The recent Paris attacks have illustrated once again that we in the West are engaged in a guerrilla war.
Just as the Viet Cong depended on the Vietnamese peasantry for their support – Mao writes, ‘The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea’ – the jihadis rely on the Muslim immigrant population in the West. We – especially in Europe, America and Australia – are fighting the Vietnam war all over again. But we are fighting the Vietnam war on our own soil. It’s as though we’ve imported millions – literally millions – of Vietnamese peasants into our own countries, and the Viet Cong too.
For this article, instead of concentrating on Islam, I’ll be focusing on the political response in the nationalist movement to Islam – that is, how we are organising amongst ourselves to do something about Islam.
The great American thinker Francis Parker Yockey once compared politics to a plenum, a space which is the opposite of a vacuum and is occupied by something at every point. How does the ‘plenum’ function in practice? Politics revolves around the acquisition and maintenance of power, and requires, by definition, leadership. To be a politician, one must rule men, one must control. If you don’t exert control, well, someone else will be more than happy to step in and exert it for you. In other words, this state of affairs – the absence of leadership – doesn’t persist for long. If there’s a power vacuum in a political movement, someone will fill it, and quickly.
We’ve seen this process at work in the Reclaim movement (which includes Reclaim Australia and affiliated organisations). At the last two Bendigo rallies, the communists – who previously posed the biggest threat to the new movement – gave up trying to terrorise Reclaim into submission and retreated before the rallies were over.
They found the rural and regional Australian town to be unreceptive to the communist message, and what’s more, they were stymied by the tactics which had been developed by the Victorian police. Because of this communist defeat, the attendees at the Reclaim rallies – drawn from a wide variety of groups on the Australian Far Right – no longer needed to band together against a common enemy. The gaze of the political machine which controls Reclaim turned inward, and the machine didn’t like what it saw. It attempted to enact a purge and prevent the nationalist groups (that is, the hardcore Aussie nationalists) from attending the rallies and used trickery and violence to do so.
The machine is led by shadowy bosses who resemble the bosses of Tammany Hall (portrayed in Martin Scorsese’s classic movie, Gangs of New York (2002)). They uphold Zionism, multiracialism, non-white immigration to Australia (so long as the immigrants are of the non-Muslim variety), multiculturalism and ‘civic’ nationalism. If they belong to a political tradition, it’s the tradition of Geert Wilders, Anders Breivik, the Gates of Vienna, Tommy Robinson’s English Defence League, Pamela Gellar, Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, Paul Weston’s Liberty Great Britain, and the Dispensationalist (that is, Zionist) strand of evangelical Christianity. They find themselves opposed to the racialism, white nationalism and nativism which has, for the past thirty or forty years, stood at the center of Australian Far Right doctrine. This nativism says, in essence, that all non-white immigration to Australia – and not just the Muslim – should be stopped and that Australia is a Western and European (and not a Chinese and Indian) nation and should remain so.
The two tendencies could have co-existed for quite some time, but now the Zio bosses have intensified the differences themselves and the Australian nationalists to the point of political war. The two sides find themselves locked in combat, and the prize is control of the Australian Far Right movement.
In politics, the question is ‘Who decides?’: that is, the person who decides is the person who runs a political organisation. Carl Schmitt states that the sovereign is he who decides the exception: the ruler is the one who makes the decision to go to war, or to
declare a state of emergency; you can only find out who the ruler of an organisation is when a decision is made in abnormal political circumstances. If we are to look at our present conflict – the Zios versus the Aussie nationalists – we find that it is the Zio bosses who ‘decided the exception’; the figureheads in Reclaim – e.g., the speakers from Rise Up Australia – don’t run the show.
One may ask at this juncture: why shouldn’t the Zios be given the power? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to take control of the Australian Far Right?
I could answer that question by disputing points of theory – i.e., I could illustrate how wrong the Zio ideology is – but for the moment, I’ll concentrate on practice.
At the Reclaim rallies, we hear plenty of ‘revolutionary’ rhetoric – which is to say, demagogic ranting to the effect that the existing liberal democratic establishment must be overthrown. But on closer inspection it becomes apparent that the Zios don’t want a revolution or at least are not working towards it. A friend of mine compares the Reclaim movement to a travelling circus. Reclaim breezes into one town, agitates the masses, puts the police (who must erect barricades and form a cordon between Reclaim and the communists) into a tizzy, and then departs, leaving nothing behind by way of party building. Its demagogues resemble the hirelings of Tammany Hall in Scorsese’s film: they make speeches on election day, rouse the rabble, and disappear. What they ought to be doing is laying down roots. Disciplined party men – cadre men – should be sent out to rural and regional areas such as Bendigo with the task of educating the masses politically. That political education should consist of: fiery speeches in closed halls (with party members and sympathisers attending); lectures; guided discussion groups; study circles; workshops… The political educators will, through this process, succeed in replicating themselves: cadre begets cadre. Such a practice ensures that, once the fire has been started – by a single spark – it will be fanned and then spread. But the Zios don’t want that. They focus on one goal only: establishing a bridgehead for Israel in the Australian nationalist movement and expanding it.
In this, the Zios are following standard practice. Activists for the State of Israel and Jewry like to place a bet on every horse in the race; they will seek to control, not only the mainstream political establishment and the Far Left but the Far Right. They attach themselves even to nationalist and racialist political causes which have little to nothing to do with Jews and Israel. When reading two of my favourite sites – Paul Kersey’s Stuff Black People Don’t Like and Hunter Wallace’s Occidental Dissent – I’ll find, every now and then, that someone Jewish has signed up as a commentator in the forum and has begun to throw his weight about; he will make demands that the moderators get rid of so-and-so, a long-time commentator (who is usually respected by the others there), for making ‘anti-Semitic’ statements or for denying the Holocaust. Because the moderators show little interest in propitiating Jewish newcomers, these appeals go unheeded. But it’s interesting that these activists show a tenacity and a racial awareness that Westerners themselves lack. Because of their dogmatism, their persistence, their organisational skills, their ideological uniformity, their success at infiltrating movements, Jewish activists of this sort make good communists – which explains why so many prominent communists in Western and Eastern Europe (including Russia) have been Jews.
It stands to reason, then, that professional Zionists would attempt to infiltrate the anti-Islamic movement, communist style, here in Australia and elsewhere in the West and twist it to Israel’s ends. The sad thing is that the State of Israel doesn’t even need to mobilise Australian Jews in this struggle, because it finds plenty of willing Australian
collaborators – the Australian Party of Freedom, the Australian Defence League, the Q Society…
The internal struggle in the Australian Far Right reflects wider geopolitical struggles.
The world is divided up between three great geopolitical powers (China, Russia and America) and perhaps a fourth – militant Islam – which, unlike the other three, is not a nation state and does not have borders. Aside from the four, we find a collection of minor players – ‘rogue states’ such as North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe, Venezuela and others – and old communist fiefdoms Vietnam, Laos and Cuba.
Australia has been dominated by America – or, more accurately, the Anglo-Saxon and Jewish alliance of the US, UK and Israel – since the 1930s; the three towering political figures in that alliance from that time (Churchill, Roosevelt, Chaim Weizmann (Churchill’s close friend during the 1930s and 1940s and later the first president of Israel)) determine the course of Australia’s foreign politics and largely its domestic as well.
One of the peculiar things about the four great powers is that they are all ruled by a number of internal cliques or factions (with the exception of China, which is ruled by one and only one body, and that is the Communist Party of China). Power is shared amongst two or three factions, some of whom may occasionally go to war on one another. The troika of Putin, the FSB (the former KGB) and the Chechen warlord Kadyrov rules Russia, and according to Kremlinologists, the assassination of the dissident Boris Nemtsov in February this year was carried out at the behest of Kadyrov, who wanted to send a message to his hated rivals, the FSB. After the murder of Nemtsov, Putin went into hiding for a number of days, out of the not unreasonable belief that he’d be next on the assassin’s list, and only emerged from hiding once his fears had been allayed.
Militant Islam gives us another example of factionalisation. Three players – Saudi Arabia, Iran and ISIS – ‘run’ all of Islam; they more or less tell Muslims all around the world what to do politically. But the three don’t get along, and at present are embroiled in a war against one another in Syria.
Can we say that two or three factions rule American domestic political life? Yes. The factions are: the Obama administration (heavily infiltrated by Marxists); the US media (again, heavily infiltrated by Marxists); the Social Justice Warriors (openly Marxist), who at the time of writing are attempting to initiate a Chinese-style Cultural Revolution on US campuses. The three have enjoyed tremendous political success and the interactions between them have been smooth and harmonious – we find none of the tension that characterises factional relationships in Russia and Islam. But the candidacy of Trump is significant in that it represents a real threat to break the power of the three. The political arrangements in a state can change and can change quite quickly – look at what happened in China after Mao’s death in 1976 – and by 2017, the reign of the America’s Marxist troika may be over.
America doesn’t rule the Western world alone: it relies on two partners – the UK and Israel. The former happily acquiesces to the US, and should be considered a silent partner, but the latter has shown itself to be quite critical, especially since the time of Obama’s election. It’s no secret that Netanyahu and Israel oppose Obama, not only for his signing a peace treaty with Iran but for his lack of respect towards Israel and Zionism. Being a black and gay (former?) Marxist radical, Obama naturally sympathises with the Palestinians and the Arabs; he favours them over Israel. Netanyahu understands this and it enrages him. Jews such as Netanyahu are never satisfied with anything less than a 100% obedience; any signs of dissent or reluctance to fully embrace the cause of Jewry, Israel and Zionism must be rooted out, the offenders punished. Obama’s domestic opponents – the ‘conservatives’ in the Republican Party and elsewhere – see the conflict between Obama and Netanyahu and are delighted; the prospective presidential candidates on the Republican side are using Obama’s lack of enthusiasm for Israel as a stick to beat him with. ‘We conservatives won’t sign a deal with Iran; we won’t show disrespect to that great Churchillian statesman Netanyahu…’.
We find this division – between the radical Left and the ‘conservative’, die-hard, staunch defenders of Israel – making itself felt in Australian Far Right politics. If we survey the Jewish press, we find uniform support for mass Islamic and African immigration into Europe, and we can safely say that these journals, along with the pronouncements of the Jewish community leaders, reflect Jewish opinion, or at least the opinion of Jewry’s leaders. At the same time, some prominent ‘conservative’ and ‘Far Right’ Jews have given voice to disquiet over the mass immigration of Muslims, especially since the jihadis are making European Jews a target, and they are attacking the Far Left – once Jewry’s friend, now its foe – for its ‘anti-Semitism’ and its opposition to Israel. These Jews on the ‘Right’ will give conditional support to the growing anti-Islamic tendency in the West. So long as they stick to the script – of multiracialism, assimilationism, staunch defence of Israel and Zionism, opposition to ‘Islam’ but not to ‘Muslims’ – Geert Wilders, the English Defence League, the Australian Party of Freedom, the (blogger? Facebooker?) ‘Great Aussie Patriot’ and Rise Up Australia will receive international Jewry’s blessing. But any Far Right movement which seeks to jump on the Zionist and anti-Islam bandwagon must prove its credentials to Jewry – by ‘denazifying’, that is, getting rid of any racialist and nativist elements that Jewry finds so unsavoury. The anti-Islamics enrolled in this campaign must approve of all non-white immigration to Australia, so long as it’s non-Muslim, and will even welcome immigrants from Muslim countries with open arms on the proviso that they renounce their faith. Opposing ideologies – such as Australian nativism (Australia First Party and Australian Protectionist Party), skinheadism, neo-Nazism, neo-fascism, white nationalism, race realism, all the hardcore racialist and immigration-restrictionist creeds – must be given the boot.
The essential thing is to understand that, while the Zionists want racial and ethnic homogeneity for Israel, they don’t want it for the US, Europe or Australia. Before its founding in 1948, Israel was a country called Palestine; European Jews emigrated there, built up a large army, committed terrorist attacks against the British rulers, and then, after the departure of the British, declared war on Palestine’s neighbouring states; they won (with the help of Soviet military aid) and then ethnically cleansed Palestine of 800,000 Palestinians. Most of Palestine was renamed as Israel. Since 1948, the rulers of Israel have made sure that only Jews – preferably the white ones from Europe and Russia – can become citizens. In recent times, they have worked to keep out African immigrants by building an impressive fence along the border with Egypt. But, were any Western country to act like Israel – and expel hundreds of thousands of Arab Muslims, or even build an effective border fence – it would be denounced by Israel and the leaders of the Jewish Diaspora as ‘racist’ and ‘Nazi’. Representatives of Jewry have used their not inconsiderable clout to pressure Germany to accept hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of ‘refugees’, and thereby abolish itself, so as to ‘atone’ for its ‘Nazi past’.
In recent years, the conservative movement in the West has been corrupted – by ‘progressivism’ and ‘liberalism’, that is to say, Marxism and communism – and Reclaim finds itself in the same boat. Reclaim should be judged as a right-wing off-shoot of the Australian Left.
A conservative from 1960 or 1970 who time-travelled to the present day would be shocked and appalled by the state of conservatism in Germany, Britain or America; he would make the charge – and justly so – that the positions of the Republican Party or Britain’s Conservative Party (on, for instance, the ‘rights’ of illegal immigrants or the ‘rights’ of homosexuals to get ‘married’) stand far to the left of what the communist parties of the US and Britain were preaching in the 1960s. Indeed, much of the frustration of today’s radical left-wingers – i.e., communists – in the West owes itself to the fact that so many of their demands have been met. The US electorate has still placed a gay black Marxist in the White House – not once, but twice; even American ‘conservatives’ have become conditioned to regard the communist Afro-American agitator Martin Luther King as a saint…
Communists have long taken up a ‘progressive’ role agitating for ‘change’, and still themselves as the leading proponents of ‘change’ (or degeneration, depending on your point of view). In a recent article by Jack Sen at the Occidental Observer, ‘”Unrepentant Marxist” Eric Hobsbawm Still Celebrated as Britain’s Greatest Historian’ (November 9, 2015), Sen, a British academic, writes:
Hobsbawm’s work has undeniably tainted British historical legacy and has de-legitimized a sense of English or British identity. For how long this infection will last, I do not know.
Then there’s the fact that his words have glossed over a period of history so abjectly evil, an entire generation of students believe “Communism is viable, if done correctly.” This is something I was in fact told by pupils I lectured at an Ormskirk college during one of my parliamentary husting events.
After all, “only Marxists fight racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, white privilege and most importantly are fair to Gays.”Regarding the above: except for the position on ‘Islamophobia’, does any real difference exist between the position of Sen’s communist students and that of Reclaim? A friend of mine pointed out that the multi-culti ‘laying on of hands’ photograph here:
|– a photograph taken at the last Reclaim rally in Bendigo, mimicked, consciously or unconsciously, this image (from No Room for Racism, an Australian communist front group which fought Reclaim):|
Historically, Australian communism fought for the abolition of White Australia and for Asian immigration – and, by implication, the miscegenation of Australians and Asians. How gratified those communists would be to know that now a ‘conservative’ movement – Reclaim – champions the same values.
One of the peculiarities of ‘civic’ nationalism in Australia – that is, nationalism based on ‘shared values’, not shared race – is that it naturally inclines to an acceptance of the multiculturalist and multiracialist ideology and the interbreeding with Chinese, Indian and other immigrants. ‘Civicism’ leads to (what I call) Asian wife-ism. We know that a prominent individual in the Australian Party of Freedom has an Asian wife, as does another prominent former member of the Australian Defence League (he’s now a member, apparently, of the Australian Party of Freedom), as does another Reclaimer, pictured here. He made a point of having his picture taken at the Bendigo rally with his arm on the shoulder of two African immigrants, one of whom appears in the hands-clasp photo. Reclaimers can’t keep their hands off black people.
The question arises: how strong are the Zios? At the last Bendigo rally, most of the attendees – the crowd numbered from 500 to a thousand – were Bendigoans; only a small number belonged to Reclaim and to Aussie nationalist groups. In contrast, many of the attendees at the rally in the Melbourne CBD in July were ‘movement men’ – ‘hardcore’ racialists and nativists. Many shaven-headed and tattooed men were present at the rally and at the bar afterwards, some of them celebrating only a few feet from Zios such as ‘The Great Aussie Patriot’ (who didn’t object to their presence there at the time). But the Zio bosses, in their attempts to purge the nationalists from the anti-Islam movement, have alienated many of these ‘hardcores’. As a result, many ‘hardcores’ won’t be showing up at the next rally in Sydney or Melbourne to lend their support and defend the Reclaimers from communist attacks.
A ‘pure’ Aussie patriot movement – denuded, stripped of nationalist and racialist elements – will be impossible to attain. At the least, it will attract a small number of adherents.
At present, at least five organisations affiliated with Reclaim have achieved or are seeking registration as political parties: the Australian Party of Freedom, the Australian Liberty Alliance, Rise Up Australia and now Love It or Leave It… Rest assured, more are on the way.
Each organisation must sign up at least 1500 members to get federal registration, and there can be no cross memberships – an Australian can’t be a member of the Liberty Alliance and Rise Up at the same time, for example.
These prospective parties will find the task of registration hard going. I know from bitter experience that, while Australians love the idea of forming new political parties, they are reluctant to sign up with a political party – they can’t do it, as they feel that it would compromise their ‘freedom’ and ‘individuality’.
Many of the enrolees for these aspiring parties, then, will be drawn from the Australian nationalist movement. So one must ask: how can the aspiring registrants expect to succeed if they don’t win the loyalty and respect of the nationalists? And will they be able to enrol thousands of men and women who are 100% ideologically ‘pure’ – that is, defenders of Israel, non-Islamic immigration, multiracialism and the multicultural ideal?
I am not a Zio or a Reclaimer: I am a ‘hardcore’. Yet I attended all the rallies held here in Victoria, out of a desire to a) show my opposition to Islam and b) protect my fellow Aussies from getting bashed by commies. I supported ‘The Great Aussie Patriot’ every step of the way. And so did hundreds of other ‘hardcores’. Reclaim needs us. The Zios need us. In one of his attack videos, ‘The Great Aussie Patriot’ accused Nationalist Alternative of ‘leeching’ of other movements (i.e., anti-Islamic movements), but really, it’s the other way around.
The non-Zios need to unite and fight, and they need to behave more like a movement than a party.
To explain: because of their propensity to form parties and groups and their habit of competing against one another for members (who will owe their allegiance to that group and not to the movement as a whole), Australian nationalists have become isolated and scattered. They don’t work together as a team, especially when a crisis – such as the present conflict between the Zios and the nationalists – erupts.
This has to change. Just as the communists work together to put on a Stop the War march or to hold a ‘Marxist unity’ conference, the non-Zios need to form an association, a federation, which will serve as the nationalist equivalent of a trade union.
Each of the participants in that federation will retain their autonomy and identity while at the same time act in concert. They will a) hold an all-nationalist conference of unity; b) pass resolutions binding all Australian nationalists; c) sign a nationalist code of conduct; d) act as a pressure group on Reclaim; and e) sign a mutual defence treaty which stipulates that, when one of the participant groups is attacked, all the others will come to its aid – as the Australian trade unions like to say, ‘Touch one, touch us all’.
The aspiring registrants need to make public statements that a) they are not Zio and b) all nationalist groups, whatever their orientation, are welcome to attend their events. That will be the only way the registrants will get a pass from the union.
As stated before, the Zio bosses brought this conflict upon us, and there was no reason why the Zios and the non-Zios couldn’t co-exist, at least for the short term. Overseas, professional anti-Islamics such as Wilders, Warner and Spencer do work that does more good than harm to the movement as a whole; it’s only the Australian anti-Islamics who have made an enemy of Australian nationalists – and only recently.
Things can be turned around. Possibly, in the far-flung future, both the Zios and non-Zios can unite in a plenary body – one that brings together both the nationalist and the ‘civic’ groups – and there resolve disputes and demarcate spheres of influence. But the nationalists, the ‘hardcores’, can only negotiate with the ‘civics’ from a position of strength; they will only be able to bring the ‘civics’ to the table that way.