The answer - or part of the answer - to the problem of Zionism on the Australian Far Right came to me recently when I watched the famous six-part BBC documentary The Death of Yugoslavia (1995) online. Part one - 'Enter Nationalism' - chronicles the fall of communism in Yugoslavia and contains footage of two dramatic conferences. The first of these sees the rise to power of the 'nationalist' faction within the Serbian branch of the Yugoslav Communist Party, the other, the breakup of the Yugoslav Communist Party itself. Here the Yugoslav politicians stand revealed for what they had been perhaps all along: men of a nationalist and social democratic bent, who never fully subscribed to the communist ideology but joined the party out of expediency or a hunger for power or both. They had been forced, by circumstances, to swallow communism and submit to the procedures of the communist party, procedures which had been devised by genuine communists such as Tito. While all this was a rather unique political phenomenon - unique to its time and place - it was one which I felt had applications to Australian Far Right politics. Watching the documentary led me to think, speculatively, that we nationalists in Australia needed something similar to the Yugoslav communist party: a structure which would unite for the time being all the disparate groups and individuals on the Far Right into one and force them to abide by a common code of conduct, parliamentary procedure and ideological platform. Such a party would contain Zios and 'civics' in addition to genuine nationalists. The advantage of it would be that, in effect, the party and its conferences would give we nationalists a means of dealing with our enemies the Zio bosses. We would possess the means to bring them to heel. Recalcitrants who did not abide by the party rules would find themselves disciplined and even expelled, and because of the monopoly of the new party, any expellee would find themselves locked out, not just out of the party, but of the Australian Far Right as a whole.
Just as the more successful communist parties in Europe - SYRIZA in Greece, PODEMOS in Spain, Left Bloc in Portugal - achieved unity by bringing together all of the Far Left, my projected organisation would achieve unity by bringing together all of the Far Right.
On the Far Left, the communist parties which stay aloof and sectarian remain small and achieve little - the rigid and dour Greek communist party, the KKE, scored less than the Golden Dawn at the last Greek election. One of the arguments made by contemporary left-wing scholars is that the Russian communist party, for the first twenty years or so of its existence, operated just like SYRIZA or PODEMOS - as an all-encompassing party of the broad Left. The evidence seems to support that notion, and historical evidence probably will reveal that all the successful communist parties in history - including the Yugoslav - started out much the same way as SYRIZA or PODEMOS. It's probably the case that people of extreme left convictions gravitated towards the early communist parties, not necessarily because they had a Marxist disposition, but because they had nowhere else to go. In other words, these organisations, in their early days at least, functioned more as broad left-wing movements and not as parties, and so managed to catch more people.
Some of those on the Far Right of a sectarian bent - and I am a sectarian myself - would object to my proposal of a nationalist SYRIZA. They see alliances or collaborations as proof of one's weakness. To paraphrase the title of a chapter in Mein Kampf, 'The Strong is Strongest when Alone': strong groups don't need other groups. If you aim to be dogmatic and pure - just like Hitler or Lenin or Mao or Stalin - you need to make it a point of principle not to work with politicians of an opposing tendency. The NSDAP, or the communists, didn't succeed that way. Australian nationalists, then, shouldn't leave any room for Zios or civics.
This point of view is problematic because, historically speaking, the communists and the fascists did work with other groups and wouldn't have won power without them. The NSDAP collaborated with the German People's Party (DVP), a Far Right, conservative and bourgeois party led by the industrialist Hugenberg, in the early days of the National Socialist regime, and the votes of the DVP allowed Hitler's Enabling Act of 1933 - which gave the NSDAP unlimited power in the aftermath of the Reichstag fire - to pass. After the war, the German Communist Party formed a coalition with the German equivalent of the Australian Labor Party - the SPD (Social Democrat Party) - and a new party called the Socialist Unity Party (SED). And, like a good many post-war communist parties, the Yugoslav Communists gained office as part of a 'National Front'; the People's Front of Yugoslavia, which ostensibly ran Yugoslavia after the war, contained a total of eight non-communist political parties.
To return to our idea of a nationalist and Zio 'national' or 'united' 'front': in my opinion, something like it will come about of its own accord. Nearly all the organisations on the Australian Far Right at present are seeking registration as political parties, and, to my knowledge, are struggling to do so; none of them seem able of achieving the membership numbers of institutions such as the Liberal Party (80,000), the Labor Party (54,000) and the Greens (10,000). This is despite the fact that many Australians - hundreds of thousands, if not millions - agree with certain of the stated goals of the Australian Far Right (e.g., the desire to cut immigration). So, sooner or later the aspiring registrants will come to the realisation that only if they form a grand coalition of sorts will they attain the same numbers as, say, the Greens. They will need to follow the example of the Mediterranean neo-communist parties which have proven to be so successful.
Why don't the aspiring registrants see this already? The answer lies in Australia's Anglo-Saxon national character. We Australians show a predilection for the three vices of the Anglo-Saxons: 1) parliaments; 2) individualism; 3) competition. We adhere to the ideology of parliament, liberal democracy and elections because that's all we've ever known. The first instinct of any radical right-wing would-be politician is to form a political party which will compete against the others (in a kind of Darwinian struggle), run in elections and get a seat in parliament. Politics to an Australian consists of this and only this.
Now, while no-one can argue that bourgeois individualism of the Anglo-Saxon type hasn't achieved great things in the economic sphere - even Karl Marx admitted as much in his Communist Manifesto (1848) - it has proven to be disastrous in the political. For one, it is leading our country - and the West - to disaster through mass, non-white immigration, immigration on a scale hitherto unseen in history. Only a socialism and a collectivism which are the very reverse of the Anglo-Saxon individualist impulse can save the West now.
On that note, one of my main objections to Zionism and 'civicism' is that the Zio and 'civic' parties mean business as usual - a continuation of the policies that have gotten us into trouble in the first place. England, in the words of songwriter Ian Stuart, went from an empire to a slum because of its refusal to shut its borders, and England embodies the Anglo-Saxon ideals of liberty, individualism, parliaments, tolerance and competition. England - along with two other Anglo-Saxon nations - the US and Australia - waged a ferocious war against Germany as part of the 'United Nations'; as the victor of that war, it helped devise the humanist, internationalist, globalist and multiculturalist ideology of the Nuremberg trials (and today's UN) and imposed it on Germany and all the nations of the Western world - including itself. England, by dint of its ideology has ended up destroying itself - from being coloniser it has gone to being colonised, by India, Africa and Islam.
The Trump candidacy - along with European populist parties such as the Swedish Democrats, Wilders' Party of Freedom, and the Front National - represent a resistance to the post-Nuremberg new world order, even if they don't admit it; so does the Reclaim movement (Reclaim Australia, UPF, Aussie Infidels United, Rise Up!, Australian Defence League and the rest). But Reclaim has been infected: by Zionism and Anglo-Saxon individualism, and the humanism and multiracialism of the post-war era.
One thing Reclaim has done right - and this constitutes its only genuinely 'socialist' act - is to bring the working-classes together as a political unit. And this is precisely what Reclaim's enemies - the communists and the bourgeois political establishment - fear. As Hitler writes in Mein Kampf:
One can't have a revolution without the workers:
Hitler remarks of the Pan-Germans, 'The Pan-German Movement did not have these broad masses as its champions and so no other means of solution could be tried out except that of entering parliament'. Further on that theme:
Like the communists, Hitler was very much concerned with gaining the allegiance of the workers. He understood, however, that communists had taken over the worker's movement - that is, organised labour - lock, stock and barrel; the workers, then, couldn't be reached that way. His political problem became one of bypassing the traditional communist bastion of the trade union in an attempt to appeal directly to the masses.
We nationalists in Australia find ourselves in a similar quandary. Simply put, we need the working-classes at the Reclaim rallies - the blue collars disdained by the Australian Left as 'toothless bogans' and 'lumpenproles' - but the Zio bosses stand in our way; they are determined not to allow any of the 'hardcores' - the nationalists and racialists - to reach the working-class attendees.
It's imperative that we surmount this obstacle. As Hitler writes in Mein Kampf (here sounding
So what's the solution?
Firstly, we nationalists to avail ourselves of the traditional communist method for reaching the masses: we need to form 'mass organisations', that is, front groups. Secondly, we need to jump on the anti-Islamic bandwagon and use opposition to Islam as a stepping stone for greater things.
We can achieve both by a) forming an anti-Islamic think tank (or 'hate tank', as one of my friends wittily puts it) and b) forming a rough-and-ready anti-Islamic street group (based primarily around social media) composed mainly of working-class people. Through the two fronts, we'll serve the same dish as the mainstream anti-Islamics, but it'll be anti-Islam without the Zionism, multiracialism, neoconservatism...
In addition to the above, we need to work on building unity amongst the nationalist and Zio groups. We do this by circumventing the Zio bosses and appealing directly to the rank and file. Furthermore, we won't make the demand that these organisations give up their separate existences; nor should we dissuade them from attempting federal registration. The main thing is to offer fraternal assistance and to offer to work as a co-ordinating center for groups and individuals of varying ideological persuasions.
Things may turn out well for this proposed co-ordinating structure; in time, it may even serve as the skeleton for a genuine mass party (as opposed to a sect or micro-party). The organisation may turn out to be the Australian nationalist version of SYRIZA; we could find a handsome and youngish man like Alex Tsipras to front it...
Finally, we need to concentrate on forming a federation composed of non-Zio Australian nationalist groups - the one proposed in the last article - and one built upon a platform of nationalist unity and 'No room for Zionism'. To negotiate with the Zios, we need to negotiate from a position of strength, and strength comes from unity.
All of the four proposed groups - the think tank, the anti-Islamic street group, the nationalist federation and the SYRIZA-type vehicle - need to be ordered the same way. The members (or delegates for the members) vote on a central committee for the organisation at a national congress and approves a constitution or set of bylaws. Membership of the organisation can be quite broad, as can the makeup of the central committee, which will serve as a plenary body of the organisation. The central committee goes on to elect a 'central organ', which serves as the editorial board of any publications and determines the ideological line of the organisation. Finally, a general secretary is elected.
One mustn't make the criteria for membership for any organisation too narrow: especially in the case of the mass organisations, we don't want to turn away interested parties; we need to appeal to a broad cross-section.
At the same time, a founding document - the constitution - must make clear, from the start, what the rules and responsibilities of the membership are, and be specific about the grounds for discipline and expulsion.
Astute readers will have noted the parallels between the above structure and those of the communist parties. Indeed, the communists adopted the simple tripartite form (central committee, central organ, secretary) for all their organisations. The government of the USSR itself was composed of a 'Central Committee of the USSR' or 'Supreme Soviet' (central committee), a 'Presidium of the Central Committee' (central organ), and a 'Premier' or 'Chairman' and his 'Council of Ministers' or 'Council of People's Commissars' (secretariat, here the prime minister and his cabinet). The 'Central Committee of the USSR' was elected by a 'Congress of the Soviets of the Soviet Union'.
I should emphasise here the simplicity and reproducibility of these structures. Communism possesses a beautiful simplicity, like Islam, and it's the simplicity which makes both doctrines so successful. As Hitler writes of communism:
The communist party serves as a microcosm of the communist state. That is, the state is run along the same lines as the party. Australian nationalists should keep this in mind: any future organisation - such as a SYRIZA-type organisation which will bring the nationalists and the 'civics' together, a 'National Front' - will constitute in miniature a future nationalist government.
What makes fascism - and in particular, German National Socialism - so different from other nationalist, racialist and Far Right ideologies is that fascism copies the communist methods. Hitler shares the Marxist-Leninist obsession with cadres, 'party training schools', and the necessity of highly deployable cadre / leader-types. (An example of the latter, from Mein Kampf: 'The movement should acquire the necessary funds to attract and train intelligent people who would be capable of becoming leaders... The personnel thus obtained could then be systematically employed according as the tactical situation and the necessity for efficiency demanded...').
But what makes Hitler different from the Marxists? One could point to the obvious differences in political theory: Marxists subscribe to egalitarianism, multiracialism, theories of class struggle and the rest, Hitler the opposite. But I think the most significant point of difference lies in the attitude. We know that communism is dogmatic, intolerant, fanatical, hierarchical, authoritarian; but communists pretend to others - and even to themselves - that the opposite is true. Hitler, on the other hand, says, 'Yes, the National Socialists are just as fanatical, authoritarian, etc., as the communists, but unlike them, we are proud of it!'. Hitler gives in Mein Kampf a long description of how the NSDAP works which, in fact, is an almost perfect description of a communist party works in reality:
In our movement the practical consequences of this principle are the following:
The president of a large group is appointed by the head of the group immediately above his in authority. He is then the responsible leader of his group. All the committees are subject to his authority and not he to theirs. There is no such thing as committees that vote but only committees that work. This work is allotted by the responsible leader, who is the president of the group. The same principle applies to the higher organisations - the Bazirk (district), the Kreis (urban circuit) and the Gau (the region). In each case the president is appointed from above and is invested with fully authority and executive power. Only the leader of the whole party is elected, at the general meeting of the members. But he is the sole leader of the movement. All the committees are responsible to him, but he is not responsible to the committees. His decision is final, but he bears the whole responsibility of it. The members of the movement are entitled to call him to account by means of a new election, or to remove him from office if he has violated the principles of the movement or has not served its interests adequately. He is then replaced by a more capable man, who is invested with the same authority and obliged to bear the same responsibility.
One of the highest duties of the movement is to make this principle imperative not only within its own ranks but also for the whole State.
Hitler then goes on to make an astonishingly frank admission:
No communist would ever speak like this. As stated before, communists like to portray themselves as liberal, pacifist, humanist, egalitarian, democratic - as 'Left'. Once you come up close to them, you learn otherwise; but they maintain the deception - and it is a deception - for a long time. They call their version of the Führerprinzip 'democratic' centralism.
One reason why they cling to the 'Left' standpoint and phraseology is that, originally, Russian communism sprang from German social democracy - liberal and democratic socialism - and could never quite shake off the influence - theoretical, at least - of its liberal and Western predecessor. The other reason is that communists, for most of their history, needed to hide their true intentions - and their standard operating procedures - from others who are more liberal and humanist-minded, especially those in the West. They needed to conceal themselves. To that end, they lived half-in, half-out of darkness. In contrast, the fascists sought the spotlight and announced their intentions, their standard operating procedures, plainly, frankly, proudly, to the world. You can find braggadocio, even arrogance, in Mein Kampf.
But now, it seems, the shoe is on the other foot: it's the nationalists and the racialists who need to hide. The roles have been reversed. Much of communism has gone mainstream, and Western establishment politicians today stand further to the left than they did ten or twenty years ago.
Regardless of this, we nationalists must push on, and must continue to organise - as the communists do, as Hitler did. Reclaim's critics on the Far Right attack them for their multi-cultism, their anti-racism, their lack of an outlook grounded in racialism and nationalism - true enough. But the racialist world view - or völkisch worldview, as Hitler calls it - doesn't accomplish anything unless it is given political form. Hitler gives a long exposition of the racialist idea in the chapter 'Weltanschauung and Party' in Mein Kampf, but remarks that it is doomed to remain a hazy, metaphysical abstraction unless it is made political. The ideas of Christ and his followers would have forever stayed religious, spiritual and metaphysical if the Catholic Church - and the later Protestant denominations - had not made them hierarchical, even political.
And to conclude: