Wednesday, August 27, 2008

The Struggle between Nationalism & Globalization
(Part 1)

By Colin Godfrey*

The world of today is insurmountably different to the world of the past. At present people who have the technology can communicate with other people all around the globe making the issue of distance merely a physical obstacle. Vast multi-national companies use their influence to have poorer third-world governments allow them to set up factories in their countries with the promise of (cheap labour) jobs. Companies like Nike etc, create these 3rd World factory “sweat shops” for the reason that they don’t have to pay their workers as much as they would in more advanced Western nations that actually have more rights. In my opinion globalization seeks to destroy the heritage and cultures of ALL the different ethnic groups around the world. Globalization will cause us to mutate into a hodge-podge race of mongrels that wear Adidas clothing, listen to our iPods, watch MTV, eat McDonald’s and drink Starbucks coffee or Coca Cola. The language we will speak will be a bizarre mixture of Americanized English with “ghetto slang” and our writing will be dumbed-down to the level of a mobile text message (Wotz up m8? How r u?). Could this nightmare really happen? It could if we don’t try to fight back against globalization and the evils that it can introduce. It must be acknowledged that the danger of globalization doesn’t just face Nationalists who are of European decent. It affects Nationalists internationally, whether they are Asian, Arab, and African etc. Nationalism is in itself an international ideology, which can be used by ANY people to promote and defend its heritage, culture and way of life.

People from third world countries who migrate to Western nations to seek a better life for themselves and their families are a result of globalization. Partly because of globalist policies, for example how African farmers can’t afford to grow crops anymore because of United Nations bringing in food cheaper than their own crops! There is constant violence and poverty in many 3rd World nations which creates a lot of heartache and grief. They want to leave the horrible conditions they live in and seek betterment. They see on television and other forms of media how we “Westerners” live and they want to live like we do and have the higher standard of living and leisure we enjoy.

There is nothing wrong with this every human being wants to have a better life. However, it would be better to stay put and help their respective nations. But it’s not that simple if there is a great hardship (e.g. war or famine) going on is there? We need to be understanding of people who only wish to have better lives and escape the problems in their homelands. Unfortunately in the long term, all this does is drag down the new host nations they migrate to because their ability to live in an advanced Western society falters. This in turn creates social conflict and leads to racial/cultural tensions just as we see in many parts of Europe, America and Australia (e.g. the Cronulla uprising, December, 2005). It is quite pointless to blame individual migrants for wanting to live in our Western nations because we are blaming the wrong people. It is the immigration policy makers, corrupt governments, pro-immigration lobby groups, bleeding-heart liberals and big businesses that want MORE immigrants to flood into our countries for the sake of the economy. How is the economy more important than our heritage and culture?! The globalists only want more consumers and cheap labour to keep the economy going.

The minute amount of refugees we allow into our countries for the sake of humanitarian reasons is nothing compared to the hundreds of thousands of economic migrants we allow in. People get into a huge fuss about a boatload of refugees landing on our shores, when at the same time, planeload upon planeload of economic migrants are coming in. And I assure those Australians who read this article that most of those migrants would not pass the (unfortunately) now defunct White Australia Policy requirements! The immigration restriction bill, also known as the White Australia Policy should never have been made redundant in my opinion. Although, in that regard I can also sympathize with any Nationalist around the globe who wants to keep the homogeneity of their nation the way it is and free of being demographically taken over by a different ethnic group just like what happened when Kosovo become independent from Serbia.

Keeping on track, we need to realize that immigration is one of many issues that make up the problems with globalization. Nationalists from all around the world realize the problems that come with globalization.
For example the Bulgarian National Alliance believe that -

‘We, the nationalists from BNS, have adopt a course toward formation of united nationalists front against globalization, NATO, EU in its current form, corrupt Bulgarian politics, and rebirth of a traditional Bulgarian moral issues.’[1]
The continuous problems from globalization have caused quite a reactionary outcry by Nationalists over the last few decades. Douglas Kellner explains that
Missing from both Marxist and liberal models has been an understanding of how race, ethnicity, and nationalist sentiment might intersect with class to produce local, political struggles with complex causes. Indeed, from the late 1980s to the present, there has been a resurgence of nationalism, traditionalism, and religious fundamentalism alongside trends toward growing globalization. The explosion of regional, cultural, and religious differences in the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia -- as well as explosive tribal conflicts in Africa and elsewhere -- suggests that globalization and homogenization were not as deep as its proponents hoped and critics feared. Culture has thus become a new source of conflict and an important dimension of struggle between the global and the local. National cultures have produced confrontations between Serbs, Muslims, and Croats, Armenians and Azarbaijanis, Mohawk First Nation peoples and Quebecois, and in South Africa struggles between the Umkatha tribe and the African National Congress. Thus, both culture and nationalism turned out to be more enduring, deeper, and fundamental than expected and clashes between the global and local and various national cultures with each other continue in a supposedly globalized world.’[2]

Douglas Kellner is implying that no matter what the globalists try and do their will always be outcry and rebellion from different cultural and ethnic groups who are Nationalistic and want to preserve their identity and do not want to follow the destructive agenda set out through globalization.

The traditional Left selfishly believe that they somehow “own the rights” to issues such as the environment, animal rights and globalization but this is a lie they want everybody to believe. The truth is these issues affect everybody! No matter what you’re political persuasion or heritage may be. At the APEC demonstration in Sydney, September 2007, a group of New Right activists and National Anarchists also decided to make a bold statement by creating banners and doing some protesting with the rest of the march. One of the reasons this was done was to show that Nationalism is also against the scourge of globalization. As Nationalists we believe we have the only true moral right against globalization because we are concerned about our culture, heritage, and identity, while the traditional Left use globalization more as an issue for the sake of political opportunism. The deceitful “international socialists” believe that they are trying to defeat globalization, when if you actually take a historical look at Communism then you can see this was very much an ideology that wanted to enforce its views around the rest of the world (just like Islam and Capitalism does in some respect)! So these people are very hypocritical because Communism is technically a globalist/universal view! History shows that Communist machinations, of course, played a part in the Cold War after World War 2 and led to many proxy wars being fought between the U.S.A. (The Capitalists) and the Soviet Union (The Communists). Let us not believe for one second that the traditional Left doesn’t have the agenda of creating some sort of “socialist utopia” around the globe just like big-businesses want globalization to continue for creating more profits.

Once the New Right activists and National Anarchists were seen as not supporting the same Marxist-friendly views as the rest of those people organising the APEC demonstration they were ostracized and labelled the same tired old names that the traditional Left use against those they don’t agree with such as; fascists, racists and nazis. The traditional Left also had plans to commit violence against the small group of New Right activists and National Anarchists. Why? Because even though the group were against globalization the traditional Left took on the totalitarian view that because the New Right activists and National Anarchists didn’t follow similar views they must be made to feel unwelcome no matter what, because their own view must be the ONLY one. This is a very Trotskyite in nature and just goes to show that the traditional Left is ridden with contradictions and hypocrisy. One of the most obvious examples of their hypocrisy is the way some of the quasi-Anarchists had the audacity to say that the New Right activists and National Anarchists STOLE their symbols? How can any genuine Anarchist say they have the “rights” to any particular symbol? Do they have some sort of copyright? I think not! The quasi-Anarchists were merely jealous and scared of the New Right activists and National Anarchists and because they cannot argue with us on an intellectual level they have to resort to the actions of immature name-calling, taking photos and threats of violence. If they are so assured that the New Right activists and National Anarchists have no idea what they are on about and are basically trying to “steal their thunder” then why do they give us so much attention (free publicity)? All I know is that we do appreciate the fact that the quasi-Anarchists and various Communists are talking about us so much! It makes our job of self-promotion so much easier. The May Day protest in Melbourne, May 2008, also saw the same pathetic tactics by the Communists of; name-calling, swearing, threats of violence and even whinging to the police (using the state authorities they hate so much!).

The point of this article must be reiterated, globalization is an issue that affects all of us, no matter what that person’s political persuasion or heritage. Nationalists have as much right, if not more, to protest against globalization as anybody else! The traditional Left has invidiously had a strangle-hold of this issue for far too long and their grasp will now start to loosen. Historically it is well known that Nationalists win the street-battles against the traditional Left and once we are large enough this will happen again in due time. In the near future we shall see Nationalists organizing more rallies against globalization (and other issues) just like the NPD does in Germany.

As Nationalists we have an obligation to be concerned about how our country is being affected via global forces. Often massive multinational companies will take full advantage of these poorer nations by offering slave-labour jobs which pay next to nothing but the inhabitancy have no other option to accept for the sake of survival. I believe that globalization IS genocide for the simple fact that it will eventually cause us to lose our cultural and ethnic uniqueness. Multiculturalism as subscribed by The System is nothing but mono-culturalism. We will become a milieu of coffee-coloured people who have no identity or culture of our own and everything we know and love about our nation and culture will be lost to greed and consumerism.

The diversity of people will be abolished because of globalization as everything will inevitably become the same. Being proud of your heritage and culture has already become a taboo in many respects. Particularly if you are of White/European heritage because we are seen as the evil, colonial imperialists who must be “punished” for our past wrong-doings and must be wiped off the planet by those who have a global mono-culturalist agenda. Many of them have the insidious view that ONLY White/European people can be guilty of racism which is a despicable outright lie! As Nationalists it is our duty to fight against globalization and these ill-informed people. We must promote diversity, legitimacy, pride and difference between races and nations.

When it comes to combating globalization it is important to understand what it actually is and doing some in depth research on the topic. That way you can not only physically protest against globalization via demonstrations, but as a Nationalist you can also enter intelligent debate on globalization and discuss what issues concern you using a Nationalist perspective. As Nationalists we have to take out the emotion from a debate and equip ourselves with the right facts and information to discuss the issue intellectually.
Douglas Kellner argues that -

‘In a sense, there is no such thing as globalization per se. Rather the term is used as a cover concept for a heterogeneity of processes that need to be spelled out and articulated. The term is not innocent nor neutral in many of its uses and often serves to replace older discourses like "imperialism" but also "modernization." As a replacement for imperialism, it could displace focus on domination of developing countries by the overdeveloped ones, or of national and local economies by transnational corporations. Moreover, it could serve as a cover to neutralize the horrors of colonialism and could be part of a discourse of neo-imperialism that serves to obscure the continuing exploitation of much of the world by a few superpowers and giant transnational corporations, thus cloaking some of the more barbaric and destructive aspects of contemporary development.’[3]

Now this definition of globalization is one of many examples but it shows how the syntax and semantics of words can mean a number of different things and how a word can be replaced with another word so it seems either better or worse than it truly is. For example; using the word “hate speech” rather than freedom of speech because a particular individual was upset about what another person said. It is all in the eye of the beholder.

Speaking of different viewpoints, I think it is important to include not only a Nationalist point of view that is of White/European heritage but also hear what Nationalists from other races have to say. It is not supremacist to respect other cultures and races but wish for them to stay in their own separate nations and to be proud of whom we are and want to defend our way of life. Now some people would say “who cares what they think?” but that is a negative and counter-productive view that won’t allow us to learn anything new that may help us.
An Asian Nationalist by the name of John Kusumi notes that -

‘Nationalism is a way that society chose to order its affairs. As children, we learn that nations are territories, each under the leadership of its civil and/or military authorities. As territories, they have geographical boundaries, and can be found as shapes on a map. There is far more to know about nations than the simple child's understanding, as above. They are units of community and polity, each with a history and character all of its own. Just as people are unique, so too are nations, and they do have lives of their own. It should be underscored that in nations, people live there -- nations are communities. In each, we can find an economy; a society; and one or more cultures. Every nation will be found to be richly intricate and complex. Each has no shortage of angles for analysis. A nation is an intense thing, not to be trivialized or taken lightly. And -- I am convinced -- a nation is a good thing.’[4]

Now this Asian Nationalist wants to preserve the identity and way of life of his nation just like we here in Australia want to do. The only problem is that Asians do not face a mass influx of White/European immigrants flooding into their countries, for us here in Australia it is the other way around! Coincidentally, in China they have a mass influx of Indians and Pakistanis flooding into their country looking for work, which causes racial problems but this is not reported in the mainstream Western media.

As I reiterate, there is one problem that Nationalists do have in common all around the world and that is globalization. It does not matter where in the world you are the affects of globalization can be felt. In many ways globalization is the new arch-enemy of Nationalism. Forget the Communists with their tired old ways of Trotsky, Lenin and Marx. Globalists who want to destroy everything unique about your culture, heritage, society, and your whole country are now are more dangerous threat. As Nationalists here in Australia, immigration is often our number one issue that we discuss but it is mainly globalization which causes this immigration to happen in the first place!

John Kusumi acknowledges that -

‘...globalization is the antithesis of nationalism. Globalization suggests that there are no boundaries, just one globe. Globalization would put all ambassadors out of a job, because who are they? --Aren't they just people who shuttle back and forth between those nation-states, which are thought, under globalization, to be passé?’[5]

Now this is to a certain extent a trivial comment but it does make a good point that without nations we would just be a global empire run by a few enormous corporations. In a completely globalized world, we would have no sense of national pride or identity we would merely be a mongrelized mass of mindless workers who are told what to do, given emotion suppressing drugs for our “health” and constantly monitored on cameras and supervised by robotic police like in the movie THX 1138 (Directed by George Lucas), which is set in an Orwellian future. I’m not saying that this would happen, but a future with globalization paints a grim picture for all of us around the world. The path of globalization and the gloomy picture it paints for all races, especially those of European heritage, was one of the key reasons the New Right activists and National Anarchists chose the phrase “globalization is genocide!” on their banner at the APEC protest back in September, 2007.

Numerous people involved with the New Right Australia/New Zealand realise that Nationalism is an international ideology and therefore are Pan-Nationalists. Meaning they support Nationalist movements around the world. Although, we are all of White/European heritage and our primary concerns are Australia and New Zealand and those people who share the same heritage as us. We believe that the diversity and difference of White/European peoples has the right to exist just as any other racial/ethnic group and should not be inter-mixed making us all the same. This is something which long term globalization will cause and we must strenuously rebel against.

John Kusumi argues that –

‘...globalization and nationalism are like oil and water. You can have one, but not both. They are concepts in conflict. An international nature includes nations; a global nature contains some intellectual aggression against the boundaries that we draw on the globe. A robber can ask you to choose between giving up "your money or your life." Similarly, globalization requires that you choose loyalty to "your globe or your nation."Globalization threatens the identity of one and all. It tries to say to (e.g.) Americans, "you are not Americans -- rather instead, you are just the collateral consequences of corporate decisions." Likewise, it says to Chinese that you are not Chinese; to Russians, that you are not Russian; etc’.[6]

We can see from this quote that globalization eventually intends to destroy any sense of Nationalism altogether in preference to a “global community” and we become merely collateral or consumers for corporations. State authorities are told to ‘crack down’ on any political groups that dare to criticize and rebel against globalization and this is doubly so for us as Nationalists because we are seen as “hateful” and are against mass floods of immigrants pouring into our country. When the truth is we are merely proud of our heritage and want to preserve our way of life, our culture and do not want our nation to be overwhelmed by cheap labour and being irreversibly transformed from a homogenous predominately Western/European society to a hodge-podge of different races and cultures that will all be mixed into one all encompassing consumerist “mud society” with no real identity in a globalized world. Numerous anti-globalist organizations fail to see the obvious connection between globalization and immigration because they are blinded with their bleeding heart humanist views of all people being part of the “human race” rather than understanding the genuine diversity amongst peoples in the world, which acknowledges racial differences and that they are worth preserving. For argument’s sake we could even say that those who believe in everybody being part of the “human race” are therefore forsaking what it really means to be different and unique in the world and want everything to be bland and all the same. Their bizarre idea of multiculturalism will only lead to a global mono-culture.

The shadow of globalization on the world does no favours for either the Western World or the 3rd World.

As Aruni Mukherjee, an Indian Nationalist, suggests –

‘The most potent and long-lasting effect of globalization as it stands today has been on the realm of ideas that has been straitjacketed into a certain mould, which reduces options for weaker countries to devise their own solutions to the various perplexing problems that they face. For example, multinational companies often have to alter their marketing strategies according to the cultural tastes of a particular country. However, this ignores the fact that the hegemonic presence of Western brands not only homogenizes the structure of the market globally, but also creates an illusion of superiority for such products. The newfound consumer culture in China and India and the hankering for foreign goods is a good example of this tendency’.[7]

This shows a really good example of how globalization wants to impose an imperialist global hegemony over all cultures around the world and how so-called “designer brands” such as Adidas, Nike, etc are made to seem better than local brands of products. How can a particular cultural or ethnic group hold onto their identity if they believe that imported, foreign products are seemed to be far superior to the original ones they make for themselves? For example should “Australian Made” products be seen as inferior products compared to those made in China just because of a certain brand name? Why can people feel that a “brand name” means more to them than wanting to buy products that will help keep jobs in your own country? To me it is ridiculous to constantly buy things that the big multi-national companies want you to buy (who in all honesty do NOT care about you, your country or your heritage and culture!) rather than buying products that will help your people and your country. As Nationalists we need to try and think more before buying products and make sure we check where they are made and who it is that makes them and who gets the profits. It also needs to be remembered that all nations around the world are adversely affected by globalization.

As Aruni Mukherjee mentions –

‘...globalization – in its current avatar – does not offer developing countries the chance to make their own choices about major economic and political policies’.[8]
This means that globalization merely keeps 3rd World nations the way they are without developing into more technologically advanced societies, which would increase the standard of living in these countries. Therefore, the positive flow on effect would be less people from 3rd World nations wanting to migrate to Western countries such as Australia, Britain, Sweden, Italy, Germany, The Netherlands etc.

This now leads onto our prime concern in relation to globalization which is how it is interconnected with immigration. As we all know, immigration seems to be the sole concern of Australian Nationalists, especially when it comes to the threat of Asianisation. However, I would disagree and say that is one of many issues that affect all of us here in Australia. As Nationalists we need to be versatile and have knowledge about a number of different issues which include health care, education, defence, the environment, globalization, economics, as well as immigration. Now globalization, in particular, leads to many things. Not only does it harm our society with big multi-national companies being set up that merely want us to become mindless consumers but it allows these companies to lobby Western governments to have cheap labour brought into countries to help the economy of a particular nation.

The old adage of wanting workers rights but if the wage rate goes too high than greedy companies that only care about their shareholders will “pull out” to go countries that have cheaper (lower) working conditions. To combat this Western governments allow mass amounts of 3rd World people to migrate to their countries that will work for less and keep the economy successful.

The University of Iowa states that –

‘..although the creation of migration cannot be attributed to globalization, the globalization process has given rise to a new kind of immigration. Prior to the 21st century, immigration meant leaving one's home to become a member of another community. Travelling between one's homeland and a recipient country was both time-consuming and expensive. Written correspondence did not allow for people to remain current with the events in one's home country and other means of communication were relatively expensive. With advances in technology, today's immigrants can maintain ties with their home countries. Changes in technology and globalization make full assimilation into the recipient country less necessary. Several countries encourage immigrants to maintain ties with their home country by creating laws that protect property rights of absent individuals and laws that enable immigrants to be dual citizens’.[9]

From this quote we can see how globalization also allows immigrants to have dual loyalties and that assimilation is no longer required. This leads to alienation of particular ethnic and/or cultural groups who set up their own alternative societies or create ghettoes. A prime example of this here in Australia are the Chinese, Aboriginals or Muslims (of various ethnic/racial groups) who follow their own cultural rules and have separate morals and values compared to the average Australian who is of Anglo-Celtic/European background.

The major concern in relation to immigration and globalization is how a mass flood of different cultures and ethnic groups will cause the original culture and ethnic group to be made a minority in the nation that they created. The hegemony of a nation, such as Australia, will change from being predominately Anglo-Celtic/European to something which is a mongrelized amalgamation or foreign races and cultures. This result will surely happen to numerous countries, cultures and ethnic groups around the world, as globalization seeks to create a “one-world culture” and make us all global citizens (or should I say slaves of globalization?).

The University of Iowa also claims that –

‘...discussing the role of immigrants in globalization requires one to engage in two discourses: "(i) the discourse of globalization as a cultural phenomenon and (ii) the discourse of difference." In the same way that proponents of immigration argue that the integration of immigrants contributes to the diversity of a population, immigration critics argue that immigrants change the culture of the population to which they are migrating simply by bringing their own culture with them’.[10]

The question needs to be raised to those proponents of immigration that they need to realise that their misunderstood view of “diversity” may sound like a good idea (to them!) short-term but in the long run, through the influence of globalization, we will all lose that genuine diversity and become mongrels that have no unique identity. We will be a mass of “coffee-coloured” people that become a mono-cultural society that is no longer unique or diverse whatsoever!
In many ways it has been globalization and its influence of immigration that has caused animosity and friction in different societies around the world. Millions of people are migrating to start a “better life” particularly those from 3rd World countries.

As Catherine Tactaquin says –

‘…the over 150 million people in migration every year are contributing to a "demographic shift" in countries throughout the world. At the same time, globalization 's impact in migrant-receiving countries, such as in the United States or in Europe, has stirred economic uncertainties and heightened racial and anti-immigrant hostilities as predominantly white native populations seek economic security. High-tech communication, low transportation charges and boundless free trade allow the world to fuse into a single market. This also creates severe global competition even on the labour market. German businesses will only create new jobs in low-cost foreign countries. Deregulation instead of state supervision, liberalization of trade and capital transactions as well as privatization of state enterprises were the strategic weapons in the arsenal of market-fundamentalist governments and the international economic organizations supported by them, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). With these instruments, they fought a struggle for independence for capital that continues up to today. Nothing and no one should evade the law of supply and demand, whether air transport or telecommunications, banks or insurances, the construction industry, software development or the labour forces’. [11]

From this statement we can say how it doesn’t matter to the big multi-national companies if there is any racial or anti-immigrant hostility in a particular country it is about whether or not they are making profits and the economy in that particular country is successful. If a company is paying too much in wages, or costs are too high in another way, they will merely move to country where they can pay lower wages.

Why is it fair to blame “racism” for people reacting naturally to a threat to their financial security and way of life? Are the lives of immigrants worth any more than the lives of the original inhabitants who helped to create that nation, through their blood, sweat and tears in the first place? As Nationalists it is our duty to defend against those people who wish to impose harm or take advantage of our nation and in particular it seems that the globalists are the ones implementing these insidious changes.

*** I will discuss more in my second part of this article about the struggle between Nationalism and globalization. This will include the issue of how globalization can lead to the creation of a 20 – 80 society, along with what a few New Right intellectuals have to say about globalization and the thoughts of other racial Nationalists. There will also be a concluding statement about how Nationalists should tackle the issue of globalization.



*Colin Godfrey is a supporter of the New Right Australia/New Zealand and can be contacted through the NR website.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008


Report by somebody who was there with an intro by Welf Herfurth

Finally, here is a report about the National Anarchist Asia Tour 2008. The report was written by one of the participants, and it is purposely written as an eye witness account, without too many political statements. The aim of the report is to give a personal account of the trip.

One of the aims that we tried to achieve with this tour was to show the participants how the native people live. Two of the guys who came with us had never been in Asia and one can say that it was a real eye opener for them. Not only did we see the most amazing cultural sights and landscapes, but we mixed with the people as much as we could: we ate their local food, travelled in their buses and experienced the life they lead.

And by the end of the trip it was very clear to us that the people in Lao, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia have the same needs and wants as we have here in Australia, namely the need for financial security, preservation of their culture against the never-ending tsunami of American influence and the preservation of their community’s identity and survival.

From the beginning of this trip we were aware that it would cause controversy in the nationalistic and ‘lefty’ circles here in Australia. We expected that the ‘left’ would just palm the trip off as a smokescreen and the ‘right’ would ask the question, “Why would a nationalist want to visit these countries?”

Well, for the ‘left’ we have one message and that is that we believe that every culture has the right of self-determination, cultural identity and preservation of its way of life. We believe that we don’t have the right to tell them how to life and what form of political system they have to have. I know that certain elements of the ‘left’ want to change the whole world into a liberal democratic paradise and label every nation that doesn’t want to be part of this utopia a racist or fascist state. They are unable to understand that not everyone feels the same fuzzy feeling about liberal democracy as they do. This attempt of social engineering is nothing short of cultural imperialism and reminds me of the politics of the English in the old times where they tried to bring the English way of life to their colonies. And we all know how that ended up.

What the ‘left’ fails to understand that most cultures in this world have a tribal way of thinking, a way of life that is based on strong community feelings and respect for their elders. The whole concept of ‘elections’ is foreign to them and in forcing ‘Democracy’ onto them they create nothing but chaos and social suffering on these people. Just have a look at what is happening in Iraq. Nobody can tell me that liberal democracy is working for the good of the Iraqi people.

And we as members of the New Right Australia New Zealand are more than happy to visit other countries and see for ourselves how these people live and what their culture is like. We are not snobs who think that we are better than them and who try to force our way of life onto them. And as long as we are in their country, living within their community, we obey by their rules.

In return we expect nothing else when they are in our country.

Now, the reaction of the ‘right’ was everything that we expected – and more. Everything from shaking heads, wondering why one wants to visit Asia (“Why don’t you go to Cabramatta?”) and pointing out that as Australians we have the duty to holiday in our own country to pure hatred towards us. In one online forum we were called race traitors, sex tourists, naïve fools, going over to Asia for the lady boys, etc., etc. All said in some very immature and idiotic statements. But then we had to sit back and think about WHO made these statements and then we came to the conclusion that they did us a great favour in calling us these things. Why? Very simply – they displayed their ignorance by showing that they are not able to think outside their political cage; everything that is new is poison to them. It is they, through their rambling, who isolate themselves in a politically rubber-padded cell.

I had a lot of calls and e-mails from people who asked me about this Asia Tour, and so far I have not had one person who was hostile towards us after we talked about it. They might not agree with it, but each one was man/woman enough to respect our point of view. No two people agree with each other 100% and that has to be expected. To agree to disagree and work together on issues one agrees on: That is the mature approach and the only way forward.

So to all the people who called us these names, hidden behind usernames so we don’t know who they are; thank you for showing the world how ignorant and stupid you are. Thank you for proving to the world that lateral thinking is not something that you practise. I hope that you all feel warm and cosy in your Forum world that is like ‘Second Life’ to you, where you can abuse people all day long. Stay there, feel important and save the world, well the internet world anyway. As long as you stay there we in the real world don’t have to deal with brain dead people like you. And that is a good thing.

To all the people who tried to defend our tour and myself a big thank you for sticking up for us and me personally. I know that many of you don’t agree with what the New Right and National Anarchists are doing, but nevertheless you defended our right to be different. And that has to be commended.

Last but not least, I would like to thank the people who went on tour with us. Not only did we all have a great time, saw some amazing places, had lots of adventures and drank many beers, we also cemented our friendship and comradeship, and that is something that nobody can take away from us.

As for next year – yes, there will be another tour. So if you are interested, drop us a line.

Welf Herfurth
Welf Herfurth is a political activist who lives in Sydney / Australia. He was born and raised in Germany. He can be contacted on

Across South East Asia

(I went on the trip in order to see for myself how an alien culture, but of a more natural society, contrasted with the technocratic-dogmatic thinking that is enforced on my beloved homeland. I discovered how complete the imprisonment of the great masses is. May every one of my countrymen and women’s minds break free!)

After much wrangling with my local post office, my passport arrived two weeks ahead of the plane trip. I flicked through it standing outside the post office. Its cover was dark blue, made of some stiff card with a fabric face; inside was a holographic photo of myself. Of interest, and different from my previous passport, was the addition of an imbedded chip in a page towards the back, presumably holding my personal file for the benefit of the authorities. I’d like to know what is on it.

I work in a factory at a trade. My last day at work was actually a send off; I would not be coming back. Therefore I was treated by all and sundry, and made to promise to send post cards. A few chaps from the factory floor decided to spring a good natured trap and in a meat pie they gave to me, had surreptitiously inserted into the filling a chopped up chilli! However, I had been training myself for the past months to eat chilli, and the addition on one chilli improved the taste of the pie. They stood surprised as I pulled another chilli from my lunchbox and ate it raw. Then the rough fellows slapped me on the back and hooted with applause. I had impressed them.

I did not want to have to pay rent for five weeks while away, so I packed everything I owned into my car. The student accommodation where I live is easy to get, and I planned to reapply when I returned. Therefore I needed to store my possessions while away. Previously, I had sorted out to store them at a friend’s garage, and now I drove over there. Not everything could fit in the car; therefore everything I did not want to keep, various odds and ends, books and the like, I simply distributed to the other tenants or discarded. I had an interesting ride, with my car full of things, receiving many an odd look from other motorists. At one point the car’s suspension, already overburdened, bottomed out over a speed bump with an awkward grind. I gripped the wheel tightly, thinking I was stranded. Fortunately the downhill momentum carried the car over.

After returning to my residence I collected the bond from my landlord. He was happy at the state of my room, and we parted friends. Then I drove my now empty car over to Welf’s. My other comrades greeted me at the door excitedly, everyone was in high sprirts. After a while Allan said to me: ‘Look here, I’m staving. Let’s go and get a kebab’. We quietly left and drove up and got a kebab. It was our last taste of a kebab for five weeks.

That night I could not sleep much. Going overseas excites because it is seeing things one has never seen before. My mind was continually playing over what I read about or seen in photographs many times before, and I tried to imagine what it would be like once we touched down. Would it be the same? Or would it be different? This guessing kept me up for a long time. Finally I dropped off in a restless slumber.

We awoke at some time past four am. It was a clear cloudless sky: those mornings are the coldest. A cloudy morning acts as an insulating blanket. Rainy weather is even better. After a few cups of coffee we lumbered our packs into the car. Another comrade arrived. More greetings. Then we left for the station.

Here we did not intend to catch the train. The line to Sydney Airport is owned by a private company and the fare is prohibitive. It is cheaper and more reliable to catch a taxi. We selected one and got in, however at that moment its engine died. A poor start. The driver looked at us apologetically. I felt sorry for the fellow; he seemed a decent enough chap. He called for a friend over his radio to come and pick us up.

On the way to the airport we got stuck in the traffic coming through the M5 tunnel under the airport itself. This is a major bottleneck in Sydney’s traffic ring road system, especially in the mornings and afternoons during peak hours. The driver cursed and grumbled at the Government. All of us comrades laugh at the various corruptions in the NSW State Government, and incompetence with which it deals with the endless scandals when the media uncovers them. In a way I am glad that we have a corrupt government: it throws out the sham of liberal-democracy into sharp relief, something we can use in our own outreach.

The taxi pulled up at International at about seven am. We changed our money into Thai Bant, and read our last emails till touch down in Bangkok. After check in we passed into the huge shopping area that all passengers navigate. Then we went through the much vaunted airport security. This checkpoint was manned by an obese woman with three chins. She grunted at me once and I passed through the metal detector. We went straight to our plane and boarded within a few minutes.

The plane trip was uneventful. It simply felt as we had got into a tube and then got out again eight hours later – but the scenery was different. Most people watched movies or slept. My first recollection of Bangkok was a great poster of the Thai Monarch, with the slogan, ‘Long Live the King’, facing the disembarking passengers at the airport. It was literally the first thing we saw of Thailand. Presumably this was to remind newcomers or returning Thais who was boss. Not that I minded: I’d rather a king as head of State anyday, over some lacklustre politician. Not that I stand for old Lizzy though.

The reception hall at Bangkok Airport is a huge modern steel and glass hanger-like structure. We passed through customs and security without incident. After we retrieved our packs from the baggage carrousel we went outside to get a taxi to the city and a hostel. Immediately outside a heavy, smoggy, windy heat descended on us. Our shirts began to stick to our backs. Past the glass doors a large pack of tour and accommodation guides gathered; now they gathered around us, offering various deals. We selected one and hopped into a car. It was a sort of homemade taxi. To the driver’s credit the ride was smooth.

The drive to Bangkok’s Chinatown is along massive freeways and overpasses that are not ten years old. Magnificent bronze statues of traditional Thai figures adorn the side. Out beyond that lies Bangkok: a metropolis that reaches as far as the eye can see, vast and glistening and spreading. Soaring office and residential towers glint silver and white in the slanting afternoon sun against a brown smog; their number is countless, and they stretch to the horizon in all directions. Between them as a floor lies the green foliage of neighbourhood trees, like a carpet between teeth. This is the home of the common people.

From a sweeping exit we descended into the neighbourhoods of Chinatown. Here tuk tuk’s – small motorcycles with a passenger cart attached – and sedans wrestled with numerous scooters and a considerable amount of bicycles, for possession of the road space. Thais drive on the left, but that is the only similarity to Sydney. The nature of driving and road rules, or lack of, was a topic of much discussion among my comrades, and a whole treatise could probably on that subject be written.

The important point for the traveller to remember is that here drivers and riders have an uncanny unspoken understanding with one another (undoubtedly born of close folkish community), and possess a hidden capacity to adjudicate right of way among themselves with ease, in a traffic without a legally set ‘right of way’ as in Western countries. The communicate subtlety to one another their intentions: a raised eyebrow, a slight nod, a minor movement of the finger; which, owing to their slightness of motion, the average tourist misses and mistakes for an almost telepathic communication (as mentioned before, this can only come about through an intense knowledge of common ‘modes of understanding’ held only within a folkish community).

What this amounts to on the roads is that rules are often flouted, because they don’t need them. For example, off the freeways, one can forget entirely the lane markings. We learnt over the trip to trust implicitly in our drivers and riders, and their ability to judge distance and speed in often chaotic situations, as well as communicate effectively to other drivers and riders. We became confident and our earlier apprehension was dispelled. After this, riding on a motor scooter through a crowded five way intersection became a peculiar joy.

But I digress. The hotel in Chinatown was unremarkable and Western-like. We ventured out after a shower into the streets. Bangkok’s streets are always remarkable – so much living is done on them! When outside one is continually engaged by the strange smells, sounds, and exotic sights that press in on foreign senses. Every inch is occupied, yet if you need room then space is made. Sellers flogging food clutter the footpaths and lanes; tuk tuks crowd the road; cycles navigate precariously close but safely the edges of whizzing traffics. There is an order here, but it is another order: a more natural order to the West; here each man follows what his own mind thinks best – instead of what he is told is best.

This is in contrast to the West, where advertising has changed way the average man thinks: instead of what comes instinctively, what would be common sense, what is inherently logical, Western man has unnatural rules, ‘responsibilities’, technocratic dogma, fashionableness, ‘correct political attitudes’, etc., etc., to consider when confronted by a problem and in framing his solution. Mostly he applies these stipulations subconsciously, but once in a while he wonders at their illogical. Here, this attitude of mindless conformity was thrown into sharp contrast with the more logical mode and independence of thinking of the native people. Why not set up a barbecue on the street? There is room, and money to be made, so why not? Another though occurred to me. As I became gradually conscious of the enormous effect advertising has over the great masses and their thinking, I realised the enormous problem that confronts anyone who seeks to establish the forces of national resistance against the whole international movement.

And finally let no one say that modern society needs these ‘rules’ to operate: Bangkok is a modern city of over twenty millions which operates with minimal violent crime or social disturbances – and its preserves its folkish community.

The next morning we visited the famed Bangkok floating markets. The idea was to get into a motor canoe and visit numerous stalls by the side of the canal. The edged of the canals are concrete, the stalls themselves timber and reed roofs, the hawkers selling mass-produced, but locally made Thai souvenirs. It is purely a tourist market. That said, I had no problem with the outfit because the items obviously were of decent quality and made by local people.

We ended up buying little though. We left lunch and drove up to the bridge on River Kwai. One end of the bridge is a small town, with again lots of tourist wares. The planking on the bridge is rather slipshod, and many boards rattle when stepped on. We did witness a Buddhist monk being carried on the shoulders of others in a religious parade. Then we drove over to a famous cutting, the infamous ‘Hellfire Pass’, of the Japanese Thailand-Burma Railway built by forced labour during the last war. Here Allied soldiers, mainly British, Australian and New Zealanders, and Dutch, were used as forced labour by their Japanese to build the railway through the jungle, as well as numerous Chinese, Malay, and Tamil labourers. All suffered greatly under the Japanese.

It must have been a very difficult project to be labouring on. It was very remote from any major town and the lack of metal hand tools meant workers were often using sticks as makeshift digging tools. Workers were often required to work eighteen hour days in the humid climate, and this coupled with the lack of hygiene, poor health care, and small, poor quality rations, resulted in cases of cholera, dysentery, starvation, and exhaustion among the working parties. To increase production, extra strain was placed on the still healthy workers, with the Japanese using bamboo canes to beat slow workers. In the six weeks it took to cut the pass, guards beat to death sixty-eight in total, or about eleven men a week.

There is a bronze plaque dedicated to these poor souls at the beginning of the pass. Here we stood in silent contemplation of the pain that happened here years ago. Men our own age here had suffered horrible fates, maybe their ghosts lingered here still. It was a solemn moment.

On the 13th of April we spent the day browsing the bazaars and street markets of Bangkok. I brought a sturdy bracelet of Afghan make made of a silver alloy of low quality. The moist air affected the copper in the mix and slowly turned it a darken yellow in the weeks to come. I decided then to only buy four souvenirs, one from each country we visited.

That evening all agreed we were looking forwards to leaving Bangkok. The humidity was oppressive, and the air was polluted with smog. We previously had bought tickets on an overnight train to Vientiane, capital of Laos, a country to the north of Thailand.

Now we went to the grand central railway station of Bangkok from our hotel in a tuk tuk. We boarded at about 8PM, but the train left not at the 8.30PM timetable start, but instead at about 10PM – reason unknown. We shared out the bottles of beers we had brought with us and made merry. Then we were rocked us to sleep by the train, racing over the rails.

We arrived at the end of the line and crossed into Laos. Here the communist authorities and their bureaucracy became apparent: it took about an hour to cross the boarder. A tuk tuk took us into Vientiane. It was a small city and had everything in pleasing proportion. We checked into a hostel and went over to a well known venue, The Scandinavian Bakery, for lunch. Then we prepared for the Hash House Harrier ( run being held that afternoon.

It was held at a large house inside a compound on the edge of town. Like most of the runners, the host was an American from New York. We all got on fine. Then we ran the hash, through the streets, up into the poorer suburbs, out into the ramshackle slums, and along the main roads. It was great fun, and I remembered the thrill of pushing the body from my days competing in school middle distance running. Dogs yapped and barked at our heels and God knows what the locals thought of these red faced foreigners. After the run our generous host showered us with beer and conducted a hash circle, which is really a badly disguised drinking game for adults. Then, all for the grand price of US$5, we ate and drank to our hearts content at a nearby restaurant.

The next day was spent in sightseeing in Vientiane. We trawled the markets for deals on rare items back home, and for souvenirs. I bought a handsome silver dragon headed bracelet. That night we travelled north to Vanvieng in a minivan. Along the way an accident had just occurred, and a man was groaning on the ground, clutching a bloody head with his hands. He did not appear seriously injured though.

We arrived in Vanvieng past dusk. The streets had a Wild West feel. It was a free and easy atmosphere. There are a large amount of backpackers and European tourists in Vanvieng, and therefore drugs. One can order with food all sorts of concoctions.

The next day the others went tubing on a nearby river. I wandered the immense airstrip that runs through the town. Today its surface has deteriorated to a gravelly surface, and it serves a sort of large empty square. In the Vietnam War era this was the CIA’s base of operations for its ‘Air America’ service, an outfit transport aid and training to the anti-communist hill tribes. It was unlike how I’d imagined it. I had expected to see plane wrecks and mournful faces, but the people here seem to have already forgotten the war.

Vanvieng is a testament to the hedonism of today. Stoned backpackers stumble along the streets and periodically someone will fall over in a drug induced fit. This is common, and the person is simply carried to a padded bench to recover. It seemed to me like the end of the world, a denial of reality, of the future, a simple living for the moment feeling.

The day after the next we returned to Vientiane. The next morning, I left my companions and took a bus to across Laos heading for Danang in Vietnam. The bus travelled on through the night, and the music was never turned off for very long. I did not sleep for more than three hours all up.

In the pale blue dawn we stopped at a busy roadside café on the edge of a misty mountain. The coffee was Vietnamese style, condensed milk, hot dark liquid and ice. Stirring it up mixed the ingredients into a sweet and strong brew.

We went through the Vietnamese boarder at about 9AM. Because I was the only Westerner in the office I was delayed, and my passport was not approved until the last minute. However my bus passenger waited patiently, and even cheered me when I walked under the red and white boom gate.

Danang was a whistlestop. At about 2PM I quickly disembarked from the bus and found another going south almost immediately. We left Danang in record time, and this time I made certain beyond all doubt that the bus had air conditioning. Also the seats had clean fabric, not dirty lino covers. A pure luxury, in a contrast with the last twenty four hours. Not even the music would stop me from enjoying an adequate rest.

All that day and night we drove on, small fry on the roads dodging our rushing mass. In the morning we navigated through the outer suburbs of Saigon, which is still commonly called that name by locals. Once off the bus, I found a map. I correctly guessed the tourist precinct to be District 1. A local bus took me across town. Here I found in the agreed hostel a note detailing a change to another hostel around the corner. I fumbled around the long way, rejecting many offers of tuk tuks and restaurants. Finally I found it, well hidden in a back lane. The boys greeted me, and I explained my adventure on the busses.

I was in Saigon, the opulent faded jewel of France’s colonial empire. The influence could be seen in the art deco and French provincial architecture and street layout. Welf had the good luck to run into an old acquaintance from his previous trip, Johnny, an experienced local guide. Throughout our stay in Vietnam the friendliness of the local people surprised us, not least because being Australians our country had been fighting here less than thirty years ago. Perhaps the better treatment the Australians gave the Vietnamese back then, and their more professional training, accounted for some of this.
However I am inclined to venture that the natural spirit of the Vietnamese is friendly toward any stranger. A good example of this was Johnny, who insisted that we visit his home and eat there at least once. Similarly he was an honest and good natured guide we could not fault. After the day was over, and the obligation to guide these clumsy Westerners was done, still he would on his own free time insist on staying with us to help out and point out the better eating and drinking places. Undoubtable some of this was due to following shear good business acumen of not letting a customer out of site until safely in hostel, but it was hard to ascribe it entirely to this. There was a genuine and friendly side to his nature that was undeniable.

Johnny himself was a former South Vietnamese soldier in ARVN. After the war these men where barred from other professions’, and so today make up the large labouring and taxi driving class of Saigon and the South.


The next morning we visited the memorial to the Australians at Long Tan, about an hour north west of Saigon. Again the heat was oppressive. The red soil was dusty in a horrid way, getting everywhere in the car. The memorial, which is a simple concrete cross painted white, stands in an unremarkable field of rubber trees. Here we stood for a moment of sombre silence. The birds twittered in the trees above.

Here on the 18th of August 1966 a ‘D’ Company 6RAR (Australian infantry) encountered forward elements of a VC regiment. The battle developed until the VC were continually assaulting and attempting to flank the Australians, however heavy artillery from a nearby base and ammunition resupply from helicopters allowed the Australians, who where widely dispersed in excellent defensive positions, to hold them off. Also heavy rain hampered assault attempts. This situation lasted for some hours until a counter attack by another company, ‘B’, staged in APC’s drove off the attackers.

Most of the Australian soldiers fighting in both companies were in their early twenties and conscripted. The parallels to my own age were again, like Hellfire Pass, uncanny, and gave me pause for reflection.

Two hundred metres or so to the right of the cross lay the battlefield itself, a cleared patch of red soil, furrowed for planting. It is said that this is the only memorial to foreign soldiers Vietnam has permitted to be erected on its soil. I wondered why this was. We also visited the unremarkable remnants of the Australian and New Zealander Base, now dismantled and grown over.

On the 24th we travelled to Mui Ne which is a beachside town north of Saigon by four hours. It is a simple and pretty place, clean sand and water against a warm blue sky. It did not rain once.

It is often said that when things are dangerous, or unpleasant, they make good reading and can fill many pages; but that happier days, of rest and sunshine can be soon told.

We spent the days lazing about the beach or floating in the warm ocean swells. In the evenings we would gather at our favourite restaurant and feast like kings for a pittance. And at dusk the cloudless red sky gave way to a full moon, which we toasted with our drinks in the gentle surf.

But we had adventures there too. One day we hired motor scooters and rode bravely through the foreign traffic, out along a coast road to a sea of immense dunes. Here we climb for hours among the hills of sand, sliding down the steep and shear faces, to come to rest in little valleys of dune grass and old drift wood – and then climb out again. Sand got into everything, my pockets and my under clothes included.

Among the dunes lay a round blue lake, ringed with green weed, and there stood a herd of miniature ponies, grazing in the shallows. The ponies had no owners in sight and seemed free beasts. They seemed unaware of our presence, and we left them to their food.

Later that day I lent my motor scooter to another backpacker. She fell into a corner, cutting her leg in places, and was taken to a local hospital. I was roused by Allan who raced back to the hostel. I was required to bring back the motorcycles of Welf and the injured backpacker. Allan took me to hospital and in turns we got back the other bikes, riding separately back and then together to the hospital. I must admit that the speed and confidence of Allan’s riding surprised me, but I counselled myself that he was an experienced rider of many years. On the return journey’s, when I was in control, I pushed my abilities to stay with Allan, and he commended me afterward. The sheer thrill of riding a bike at high speeds along chaotic road cannot be matched, and is almost delicious in its appeal. It feels like you have cheated death. The closure of this unfortunate incident was the complete recovery of the injured backpacker.

A sad parting of ways occurred then also, with Michael starting on the long journey home. During a special midnight toast in the South China Sea we declared eternal friendship.

Then after a few days, with heavy hearts, we turned and left the Mui Ne beach and returned to Saigon. Back into the smog and dirt and bustle of the city. The day after we caught a bus bound for Phonm Penh. We arrived late in the afternoon.

Cambodia struck me immediately as being a few degrees poorer than Vietnam. My first memory after crossing the boarder was the profusion of street sellers of crisp fried insects. I am told that these are a good source of protein. Eating them undoubtable was a practice that sprung up during Pol Pots time. The people here seem more reserved than Vietnam, more irrational, more genuine.

The next day I wandered along the foreshore of the Mekong, and here was a festival taking place in a very public manner. A small public temple was surrounded and crowded with reverent Buddhists, graced with flowers and incense. Across the road a large open air market spread. The living pulse of Asia is overwhelming, the sheer unconsciousness of how the people go about their very public lives amazes. There is not the least shred of self-consciousness here.

On the 29th of April I visited the huge Russian markets; perhaps it refers to the aid this country received from the USSR at one time. There I brought a small number of the red check traditional Khmer scarves. That night we lazed about the foreign correspondents club, famous for the patronage of journalists during Pol Pot time.

The next day Allen departed. We had the now customary last drinks. Then the net morning we boarded a bus to Sinnahokville, a beach town on the south coast of Cambodia. There was nothing extremely remarkable about this place in contrast to the beach at Mui Ne. In fact I found it dirtier and more crowded. There was not much to recommend it. However it could have been we stayed in a bad area or saw the wrong beach.

After a few days here we returned to Phenon Penh and to the same guest house. Then after a night we travelled north to Siem Riep. This is a town just south of the temples of Angkor Wat, Cambodia’s best know landmark. Here Welf left to join up with his better half in an upmarket hotel. I choose a budget hostel instead. The rooms were $5 without aircon which suited me fine.


I spent the next week travelling up to Angkor Wat and wandering around their massive bulk. This place is simply amazing and if a visitor does not visit it while in Asia then they are missing an extraordinary spectacle. These mightily temples, build between 800 and 1200 AC are the remnants of a once powerful Hindu empire in this now Buddhist land. The immense carved faces stare out at one impassively, confident and incumbent in their long gone power.

The temples take most of their themes directly from the mythology of the Hindu: the complex is laid out to represent holy Mount Meru in India; the temple is dedicated to Vishnu; and the orientation is to the West, from whence the Gods originated in Hindu myths.

Impressive stone scenes are depicted in bas relief and statues adore most other structures. Here one can see the great extent of Indian - and by default Aryan - influence, on South East Asian culture. This influence does not wash over the mountain chain that divides Vietnam from Laos and Cambodia, and this has acted as a dividing line between the Indianite and Sino influenced cultures of Cambodia, Thailand, Laos and Vietnam respectively.

I left Siem Riep on the 9th of May. I took a bus to the boarder of Thailand along a highway that was in a poor state. I am told this is as an airline company is paying the government bribes to not repair the road. And thus the trip is slow and rough.

At the boarder transferred to a different bus. Thailand is a very modern efficient State, and the crossing was easy. The new bus was far more comfortable and we made good progress, arriving in Bangkok at 8.30PM.

I found the cheapest room I could (about $2) in a dormitory. Then I caught a taxi with two New Zealanders to the airport in the morning. It all went like clockwork. I meet Welf at the airport with his partner; they’d been staying on the idyllic south coast of Thailand for the better part of a week. Unfortunately it had rained a lot. However they had a happy time, including many massages and facials - Welf’s partner that is.

On the flight home I watched an old version of ‘Around the World in Eighty Days’. I was reminded that the world still holds much mystery, even now. Witnessing Asian culture shows one what is important in our own European culture.

In seeking to understand and respect other cultures, perhaps we can find some keys to building our own.

Monday, June 16, 2008


by Dennis Kastros*

This article will be examining the nationalist movement from the perspective of the New Right (and that is a metapolitical approach) and the means by which it promotes itself and the imagery and language it uses. As the imagery, language and propaganda used by a movement is the primary means by which it propagates itself, it is imperative that the manner in which any movement or ideology expresses itself can capably and efficiently invoke the desired response and create a perception of the movement in others which was initially intended. Difficulties arise because the means to achieve certain goals quite often contradict each other and there are many compromises which must be taken. For example, in order to create a message which will be reached and understood by a large number of people, a trade off often has to be made with the content of the message by omitting ideas or oversimplifying them. In order to target one particular demographic, issues may need to be addressed which may not be of as much concern to another demographic. Other conflicts can arise when there is a difference between what a particular movement wants to achieve, and with the main concerns of the general public. This often results in attempts to justify the movements aims by attempting to demonstrate how the movements primary concern tie in with the concerns of the general public. Nationalists for instance will argue that their particular style of nationalism will also result in certain economic benefits and will remove other economic and social pressures.

One example of another dichotomy and apparent contradiction is whether to promote nationalism as a reaction to contemporary problems, or as a new social and national order which is not necessarily a reaction to a particular crisis. Both these approaches have their merit and usefulness and the nature of both approaches will be further elucidated.

Reactionary nationalism

Reactionary nationalism can be loosely defined as nationalistic sentiment which has been created in response to a particular social change or crisis. It is important to differentiate between reactionary nationalistic sentiment which has arisen in response to a particular experience, and nationalistic sentiment which has always more or less existed in a dormant form but has been aroused in response to a perceived problem. These two situations, while superficially appearing similar, that is to say, both individuals have become more politically active in response to a situation, are still fundamentally different. The difference lies in the psychology of the individuals and the motivation which has spurned them to action.

Reactionary nationalism, or behaviour which appears to be nationalistic, is probably the most common form of nationalism. It is also not uncommon for such behaviour to be misconstrued as greater sense of awareness of the underlying issues which have led to a particular crisis. However such knee jerk nationalism often lacks a more solid ideological basis or a sense of belief or conviction which has arisen as a conclusion to personal enquiry. It is an emotional form of nationalism which is fueled by an almost instinctual response to protect ones interests. This is not however, the primary reason why such sentiment fails to spread to any siginificant degree or sustain itself as a long term movement. The Cronulla riots served as a good example of this, being a localised and short lived, but nevetheless explosive expression of nationalist sentiment, an uprising . A few important points need to be made about the events at Cronulla.

Firstly, the sentiment which led to the riots had been present for quite some time beforehand. There had been allegations circulating around the local area that groups of 'middle eastern youths' on the beach had asked white women wearing bikinis to "cover up", along with allegations of harassment such as spitting in food and general intimidating behaviour which had been going on for several years. It has been claimed that these alleged incidents are what prompted retaliation by locals. It was also alleged that five life guards from North Cronulla were attacked by 'youths of middle eastern origin. (1)

Secondly, the riot, although marked as 'racist' by the media, was clearly targetted at “Middle Easterners”, that is primarily Lebanese, but NOT against other races such as Asians or Indians. The targets were nationalities that were deemed as problematic and troublesome and other races seemed to have been largely ignored.

Thirdly, despite efforts by a few to the contrary, the riot was largely seen as embarrasing, disgusting and a source of national shame. While some Australians were able to identify with social issues that manifest themselves in neighbourhoods that have a Muslim Lebanese presence, for the most part they disagreed with rioters.

It should be noted that even though the riot appeared nationalistic, youths toting the Australian flag, wanting to take control of their community and turning against the liberal agenda of social pluralism and multiracial assimilation, there was still very little, if any, of a developed nationalist sentiment. Would such people who may object to race X having a presence in Australia, accept race Y because race Y is less prone to antagonistic behaviour? Would many of the rioters who express disdain about the presence of Lebanese, express the same disdain about the presence of Chinese? Would they consider Asian assimilation and intermarriage as acceptable, or even desirable? There would probably be quite heated debate on this issue. As a side note, while the term “Lebanese” is commonly used, it should be noted that there are both Christian and Muslim Lebanese. The term “Lebanese” when used in such situation like this, or with the gang rapes in Sydney implies that it refers quite specifically to Muslim Lebanese, and not to all Lebanese in general. An overlooked apsect of Cronulla was that the 'racial' friction may not have been so much due to friction between “Aussies” and “Lebs” but probably more accurately between European Christians and Muslims.

The media following the riot beat up the issue. The left attributed it to “nationalism” making the incorrect implication that ALL forms of nationalism take on this particular form and that such rioting is the natural result of any nationalistic sentiment. Quick conclusions were drawn that this was due to xenophobia, but as stated earlier, why target Lebanese specifically (Lebanese Muslims)?

Nationalism in a true sense does not necessarily take this form. Nationalism, as the idea that a country, or a state or any community should consist of a group of people more or less ethnically or racially similar, sharing more or less the same cultural heritage is quite different to 'reactionary nationalism' which may only consider this notion as a solution to the problem of troublesome foreigners, rather than as an ends in itself. A nation does not take a prescribed form, nor need to be formally defined. The etymology of the word nation implies that nation refers to ethnicity, to ancestry, and not merely to being a citizen of a particular country, or a subject to a particular monarchy.

To many who express nationalistic sentiment, the ideal of a nation respresenting a rather specific cultural and ethnic/racial group is secondary to the ideal of removing percieved problematic ethnic groups. The New Right however, hold the view that dealing with troublesome ethnic groups is secondary to securing our own nation and protecting our own cultural identity.

Much of how nationalism is perceived is due to the actions of reactionary nationalists, who are nationalists more in name than actions. Because these nationalists have used racial friction as the primary, or in some cases, the sole mechanism by which their nationalism is expressed, the media have found it all too easy to make 'nationalism' synonymous with racial intolerance and bigotry. In public discourse, it is an unwritten assumption that nationalistic behaviour is largely xenophobic and isolationist in nature. Because most people do not subscribe to such ideals, nor wish to categorise themselves in this manner, unless some siginificant crisis comes along, reactionary nationalism will continue to remain the domain of a minority.

The difference here, although subtle, is vitally important. A true nationalist movement subscribes to the core ideals of nationalism and seeks to promote the ideals, rather than what some people percieve as being necessary to beat the path towards national salvation. A true nationalistic movement is an inwards looking one. One that seeks to better the state of ones own folk, and in parallel, allow others to better run, independantly, their own nations. It is about folk running their own nation, for the expression and preservation of their own culture, their own race or ethnicity. To paraphrase the constitution, a nation by the people, FOR the people. A state which isn't detached from those which created it, but rather a state which is an expression of that unique subgroup, that unique expression of the human species which at that time and place.

Nationalism as a positive movement

There is a great deal of potential within the movement to further promote and exploit the positive aspects of nationalism. That is, those aspects of nationalism which would be appealing to the general public and which would lead to positive associations with a nationalist movement rather than negative associations.

Currently, a lot of the focus of nationalist propaganda is on either social problems, or on an impending and perhaps unjustified sense of doom. Pauline Hanson in her maiden parliamentary speech said “I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40 % of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate.” (2) While her point may have been factually valid, nevertheless this statement was one that, whether justified or not, defined the One Nation party in the eyes of Australians. The image that was created of One Nation, was that it was full of people who were xenophobic, who were full of fear and who wanted to resist change and 'social progress'. Many other nationalist parties are seen this way, at best.

A hypothetical party, which would define themselves as being a solution to the problem of ghettos, street violence and protestations and demands from immigrants would gain support from secondary nationalists who wish to resolve this problem. But for many others, a sub conscious association is made between this party and racial problems and a xenophobic attitude. If this party focused on attacking the 'other' then in turn, they portay themselves as attackers and lose appeal to those who don't hold belligerent attitudes. The party does not even need to focus on attacking the 'other', as any vaguely nationalist party will be accused by the liberal media of being xenophobic and holding racially polemic ideals. As seen with the One Nation party, the image that a party which sets out to appeal to nationalists has, and the extent of their views, as percieved by the public, is more of a construct of the media, than the party. Such a party, which might touch on issues that multiracialism brings will be made out to appear not all that different from a party which focuses on such issues and proposes drastic countermeasures. The charges that were laid against One Nation led them

Making a nationalist movement appear as a positive contribution to the existing nation is not so much a matter of taking a more 'moderate' approach but rather taking a different approach entirely. By doing so, one can help bypass the inevitable mudslinging , namecalling and distortion of truth that most nationalist parties that lean to the right must wear by not appearing to follow the same paradigms and approaches of old.

The different approach comes, not from simply changing tactics, but from a fundamental and deep seated change from within the movement. It comes, not from attacking others in a more sophisticated way, but in coming to a realisation that true nationalism is not about fighting the other, but in promoting the welfare of ones own nation. A realisation that the problems that face us, is not a simple matter of 'us vs them', but rather it is a deeper problem concerning the way people see their relationship with others, with their country, with others countries and with other cultures. It is the fundamental changes in how people see humanity and the function of the state which leads to problems that reactionary nationalists rebel against.

Why Nationalism is good

Consider the average suburbanite. Perhaps the one who is employed full time, has a house, mortgage, children and bills. Much of his time is dedicated to that job or jobs, those bills, that mortgage and the children. Perhaps there is awareness and concern of larger issues, such as the state of the Earths environment, wars, poverty but by and large, for the large majority of people, their primary expectation from those who govern them are to facilitate thier endeavours in their more immediate environment and circumstances. The idea of having organic societies, a protected cultural heritage or a nation state which exists for the people, rather than viewing the people as a resource is far removed from interest rates, petrol prices, workplace bargaining agreements or local crime. While there might be concerns which have been taken up by nationalists, why should most people care?

Living in a diverse society leads to alienation. More and more people are finding themselves in communities where their neighbours are less and less familiar. More people are living in communities which don't resemble those that they grew up in. Many Australians can remember homogenous suburbs where they grew up, where children were trusted to play on the streets and where there was little gang mentality. They can remember streets not being so crowded and jammed with cars, less competition for housing and space and the sense that there was one country, one culture. Many can remember when it would have been considered ridiculous to even entertain the notion that outward displays of Christianity or Western culture might be socially troublesome. Sure there were quite a few different European ethnicities who may not have necessarily received a red carpet introduction. Even immigrant English weren't spared, but the similarities were enough to facilitate a form of assimilation which didn't necessitate redefining the host nation. In moving away from an organic, relatively racially and culturally homogenous society, people have been asked, forced, or coerced into making more and more concessions to accommodate the social experiement that is the pluralistic state. The extent of the sacrifices that Australians have made in order to facilitate this liberal social experiment perhaps isn't clearly understood and could be one of the underlying reasons why the program of continued multiracialism, individualisation and economisation of the country is continuing unabated. Younger people may not even be able to remember back far enough to have a solid frame of reference as to how much Australia, and Western nations have changed since liberalism has taken root.

Despite the overall acceptance of the direction that the western world is heading, and the opposition and criticism that the New Right or National Anarchists might receive, there is nevertheless still an undercurrent of dissatisfaction and a desire to return to simpler times that still exists. It seems that it is the younger generation who are becoming more politically incorrect in their outlook rather than the older ones. Rebellion still exists, but rather than rebellion against conservatism as witnessed in the 1960's, it is a rebellion against something different entirely, against ideas perpertrated by the original revolutionaries. Unlike the 1960's where people didn't live in the societies that they were advocating, people today, who are living with the results of liberalism hold a sense of dissatisfaction with it. Despite education, indoctrination, the Politically Correct thought police and other influences, there still is a strong sense of scepticism about it all. It seems that many natural tendancies, desires and wishes cannot be eradicated or indoctrinated out of people. Even those who cannot remember a time before oppressive Political Correctness, are still capable of sensing the social injustice it involves and the double standards. Nature always triumphs in the end.

A nationalist movement which wants to put forward a positive image, doesn't necessarily have to avoid any mention of gang violence or ethnic marginalisation. It can make references to these, but it shouldn't project itself as existing merely for the purposes of dealing with these issues. It shouldn't do so, because a true nationalist movement simply wouldn't exist primarily for these purposes in the first place. It would be more productive to put forward positive imagery, to project the same goals and desires as everyone else. For instance, rather then focus on the problems of certain groups within certain suburbs, it would be more productive to convey the notion of a suburb which is peaceful, where everyone looks like they belong there and feel as if they are home. A society where there is no need to be careful of what one says, or be careful of expressing ones culture. One where everyone is able to understand and connect with others, having knowledge of the same national history and being aware of cultural nuances. It is hard for anyone to argue against such a society or such a goal. Other positives would be a sense of ownership over ones nation. Rather than being an citizen who must deal with the wishes of those who take it upon themselves to engineer the nation, being a citizen who has a sense of ownership over their own community and nation. A country owned by Australians and being run on behalf of Australians, rather than the situation as it is today, a nation run by the incumbent government for it's own interests, the interests of big business and of pressure groups. Most people do not necessarily endorse this situation, but they must be made aware that it does not have to be so.

Putting a positive spin on nationalism isn't just about avoiding criticism and creating touchy feel good policies, but in also altering the perception that people have of nationalism at a more subconscious level. One propaganda technique used quite frequently by the media, is to create subconscious connections in peoples minds between two unrelated objects or emotions. For instance, 'nationalists' are often depicted in conjunction with overt displays of assertiveness, stubborness and in a manner which make them appear reactionary, unthinking and simple minded intolerant bigots. Even though there is no solid argument to the accusations, the repeated exposure to the name or image of the particular party or group in conjuction with exposure to images and concepts which make people uncomfortable creates an almost pavlovial response. For instance, SBS news had a segment on an anti immigration protest in Moscow, mostly attented by your average citizen, many middle aged and older. This segment was followed seamlessly and without breaking stride at all, into an unrelated story on neo-nazis in Russia. Do this repeatedly, and the viewer then associates one with the other, even though there is no direct link between the two. In a similar manner, newspaper stories regarding the September 11 attacks would often include within the article a paragraph or two on Iraq about some unrelated issue. When party X always puts out leaflets which predict doom and gloom, social upheaval and worst case scenarios, despite the legitimacy of the argument, party X will be viewed through the lens it has created. It's policies, it ideologies will be distorted by the very image and associations it has created for itself. It is the context of the message, rather than the message itself which will determine what kind of people are drawn to it. The image one project of oneself, gives others the prism which they will see you through with.

Positive nationalism is about creating positive connections. Rather than always putting forward ideas which seem confrontational and uncomfortable, positive images should be put out. When people think of the New Right, they should automatically associate NR or NA with positive thoughts and desires, which in turn leads to a positive opinion of the New Right. Doing so associates one with more nostalgic images and gives people legitimate reason to support the party or movement. A movement which seeks to create and bring about that which people wish for, that which makes people more comfortable and content, will enjoy greater support than a movement which does not offer anything like this.

A movement which focuses on the positives of organic, homogenous societies, and the benefits that this kind of society will bring about for people and their children will resonate more with the general population than a movement which is frantic and whose message is dire. One which is incapable of eloquently describing a more inclusive society which uplifts people and offers a more meaningful existance will have little recourse to defend itself when attacked as being extermists and fringe dwellers.

The BNP have enjoyed success with their efforts to get involved in the local community, and take care of issues that the government has neglected. While there is little strategic value in the outcome of the work, the BNP are working towards portraying themselves as people dedicated to the community, who do not ignore the little man and who understand peoples concerns. Community events hosted by the BNP not only bring people together, but also keep alive the spirit of community and of ones belonging to that community. Despite what the BNP actually stand for, their precense at such events creates a positive link in peoples mind. When they think of family events and community action they will think of the BNP, and as such will think of community, family events and political party people who listen and care when they think of the BNP.

This strategy seems to have has some success. When the RSPCA office in Chippenham Road in Harold Hill was closed, local residents turned to the British National Party to ask for help. A deputation approached Mark Logan, the BNP councillor for Gooshays ward on Havering Council, and asked him if he could do anything to get the office opened again. (3) Having demonstrated their political capabilities and proven themselves as positive nationalists, residents disenchanted with the system have recognised the BNP as a real, and more importantly, viable alternative as a party and as a local action group.

This also offers a degree of protection against criticism from opponents. One can oppose a catalogue of policies and ideals, but when those ideals resonate with people, it becomes much harder to offer constructive criticism. Political Correctness has relied on this in order to stifle any opposition. By simply claiming to be against intolerance, hate, violence, bigotry and injustice, rather than extolling the virtues of social marxism, it has given itself a great deal of immunity to opposition. How, after all, can one rationally put forward an objection to fighting intolerance, racial hatred and genocide? If they were to argue that society should adopt Marxist ideals and the destruction of national identity, it leaves the door open for constructive criticism and legitimate opposition. But by framing their agenda in terms of 'fighting hatred', by showing images of oppressed, delicate and downtrodden blacks, by being for abstract ideals which are almost universally desired, it has been able to silence opposition by simple stating that they are for bigotry, violence and hatred. By linking national identity with hatred, racial intolerance and facism, people became much more receptive to attacks in national identity, as nationalism was now seen as a barrier towards tolerance and harmony around the world. Of course, this is not true, and is miles away from the real issue, but nevertheless is highlights how people attach to the sentiments that a movement expresses, rather than the political and ideological details. Most people who accept modern democratic liberal states do it, not because of some deep understanding of the philosophy behind it, but because they associate multicultural liberal democracies with ideals like 'tolerance', 'freedom', 'understanding of other cultures'.

One does not have to oppose 'tolerance', 'freedom', or 'understanding of other cultures' when advocating a nationalist state, but merely demonstrate how they are more tolerant, offer more freedom and more respect for other cultures than modern day liberalism. It serves little purpose to put down 'left wing' ideals as feel good do-gooderism because most people actually DO want to feel good and to do good, and there is nothing wrong with that if done thoughfully. It serves little purpose to criticise opponents as being bleeding heart softies because most people DO have a sense of compassion. This approach finds a limited audience.

Positive nationalism isn't about criticising the motives of those who seek to better get along with other cultures and end ethnic conflict, but rather in taking those concerns, recognising them and channeling them into a movement which is better suited to these ends. For instance, one who supports the plight of the Tibetans might be shrugged off as a 'bleeding heart' and cast aside by the more traditional right wingers. Positive nationalism is about reaffirming that idea that cultures and peoples have the right to self determination and applying it to ALL peoples, INCLUDING those of European descent. Not only should the Tibetans have a right to a nation where they can practice their own culture and not be outpopulated by others, but even YOU should live as they do, in a more organic, cultured society. Parallels can be drawn and just as the Tibetans wish for their own identity to be preserved, this sense of belonging and identity should be encouraged in others. After all, a nationalist is a nationalist, and one who carries out a similar struggle elsewhere is an ally and not a foe simply because they are not part of our nation.

Someone who says “Muslims Out!” can be opposed very easily. Someone who is arguing that the nation should be run by the people, for the people and that the people should be able to practice their own culture and preserve their own identity will encounter much less opposition. That is not to say they will encounter none, as there will always be opposition from political fringes. If like the BNP people within a movement are setting up community events, helping the public and taking care of peoples concerns, it becomes much more difficult for people to oppose the group or movement and still stay on side. After all, if the movement is positive, seems beneficial and is offering much to you and your children, then you are less likely to take opposition to it seriously or consider them as being legitimately interested in you.

One has to ask themselves the question how one can be a nationalist and oppose other cultures and races. Nationalism is an international affair, an idea which isn't specific to one nation, but represents an ordering of all nations. True nationalism can not exist in isolation, as an island amongst countries with differing and possibly hostile ideologies.

A positive and productive force

Framing New Right ideals in a manner which seem attractive to the general public and difficult to oppose without seeming negative and heartless is more of a political strategy than a new direction for the movement. Only a movement which truly represents and believes in it's own ideology can be successful in carrying that movement forward. Liberalism has its own ideological foundation which to most people would appear dry, academic, irrelevant. But it also has its public face, it's public espression of its ideals which are big on sentiment and short on rationale. It is because of this sentiment that Political Correctness and liberalism has become so ingrained in the psyche of many people. This strategy was it's key to success, just like many other movement before it. Nationalist movements, whether it is the New Right or National Anarchism need to present themselves to the general public not as a set of ideologies and philosophies, but rather as a positive and productive force which carries with it promise for the improvement of the nation and of the state of affairs in general. It is an important strategy, and one that is necessary in creating a grassroots movement whose ideas spread and are adopted en masse. It is a strategy that can only be successfully carried out with a deep seated conviction and acceptance of a more positive nationalism.

The New Right/National Anarchists have not only attended demos, but held community days, supported resident action groups and some NR/NA activists are members of the SES and the volunteer fire brigade, assisting the community in a positive and tangible way.

A movement must inspire hope, have vision of something better and some means by which to attain it, rather than have merely negative visions of the future which the movement is supposedly working to avoid. It must be productive, creative, novel, inspiring and appeal to peoples base instincts and wishes. A nationalist movement must convey the image of the type of nation that it seeks to create, and present this image to people as a better alternative. It must not denounce liberalism for appealing to base instincts, but rather out-do liberalism by showing itself as being even MORE tolerant, respectful of cultures. It must show how it is more about protecting culture than those who claim to respect culture. Not only do we think that all peoples have their right to live in their own autonomous states free from global assimilation, but we extend this to ourselves, a concept that one is hardpressed to oppose without coming across as a hypocrit. Not only do we oppose the outpopulation of Tibetans, or the disappearance of cultures around the world due to global corporatism, but we oppose outpopulation of anyone ANYWHERE, or the dehumanising sterile economisation of ANY society ANYWHERE. Many other who preach tolerance and respect for other cultures however, have no issue in Western peoples being marginalised or having their racial and ethnic heritage lost to a globalist agenda. Carefully done, the New Right and National Anarchists can demonstrate that they hold up ideals of tolerance and a respect fo human diversity to a greater degree of integrity than those who claim to be champions of tolerance and diversity. This isn't about trying to be more pious than the pope, but in putting forward a movement which is far truer to these goals than the movement which has become the status quo, which is replete with hypocrisy, double standards and supremacism.

The New Right attended the torch relay in Canberra carrying a banner bearing the slogan “We are all Tibetans”. The New Right attended, not as nationalists purely acting in the interests of their own nation, but as nationalists supporting the very ideals of nationalist. The plight the Tibetans face, facing “ethnic seeding” by Han Chinese mirrors that of the Western world, where the changing demography is used as a hammer blow against western nations and western culture. Nationalists in Tibet, fighting to secure their own culture and ethnic heritage, are carrying out a struggle which parallels those of westerners fighting to secure their own culture and heritage. Such nationalists are not rivals, or natural opponents, but rather allies fighting against the same homogenising, globalist agenda.


Positive nationalism, that is, a nationalist movement which put forward positive ideals and offers carrots rather than extolling the virtues of using the stick is a vital strategy in the efforts of propagating a grassroots movement. By putting forward flyers, posters and writings which offer better, more desirable alternatives and by taking part in activism which has clear and visible benefits, one can create an association between the movement and positive thoughts and feelings in the minds of others. Rather than being associated with fear, doom and conflict, one can build associations in the minds of others between their movement and more positive thoughts and outcomes. This will colour peoples view of the movement and of the people who take part in the movement. The people who take part in the movement will not be seen as reactionary troublemakers, but as enlightened, thoughtful and positive individuals who are in touch with peoples desires, their concerns and wishes.

It must come, not from merely a change in propaganda but through and honest desire to fulfill this form of nationalism. Those who wish to promote such a form of nationalism, must themselves become such nationalists.

A simple example would be defending the rights of people to express Christmas greetings rather than immediately jumping on minorities as the reason that displays of Christianity are kept sedate. While one cannot tackle the issue of the emerging taboo of saying “Merry Christmas” without addressing how multiculturalism has lead to the problem, the focus nevertheless should be on what the solution would lead to, rather than the problem. No one would have ever thought in the 50's or 60's that a little extra tolerance of the changes brought about by liberalism would lead to many suburbs changing their demographically so drastically, or entire suburbs or even cities having a natural born Australians being the minority. But nevertheless, this is the case because people accepted the premise and therefore accepted the movement, even though there was never a clear understanding of what was really being tried to achive. Likewise, even though many in the movement remain sceptical, and rightly so about peoples acceptance of what the New Right or National Anarchism might need to do to implement it's ideals. The first step must still be taken, and that first step is the acceptance of what NR/NA stands for. For many people, that do not accept the New Right because they do not understand what it is about. NA/NR is metapolitical, it is neither right nor left, but rather, it challenges established political dogmas. When people have accepted and embraced what a movment stands for, and what it is trying to achieve, the political climate then changes, and the implementation of those changes, which might have seemed impossible before, can now take place.

(1) BBC TV channel 2 UK television program "This World", 7.00 to 7.30 pm, Thursday 14 June 2007

*Dennis Kastro is a new contributor to the New Right Australia / New Zealand website. He can be contacted through