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