jobs abound (there is no need to be unemployed) and people would find capitalistic ventures by which they can make a business selling help to those who need it. The education system need not be public and tax payer funded, but those who desire to educate themselves or their children should pay, and those who don't make use of those services shouldn't have to. It is to many an appealing argument. Why should someone who doesn't have a car, pay for roads? Why should someone who doesn't have a child, pay for primary schools? I work hard, why should the fruits of my efforts, the money I earn, be taken and given those who don't? Neo-liberalism pushes personal responsibility head of social welfare. Only personal responsibility exists, and according to neo-liberalism, one only goes without because of their failures, and any tax dollars used to help them is theft from the hard working and creative. It's a seductive train of though which appeals to peoples sense of entitlement, to their perceived superiority and self righteousness. Like Liberalisms obsession with social rights which must be absolute, neo-liberalism takes the same attitude towards economic rights. The liberal catch cry “take your hands off my body” (in regards to abortion) could just as well be a neo-liberal catch cry of “take your hands off my wallet”.

The free market, the idea that an economy and society can work with no regulation and provide optimal results is the fundamental principle which drives neo-liberalism, a dominant ideology in today’s world. Free-marketism is based on a number of assumptions which as we will soon find out, are simply not true. We are given simply examples of two stone age people trading food for manufactured tools as the archetypal form of free trade, with the insinuation that free markets today work with similar simplicity.

This hypothetical example is easily debunked. One of the fundamental assumptions is that people trade on equal terms. As two people reach a deal, advocates of neo-liberal free markets say that both people would reach a consensus which maximises the individual advantage of the trade for both as far as is possible. For two children trading collector cards, this may be true, but is it true for all cases? Is the employee just as free to negotiate as the employer? Practical experience which we are all familiar with shows that this scenario is just a day dream, a non-existent hypothetical example that we are given as what is supposedly the norm. For someone who's job has been lost, who has a mortgage and children who need to eat, the negotiation of a contract for a new term of employment is less than equal. Does the prospective employee have the freedom to argue against the clauses in the contract which not only demand “reasonable overtime” where required, but also states that it will be unpaid? For the job candidate, its take it or leave it. It's take the job or foreclosure. It's accept the conditions grudgingly, or walk away without means to feed the family and watch a solution to the supposed skills shortage take it instead, because they have lower standards. The fundamental principle which supposedly guides the 'invisible hand' from employers having to accept lower and lower standards is greatly flawed. Unequal trade abounds and it is only through the pressure of trade unions or government laws, that one party doesn't have the opportunity to completely and utterly subjugate another through the leverage they find in being owners of property and means of income.

Another example is a young person competing against a baby boomer investor buying a house. Is there equality here? The boomer has had the advantage of free education, relatively higher wages and having sold another investment property which they subdivided at great profit. They can easily outbid the younger person because of different histories, different economic conditions and different periods of time they experienced them. They were paid more for perhaps doing the same job, due to different environmental conditions. They had less competition for work, less expenses to remain socially competitive. Even the simple fact that someone has had more time to save up money creates and inequality. The point is that two people putting equal work mentally and physically do not end up with the same financial earnings. Chance and environment play a role, but does this mean the person who ended up with less is less deserving of the same property? It's hard to justify an answer of 'yes', but this is the reality of our society. It can be argued, that the younger person should just settle for less, but anyone with even basic knowledge of our housing market knows that even 'entry level' properties are out of their range. Does government restriction on the release of land make the issue worse? To a degree yes, and perhaps by 'freeing' the release of land according to free market ideals might solve this issue, but land developers would simply create the artificial shortage themselves, instead of the government, as it is profitable to do so, and that is exactly what they would do.

Economic interactions and the factors which influence the means by which people can acquire capital through their efforts are complex, seemingly random and never exactly repeatable. Free market economics simply doesn't take this into account, and instead, neo-liberalism blames the individual for any shortfall, rather than recognising the complex external environment, technological and social shifts which can greatly influence peoples financial outcomes despite the same input. Seemingly simply properties, like ones history, date of birth and location can give them great leverage or disadvantage over others when trading goods or labour on the market. To ignore this fact is to turn a blind eye to the chaotic events which prevent fair trade to occur. Events beyond peoples control leads to some having the ability to exploit others, and neo-liberalism provides no means of recourse to those who are economically exploited or powerless, as it assumes that their fate is their own responsibility, and that it is within their means and within the means of the free market to lift them out.

The fallacy of the informed consumer.

Earlier we mentioned the example of the customer who chose to boycott or avoid a product based on the environmental practices of the company. It may be employment standards that a customer is concerned in, or something more directly related to the product, such as their quality control and for the example of companies which produce food, hygiene and cleaning standards. A customer may be able to make an informed choice, if all operations relating to the creation of the product were transparent and all information available. With the recent spill in the Gulf of Mexico from offshore oil drilling, someone may wish to use 'market forces' and their purchasing power to avoid buying fuel obtained from oil extracted from risky offshore drilling. Now, is the customer who is about to purchase petrol really able to determine which processing plant the fuel came from, from which shipment of oil? Is the customer seriously able to trace back the supply chain all the way back to the rig the crude oil was extracted from? A customer buying a sandwich is able to get the best deal, if they are able to compare every sandwich available for sale in the world. These might be extreme examples, but lets take more common examples. In a completely deregulated pharmaceutical market, how can you determine whether the paracetamol you are giving to your child was produced with quality high enough to avoid potentially harmful contamination? Are you as a customer, able to make this determination for yourself? For the invisible hand to guide companies towards social responsibility and sustainability, for the invisible hand to stop people from literally killing others and the earth for profits, not only must the population of 'consumers' be aware enough to realise what monetary value must be placed, but they must also know the complex web of interactions and processes which end up creating the product. Potentially possible but infeasible. People would end up spending their whole lives in research, in order to try and avoid business with those who could potentially harm or kill, or cause great social and environmental harm.

Witness the 'cheap' products from Chinese manufacture. The free market has led to manufacturing going offshore, but these goods can only be produced cheaply due to human exploitation and disregard for the environment. Practices which exist there would not be legal here in Australia, nor tolerated, but the distance of China, the lack of knowledge and information available of the true cost of manufacture means buyers here can't make informed choices.

There is no complete freedom anyway.

Lastly, the rich corporate oligarchs who push neo-liberalism do not operate and CAN NOT OPERATE in a completely free, deregulated world. Corporations exists because of government law. Some form of state apparatus must exist for property rights, the very cornerstone of capitalism, to exist. Some form of law against theft must exist, and laws against fraud. Copyright law, which allows large record companies to operate cannot exist without state intervention and market regulation. In a true free market, an artist would not be able to ensure that they are the recipient of commercial sales of their work, but it is only because of government intervention that a music artist can ensure that the revenue stream from the sale of their art goes to them.

Without government intervention, the legal apparatus which enables trade to even exist, wouldn't, and would leave behind a state of anarchy. Neo-liberalism never demands the removal of government, only the extraction of the state from affairs which affect the earnings of the wealthy, of those who have influence, of capitalists. When a government uses its power and funds to make a nation more appealing to investors, no free marketeer objects. When the government of the U.S. bailed out Wall Street due to their own mismanagement of an over financialised money market, neo-liberals did not object. Working class Libertarians who are also pro free market did, but quickly ditched the cause in favour of more dubious ones, such as rallying against science. Perhaps led to these causes by the very businesses which have hijacked the Tea Party and usurped the concern of Americans for the future of their country for their own purposes.

Complete government de-regulation would not allow neo-liberalism to exist. Bill Gates would be poor if not for government spending which developed computer technology or for government enforced copyright and patent law. How else can Microsoft make their money, without having monopoly over the sale of their own products? Hedge fund managers would be nothing if not for the legal structure which allows the financial entities that they trade to be recognised universally. Property developers need state sanctioned ownership of land to develop. So given that no neo-liberal truly argues zero government interference, from where do they draw the line where government regulation should stop? Why is government enforcement of property rights acceptable, but taxation not? On what moral basis?

The basis by which free markets have been portrayed has moral are flawed and do not seem to have originated as the conclusion from an objective study of humanity. Assumptions that parties can trade on equal terms, that the non monetary value of aspects of life such as clean air can be effectively factored in to consumption by consumers are simply absurd. Free market ideology suffers from the same fundamental form as anarchism. Without organised structure, the strong simply overpower the weak and there are no checks and balances on their actions. Nations and people exist or die on the whims of the oligarchs, the commons disappears and base human emotions such as fear and greed become primary social drivers. Look at our current economy as an example of what happens when fear and greed are its prime movers.

Opposing neo-liberalism doesn't necessarily mean supporting a centrally controlled economy or extreme economic egalitarianism where everyone is equal, as many neo-liberals suggest. It is merely a recognition that existence is a constant compromise between freedom and co-operation. A prosperous society, which by definition encapsulates the ‘group’ category beyond the individual or his sole family, requires a balance between free enterprise, free trade, and state regulation and government projects. History has shown that the most prosperous period of the 20th century was not when neo-liberalism become dominant in the 1980's, but when free enterprise and economic freedom was living alongside large government funded projects and regulation.

One doesn't have to have unfettered free markets for a just and prosperous society. Economic dogmatism has caused much misery in the 20^th century, and with the 2^nd decade of the 21^st century starting in the economic train wreck that is the remains of the Global Financial Crisis, a crisis which may be nothing more than the prelude, the welcoming fanfare to a larger economic catastrophe. Th economy and the social and legal structures which a nation create to put economic theory into practice must exist to serve the people, rather than being a structure, a God which the people must serve, worship and sacrifice for. The neo-liberal experiment cannot solve issues such as environmental degradation and the decline of the west and its catastrophic demographic shifts. Its solution to global warming is a carbon trading scheme, a scheme which is designed to simply create another commodity which can be used to create another asset bubble and traded for profit. A strong nation needs a strong economy, but an economy can only serve its purpose by being a servant to the people, which means that the people must retain mastery over it, an ideal at odds with neo-liberalism, where the people relinquish all control over it.