No Tricking, No Treating: The ‘Populist Temptation’ And Nationalist Alternative

This is an article by some Australia First people commenting on a post by the Australian Nationalist Alternative. To understand the reply by Australia First, please read the article by Nationalist Alternative first (http://natalt.org/2010/02/26/breaking-the-bundesrepublik-the-bnp-populism-and-the-denazification-strategy/).

Now, as a German, my criticism regarding the original article and the reply is that the neither of them actually quantify what the so-called ‘Nazis’ in today’s modern German nationalists movements are.

It is rather easy, and lets be honest a desired effect by the system, to label a group or people with a word that is designed to evoke fear and hatred within the general political uneducated population. However, for people and groups that claim to be politically on the nationalistic side (what ever that means) and without hesitation use the same language and phrases as the totalitarian Antifa and the liberal democratic media, one has to wonder where they are coming from.

The words ‘Nazi’, Racist’, ect are just ….. words. Their intentions is, by the system, to label people and groups as undesirables, white trash, etc. and generally stop the ‘democratic’ community listening what ‘these undesirables’ have to say, kind of a ‘liberal democratic apartheid’.

I really don’t want to comment too much on both articles. I don’t believe that the suggestions and methods proposed by the article posted by the Nationalist Alternative are a solution to the problem that exists in the so called ‘nationalistic’ parties in Europe. Let’s be honest, most political nationalistic parties are only interested in political power and will bend whatever way it takes so they will get elected. Just look at the BNP in England, and what have they achieved since they are in the EU parliament?

You might knock the NPD as much as they want, but they are one of the longest surviving nationalistic parties in Europe. And if they have ‘Nazis’ in their midst, so who really cares? ‘Nazis’ are human beings too and part of our society; they have their believes, they work, pay taxes and drink tea. Some of them are even vegetarians and do not like German folk music.

As long as political groups and parties exclude people, because of whatever they are labeled to be, from the political processes of a society, the system nothing but a totalitarian entity – whatever they call themselves. As long as labels are more important in today’s political environment then discussing political and social issues without any prejudice, we are failed to go down the path that the system sets for us.

And if one thinks that today’s western liberal democracy is a fair and honest form of government, that is like claiming the catholic church a revolutionary anti-dogmatic society. But then some people are feeling rather warm and cozy in a dogmatic nightmare of self destruction……

Welf Herfurth



No Tricking, No Treating: The ‘Populist Temptation’ And Nationalist Alternative.

This article has been composed by three nationalists, all members of Australia First.


Nationalist Alternative has published an important article. Entitled “Breaking The Bundesrepublik: The BNP, Populism And The Denazification Strategy”, it purports to be a piece commissioned by a member of the British National Party (BNP) for circulation in the German nationalist movement. The stated aim of the article is to encourage a debate that may cause the German movement to adopt a new ‘populist’ strategy based on the experience of the BNP. It was a rather bold proposition that the National Democratic Party (NPD) and let us not also forget too, the German People’s Union (DVU) - might change line.

The article has another significance. Of itself, it is the quintessential statement of a position that has emerged within the broad nationalist community over the last half-decade in Australia.

It is the line that encourages nationalists to adopt key elements of liberal-democratic ideology and politics, to abandon ideology and politics traditionally associated with nationalism and to take a line of least resistance towards the achievement of ‘power’. This line entails the adoption of a number of inter-related things: anti Islamism and a pro Zionist foreign policy as mobilizing and normalizing tools; a mainstreaming plan (that causes the party to purge people or ideas as might ‘jar’ with the mainstream mass); a ‘populism’ that pits common folk against the elite, but which does not challenge the state power; an electoralist method with a pseudo charismatic ‘leader’ who seeks power inside a new consensus of civic patriotism; an acceptance of the liberal democratic order in the realm of business organization and moral principles (ie. it accepts the fundamentals of capitalism and the personalist lifestyle-ism of our society ).

Nationalists have said that this line revises nationalist ideology. It must therefore kill off our politics, since essentially we are expected to merge the forces of nationalism into a new popular ‘freedom’ movement which will trick the enemy inside the fortress of state power into ceding us the governmental power - because we have received enough votes and do not challenge core liberal state ideals.

We have used elsewhere terms like ideological revisionism and political opportunism to characterize this new ‘movement’ of thought and action.

Nationalist Alternative gives a disclaimer. It says that some of this ‘line’ may not apply to Australia, where Asianisation not Islamification (as per Europe) is the main danger to European culture etc. It warns (correctly) that some groups which have adopted a pro Israel line seem to end up as “civic patriots” who cannot oppose the multiracialisation of our Euro-societies. WE wonder why? It also hypothesizes that the Zionist apparatus is not happy with nationalism generally – and they are right.

But they say they are “contributing to Australian nationalist thought and free speech” by publishing the article.

Australia First does not accept that is the effect of the article, nor can we accept that our comrades are naïve. Certainly it makes it look, disclaimer or no disclaimer, that Nationalist Alternative is willing to entertain this line.

For our part, we say that one does not engage in free speech with those inside the broad Australian movement who have operated diligently for perhaps 5 years now (maybe longer?) - to first silently and then openly and rancorously, overturn nationalist principles. To give them air, to not repudiate them openly, is to spread their poison. This also threatens Nationalist Alternative.

In Nationalist Alternative’s case, we note that the organization contains genuine persons who have conducted proper and very useful campaigns – on overseas students, internet freedom and so on. However, it is equally true that Nationalist Alternative finds itself in the awkward spot of endorsing Nationalist Autonomism, a position that places it in the vortex of community action politics and ideological-cultural politics, without it practicing the third part of the three tier method – the electoral and open mass politics. (End Note: see definition of ‘three tier method) It is in one sense, in the shadows, which can be a strength for a direct action group. The autonomist movement has considerable freedom of action, precisely because it operates only one or two of the ‘tiers’ of struggle.

As is the case in most of the European countries, this very significant and politically useful dynamic movement (which Nationalist Alternative clearly wishes to emulate), usually lines up in one way or another with one of the nationalist parties – National Democrats, Social Movement, National Front, Golden Dawn etc., which practice the three tiers method. The existence of autonomist groups outside of the parties often sharpens them and can help define them. The autonomist group then positions itself in a broad front, such that all may move forward in tandem, but all sides maintaining their organizational independence.

Unfortunately, in the Australian case, this whole notion is problematical. It is well known that the Australian nationalist movement suffered a particular ‘split’ in 2006-7. The revisionists and opportunists broke away from nationalism. They set out to take over the former Australia First Party (AFP) and when that failed, they endeavoured to split it, disintegrate it and then after severe damage was done, they constituted their own organization. This became the Australian Protectionist Party (APP) and it declared itself in solidarity with the BNP and its line. Genuine nationalists were ultimately forced to reconstitute Australia First in a new form. They placed Nationalist ideology in command of the party and have rebuilt and expanded it. They repudiated the opportunist position openly.

Nationalist Alternative’s choices for political-party alliances (if they consider they are ‘obliged’ to make them by the general dictates of the autonomist strategy) come down to building arrangements with either AFP or APP. Hence it is necessary for Nationalist Alternative to examine its trajectory.

From the position of Australia First, there is not the slightest intention of using such an in-tandem-alliance (if it were ultimately constituted) to acquire organizational leverage over the NA comrades. Quite the contrary. That could hardly serve our advance in a united front, or represent the three tiers method in motion. We cannot speak for APP, whose mercurial qualities we have long observed and hence we would expect only chicanery on their part. Backstabbers and plotters seldom change their colours and it is well known they conceive Nationalist Alternative as a useful conduit, whereby they can talk nationalism when it suits them - and practice opportunist politics the remainder of the time.

Some people may say that the article was indicative of a foot in both camps. We do not say that to be unnecessarily disrespectful. That is the intelligence we have picked up. The opportunists are ‘nice people’ who have attempted to cultivate contacts with various groups including Nationalist Alternative and the fair-minded tone of Nationalist Alternative is such that a ruthless break with their falsity could be difficult to perform.

For our part, we will critique this piece. In doing so, we trust it will become simpler for Nationalist Alternative to repudiate the false ideology and practice of the Australian traitors to nationalism and uphold their own integrity and the quality of their commitment.

We shall not deal with every part of the article, only those bits that have relevance to our case.


The Red Herring Of Nazism
The author says at different points:

“Here I shall be advocating a broad range of strategies denazification, radical right-wing populism, an acceptance of liberal democracy, the use of certain safe national symbols, a new nationalism, which are used, with great success, by the British National Party”.

The line of the “…. BNP (and the Danish Peoples Party, the Swiss People’s Party, the Dutch Freedom Party and other radical right-wing populist European parties of that type) will work in the circumstances of Germany today.”
The author correctly equates the BNP with these other parties. They are certainly not nationalist parties as he seems to agree and the open honesty is refreshing. That is an important concession.

It is not a question of whether a line will apparently work. It is a question of who follows the line and what they want from it. Are the leaders of these forces – and much of their clientele – people who advance a nationalist agenda? Why should leadership be surrendered to them? Simply because it seems they can amass a larger political audience? And what is the quality of this audience?

Significantly, the author gives the red herring of Nazism as the reason to pass them the leadership.

It is put that the modern German nationalist movement is, in open and other ways, tainted by Nazism. This ‘Nazism’ is defined very broadly – as certain symbols (and not swastikas either) which are employed in demonstrations, as arguments about the legitimacy of the German State deriving as it did from the partition and occupation of the country in 1945, as opposition to Israeli state policies and Zionism , as the public image of intolerance of immigrants. It is put that these are the things that drive the public away, the very things the successful BNP has ‘repudiated’, the things the German movement must dump. The movement does not wish to be seen as “Nazi”, so it must change.

But are the things under examination indicative of Nazism? We do not accept that as we shall explain

Rather, it seems that a strawman-Nazism has been built and it is sought to knock it down. The trouble is that the edifice falls with it.


What Replaces The ‘Nazism’?
The author writes:

“This article proposes a new German nationalism. The elements of this nationalism are: populism; anti-Islamism and an attack on the Left for letting immigration and totalitarian Islam get out of hand; nostalgia for the good old days of culture, morals and fashions of the 1950s and 1960s, and the German economic miracle; a championing of such past German liberal democratic figures as Stresemann, Adenauer and the men of the Reichsbanner Schwarze-Rot-Geld; and definitely no references, especially visual references, to the Third Reich and German National Socialism.”

Again, the false references to Nazism.

The strawman-demon of Nazism is replaced in this new system of thought with the ideology of German subservience to the politics of post 1945 consumer capitalism and the imperialism of the Washington regime (which was first predicated upon the existence of the then Soviet imperialism – as it offered ‘protection’).

Certainly, on one level, the morals and norms of 1950’s and 1960’s Germany may have been straighter and cleaner than those of the present. But were they ideal? Were they ideal, even if some people imagine they were? It is one thing to refer to a cleaner country. It is another to say that the country and its culture and morals, based as they were upon suburban capitalist disinterest in politics etc, upon the consumer world view, were good.

Now it is a fact that the German regime relies upon the images of fascism and the defeat of fascism, to prove its moral power and value. But who said that the rehabilitation of fascism is a project which should be undertaken and further, actually is one which undermines that order? Even if the rehabilitation of fascism was the goal of the German nationalists, could they calculate upon it having that result? It is rather the delegitimisation of the order that relies upon its construction of fascism, which is the point of the German nationalists. The German nationalists look at how the regime’s immorality and illegitimacy rests upon a tendentious ‘virtue’. The German nationalists and major intellectuals, such as Horst Mahler and the New Right Thule group, have relativised the sins of fascism against the sins of the New World Order imperialism and its earlier manifestation in American imperialism. They have attacked the liberal-democratic ‘myth’ that it was fascism and then Marxism which were of themselves so evil – that they justify the creation of a global system of pure evil. If there are any forces in Germany today which seek to play at fascism, which seek to rehabilitate it per se, they are not the main blocs of German nationalism.

The article agrees that the German state was also imposed by terror over its citizens. To develop an amnesia over a fact is to concede to the historical validity of the state. Indeed, this is what the article precisely suggests should be done. In our view, this is defeat before the fight is fought. If the state is legitimate, it cannot be fought.

Every ‘revolutionary’ system of thought must delegitimize its opponent. Could the (obnoxious) IRA have gone to war (sic) if it failed to accept its Army Council was nothing other than the legitimate government of Ireland? Was it not the logic of the American Declaration of Independence that Britain’s right to govern their colonies had been abrogated by its policies? The German nationalists have a hard task, something of which is (admittedly) a product of hysterical history – of liberal mythmaking. Do they throw away a crucial weapon – their theory of the illegitimacy of the German state?


Buying The Historical Basis Of The Regime
The acceptance of the legitimacy of the German state runs all through the article.

Once accepted, the argument is then put that the Eastern strategy of the NPD and other nationalists (which has seen nationalism take root in the former East German areas) should be repudiated. It is precisely here that German nationalism has achieved the greatest success, winning seats in State parliaments, council seats and in establishing wide social-cultural networks. It might be held that this success was due to two things: a recognition of the poverty of Marxist-Leninist ideology to represent working class interests, but an appreciation of its paradox – that it was East Germany that was more ‘German’ than the Americanised ‘West”.

The article says:

“Nationalism has to have, of course, a positive component. What should that component be in German nationalism? The answer is: nostalgia for the good old days of the West German Bundesrepublik an equivalent of the nostalgia, called Ost Nostalgie, or Ostalgie”

Once the Eastern strategy is decried, we read:

“Imagine the tremendous shock it would cause if German nationalists were to declare that liberal democratic bores of Germany’s past, such as Konrad Adenauer and Gustav Stresemann, were the true embodiments of the modern German nationalist ideal. Adenauer’s Germany had no Muslims! Neither did Stresemann’s… That’s what we nationalists want. The liberal democratic Weimar paramilitary, the Reichsbanner Schwartz-Rot-Gold , could be rehabilitated: not brought back to life, of course (that would be illegal), but held up as heroes, brave fighters for liberal democracy who took their fight to the streets.”

The liberal democrats (even in the days of the Weimar Republic) may have been “bores”, but they were creatures who understood nothing of German nationalism. To say that they did, would be to reconstruct historical fact in a manner even Stalin could not have achieved. The liberal ideology leads to the acceptance of the European Union and the Atlanticist direction of that Union – it does not lead to any defence of German identity. It cannot do so. The liberals’ definition of German identity may be a winning football team or a ‘Made in Germany’ sticker on a product. None of that impels a deep defence of Gemanism.

The trick? There were no Moslems in these liberal utopias of yesteryear and liberals will see that and wish to ‘return’ to their golden age. Big deal! Yet, we recall it was these very liberals in the “good old days” who brought in the Turkish guest workers and who opened Germany to Third World immigration of all sorts, directly to sustain the so-called economic miracle! If forty years later, the system bites the good liberal German bourgeois on his arse – it hardly commends praising the regime. These bourgeois may decide to rebel (a factor that must be taken into account), but they only seek a return to the status quo ante. They certainly seek no radical project for the remaking of Germany. Yet, the article assures us the liberals are being tricked to move in this supposedly worthy direction.

Can this proposed new line get any worse?


And Now, The Garbage Society Is Good!
Unfortunately, yes it does get worse! The article says:

“Many Far Right populist groups attack Islamic immigration, not on racial grounds (although, of course, they in reality oppose Islamic immigration on racial and cultural grounds), but on the basis that Muslims do not respect Western liberal values, the values of a free society. They thereby manage to borrow the language of Western liberalism and use it against the Western liberal democratic politicians who have brought millions of Muslims into Europe..”

Yes, but do these populists (sic) really oppose Islamic immigration on any sort of ethnic preference grounds? Have you deceived yourself? And then:

“A populist agitator could easily stir up the passions of the German people by painting a picture of a future Germany where nudism and scanty dress are banned, and beer houses are shut down.”
Yes, yes. It is necessary to divide one’s enemies. If a feminist abortionist dislikes Moslems, well and good, but we may have reservations about her own peculiar ethos. We can understand why nudists might object to them, even if we do not embrace (sic) nudism. The homosexual lobby may have objections too against public lewdness being targeted by fundamentalist moralists. Let alone most folks who enjoy some alcohol in their lives who would find the Koran’s ethos difficult in the extreme. And of course, the subtle and sometimes sexual way European women dress (which does follow to some extent at least in the Indo European tradition) could not please a devout Moslem, given he publicly wraps his partner in a sheet. If Australia’s case is any sad example of such Muslim modesty – it only encouraged violent rapes.

However, defending Western liberal values has a real down-side. Certainly, we may be able to take occasional advantage of liberal discontent with the practises of an alien group. We could write a book about the tactics involved in mobilizing liberals, but we prefer to paste in a few lines from elsewhere:

“Imagine you want to get elected MP for East Sydney. You know it’s full of gays and lesbians, so a nationalist party is just not electable. So you let it be known that Islamics don’t favour butt-pumping and lesbian tongue-ins. You say that it was Aussie soldiers fought for liberal freedom to live as you choose. You have a wife and kids, but you let yourself be photographed cuddling a leather man in solidarity against unfair targeting by Mid-East crime gangs.. You send your kids to a lesbian run day care centre so they can learn about two-mummy families and test tube gay babies. So you are using the enemy’s weapons against him. You let it be known you will legislate for Gay and Lesbian Marriage and civil rights because it’s clever, builds a new base and keeps the mad mullahs out. Parts of Oxford Street sign up into the new party. You get elected. Who are you elected for? What can you do? And when you tear off the smiling mask and say “I was a nationalist all the way along. Ha ha. Trick on you.” – how far can you really run?

We stand on that. In other words, the ‘populist technique’ has serious limitations. It could only create a party of contradictions.


A Psychological Trick: It’s All Your Fault
The attack made upon the German nationalists extends to their psychological makeup:

“All of this is obvious, but the German nationalist lives in a world of cognitive dissonance, i.e., an unwillingness to see the facts as they are). Most of the problem lies in the fact that the German nationalist today is unable, or unwilling, to recognize the political realities of the present, and work with them and adapt them to his purpose.”

It is put out that the German nationalists are in fact – sectarian. They move in a limited world. They cannot get out of it and proclaim it ‘normal’, when it is the liberal world that is normal.

The Gramscian model would have us reject that. To contest hegemony, it is necessary to develop alternative ideology and alternative reality. It is necessary to create zones of power where the writ of the state does not run. (the autonomists would have to concede to our definitions).

So, if the German nationalists practice the principle that Nationalist Alternative was supposedly based upon – they live in a state of cognitive dissonance!?!?

So their still-failure to become a truly mass movement is the fault of the Germans’ psychology?

This attack was atrocious and inaccurate, as the strength of the German movement belies. It was part of the subtle ‘trick’ inherent in the article – to load failure (sic) onto the methods employed. The German nationalist movement is still in the margins, albeit with signs of real growth.


Talking Nationalism To Defeat Nationalism: BNP Opportunism In Practice
The BNP remains the model for the change. To build the new freedom populist movement consensus, the article admonishes us to accept that the BNP is really a nationalist organization, led by a super-smart nationalist called Nick Griffin. Griffin is contrasted with the (we say: foul) Christian Zionist from Holland, Geert Wilders (who is himself of Jewish origin), but is pushed forward as fruit of the same tree:

“Like Wilders, Nick Griffin frequently makes pro-Israel, and pro-Jewish, statements, and is always denouncing Nazis, i.e., any Westerner who criticises Jews and Israel). This has not stopped, however, the Jewish community from denouncing him as a Nazi and a fascist at every turn. They scent an imposture. Griffin is buying protection from the powerful Jewish lobby by making pro-Jewish statements. Unlike Wilders, he does not have a clean record on Jewish issues …..

Sadly, there are many nationalists, in Britain and outside Britain, who lack the subtlety to see this; that is, they do not understand Griffin’s strategy. They take it as face value, and allow themselves to be fooled, whereas the BNP’s enemies (in the British establishment) do not….”

No, no. Griffin makes the statements he does because he has changed position. That is the logical thing to say and to believe.

Perhaps he will become even more like Wilders and advocate war for Zionism? He has already condoned Zionist war in Gaza and his stooge Lee Barnes supported the Israeli terror war against Lebanon.

The reality is that more and more nationalists understand Griffin’s strategy only too well. That is why key leaders and others who are leaving the BNP are joining the National Front. That is why nationalists in other countries condemn the new line.


Explaining Why The Enemy Continue To Attack The BNP As ‘Nazi’ ‘Racist’ etc
As a proof that the revisionists / opportunists of the BNP are really an enemy of state power, it is said that the enemy forces continue to attack them. Yes, conceded, the enemy attacks the party in public.

The article, after viewing the ‘changes’ in BNP, asks:

“Does this mean then that the BNP which was founded as a neo-fascist party has gone liberal democratic? Has it gone over to the enemy? The answer is: no. The British establishment politicians, journalists, academics, intellectuals hate and fear the BNP. The BNP has not given up its racialist and nationalist views…… The enemies of the BNP understand that the use of Churchill imagery, the Zionism, the apparent support for Israel, is a clever trick it is camouflage designed to make the party appeal to British voters, to convey the image of respectability. In other words, the BNP is appropriating the rhetoric and symbolism of the liberal democratic parties.”
There could be another strategy in motion:

1. The BNP is attacked this way to maintain the liberal democratic mobilization against all forms of ‘racism’ and ‘fascism’ within Britain.

2. The BNP is attacked this way to cause it to be a ‘honey trap’ for people in Britain who wish to become nationalists.

3. The BNP is attacked this way to ensure that the leadership, playing the respectability” game, can be induced to further liberalise in the hope of really entering the mainstream.

4. The processes of liberalisation bring new members into the party who are, in fact, in various ways influenced by liberal democracy.

5. The party then has factions which have different views on the direction of the party and the party as a structure is neutralised.

Could this be the game?

Certainly, if we may give another example, we may refer to the history of Australian communism from the period after 1963-4. The Communist Party of Australia (CPA) remained in existence, but only as a party that stated its desire to “mainstream” itself (the CPA’s phrase!). As a communist phenomenon it was dead; as a force for social liberalisation, it was of assistance to the globalising (or to be more correct for that time: ‘internationalising’) liberal capitalist class. It set the agendas for the new feminist, homosexual, cultural-relativist and other movements, but it did not challenge state power; rather, it sought to ‘reform’ it. It allowed itself to be split, with the harder Marxists seceding, in order that it might better infiltrate mainstream parties and movements with its softer and more ‘mainstream’ elements (something that in our case, we don’t have time for). It watered down every aspect of its ideology and politics, so it presented a lily livered caricature of its former self. This strategy had been tried by others and finally, in 1990, they called it a day - and just dissolved themselves.

Attacks in state media upon anyone may or may not prove a case. It depends upon the facts at hand. The plausible agenda is the one given.


Sneaking Up On The Enemy
Ever since we nationalists entered the political arena as a definable trend in Australia, we were told that our strategy of constructing a nationalist party was wrong. Certain conservatives said that and others did too. Some said we should form lobbies and intellectual circles etc. or join the Liberal Party (!) We now see a new version of the story. It is put (via the foreign example) that nationalists should now liquidate their organizations and yield to some amorphous populist party. The article calls a hypothetical German version of this party - the Right Party (as a mirror of Germany’s Left Party).

This party can sneak up on the state power and win an election. The article tells us the sneaky populists can legislate away – the regime itself: It can change the German Constitution which operates to prevent the formation of a new regime:

“Eventually, die Rechte obtains the necessary two-thirds majority in the Bundestag and Bundesrat to amend the German constitution, with or without the support of the other political parties. It is then that the MPs quietly, and without any fanfare, vote to amend Article 21 of the German constitution..”

Our question is: why would the populists, these liberals who have joined the party, want to do that?

The article seems to be telling us that nationalists will operate as a faction inside this mass movement, but somehow they will be the ones pulling the strings.

The article also told us of the German Constitution:

“So, to summarize, the defining characteristics of the German constitution? A three-party dictatorship; Militant democracy, which uses police state measures to repress anti-democratic groups who are deemed Communist or Neo-Nazi. Aside from this, there are other characteristics, not specifically mentioned in the text of the constitution itself. These are the substantive values, to use Schmitt’s term, of the Bundesrepublik . The values are: Zionism and philo-Semitism; a strange doctrine of German post-war guilt, which harps on endlessly about German atrocities, real or alleged, in World War Two; and a callous dismissal of the atrocities wrought upon Germany by the victors – the deliberate mass starvation of millions of Germans in the Allied occupied zone, and in the German POW camps, in the three years after the German surrender; the ethnic cleansing and murder of millions of Germans from the East; the deaths of one to two million German POWs in the Soviet Union.”Again, if that is the German Constitution, and allowing that the German nationalists have played populist and liberal and recruited in droves such people who have no trouble with all that, why would these very same folks wish to subvert their very own order?

How could such a faction operate inside some liberal/populist party? How could it conceal itself? How much deep-entryism a la the 1940’s model of Trotskyism in the social-democratic movement, would the nationalists have to do? How ‘deep’ in do they have to go? Would the populists tolerate them lurking about, ready to stage their intra-party coup d’etat? Or would they just purge them long before?

These questions share answers and they cannot favour the model for success offered here.


Intervention Against The Revolution: Winning Again By Stealth

It is suggested by the article that the success of the German nationalists will not be received well in the New World Order camp. We concur. The article says:

“What will it look like once the nationalists take over? It will be almost identical to that of Germany in 1933. Militarily, at present, Germany, France and Britain are weak and unprepared for war; but the Jewish community, the international Left, and Washington and Tel Aviv will urge the liberal democratic governments of France and Britain to prepare for war against the nationalist German state, to restore democracy and teach the Germans another lesson. There will be a build-up of arms on all sides. Eventually, Britain, France and the other democracies will be militarily strong enough to attack…”
This scenario may or may not be a little fantastic and phrased here a little bit wildly, but we shall take it in one way as correct. Intervention against a nationalist state may be carried out in various ways and military threats would be likely. The article has also warned us:

“Germans do not want war, which is one of the reasons why they do not vote for German nationalists in large numbers – their current policies will entail another fratricidal war between European states their white populations, with Washington and Tel Aviv being the only beneficiaries.”

However, we are led to believe that by dropping these supposedly threatening policies and installing a liberal regime which looks benign means that the New World Order forces will not intervene.

Well, maybe they wouldn’t intervene because they are in fact – not threatened by such a possibility. After all, the Austrian Freedom Party (one faction of it at least) served in a coalition government with the Christian Democrats. There was no intervention. But then, there was no intervention because the Freedom ministers had sold out their principles long before.

The success of the German nationalists in the face of intervention would rest upon the connection their movement would have with nationalist movements in other lands - which could not only oppose war, but grow stronger in solidarity with a victorious example of nationalism and challenge their own governments with renewed vitality. Was that why the NPD worked so closely with the European National Front? Is that why nationalists build co-ordination structures and alliances with nationalist parties in other lands?


Neither Islam Nor Israel!

The German nationalists already oppose all elements of ‘Islamification’ in their country. That is a simple fact. The German nationalists oppose the entry of Turkey into the European Union, a proposition apparently supported by the German liberal regime (talk about contradictions!) The rub is that the German nationalists do not accept the line that Israel is any sort of friend in any struggle with Islamic countries or Islamic migration. We wonder if Israel opposes Turkey’s entry into the European Union?

In fact, the German nationalists seem to favour ‘Neither Islam, Nor Israel’.

So, again we witness the sleight of hand. The article talks of the populist parties and their pro Zionism:

“Their stance attempts to make the accusation of anti-Semitism a non-issue, effectively neutralising the damage it does to nationalism in those countries with populations taught from birth that certain ideas/events are absolute and never to be questioned.”

But anti Zionism is not anti semitism. The criticism of Israel is not related to any number of unusual theories about Jewish perfidy. No. Our criticism is politics and rational politics at that. Anti-semitism is just another red herring.

The obvious point is that the new line is one which seeks out Israel as the foreign policy option for the future and the Zionist lobby as the internal ally on the way to power. We say that this line is oblivious to other political options. Let us state one.

The German Left is generally anti Zionist. Hundreds of thousands of Germans have opposed the military adventures of Europe in Iraq and Germany in Afghanistan. There is a hard anti imperialist and anti capitalist Left. Why should the so-called ‘Right’ have to content itself with people upset by Islam? Much of the German Left is also secular and hardly likely to embrace a creeping fundamentalism on German soil – and these people really are the heirs to the former German socialist traditions. The NPD has attempted to court these Germans. One cannot say that they have yet been successful in leaping other hurdles in order to win over the Left’s audience; but that does not validate what is simply held out as a ‘line of least resistance’. Winning over the Left’s base offers an entirely different option.

In East Germany, the NPD (and the DVU) have managed to tap into the working class consciousness. The NPD has been known to compete in strong terms in some areas with both the former Party of Democratic Socialism and now the Left party.

The line of ‘Neither Islam, Nor Israel’ offers the way forward. It is understandable by the masses. It can be marketed and sold and it is being marketed and sold. One can only wonder at the motives of the dark forces who would now change it? Is it simply that the real organ-grinders of the new line simply wish to demobilize one threat and win its followers over to the cause of supporting Israel and Zionism by offering them up some delusion that they can become big men?


The NPD Should Be Emulated By The BNP: Not The Other Way Around
What is truly odd about this entire critique of German nationalism by the offending article is that it does not recognise the concrete fact: the NPD has deeper roots in German soil than the BNP has in Britain. Organizationally, the NPD is a superior structure, despite some current financial difficulties. And, as matters stand, it may fuse with a sizeable section of the crumbling DVU, which would give it more members than the BNP. If we count its youth organization as part of the membership, it may already be as large as the BNP. It has seats in two German State parliaments and strong municipal representation.

One media report said recently:

“…. that rightwing organizations, such as the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), are increasingly targeting the younger generation. According to a recent opinion poll, 4.9 percent of all 15-year old boys and 2.6 percent of all girls of that age are already involved with a far-right group.”

The NPD has mobilised in increasing numbers, German youth in the Young National Democrats and affiliated structures.

It was also said:

"The NPD is seen as a revolutionary protest party, which offers activities that are hugely attractive for young people."
Is this what the populists are supposed to be doing too, albeit in some way or other?

Within the past seven years the NPD has increased the number of seats it holds on German municipal councils from a few dozen to more than 300 now. The NPD holds more council seats than the BNP.

Perhaps it should be the BNP which copies the NPD?

Recently, a new anti Islamic party was mooted in Germany, something to be financed by a Swedish millionaire who mouthed the same platitudes as the article under review. He obviously disliked the NPD and went on about “the Nazi stuff”. What Nazi stuff? The new “populist” party was to be modelled the Dutch and Danish examples and would block the NPD’s passage into the Federal parliament.

The skin crawls that this wrecking operation is the sort of thing that any nationalist organization would even wish to have a debate about.

The fact is that a real number was done on the NPD in the period from 1983-95. This was the time of the Republikaner, a party with a populist type agenda, which competed directly with the German nationalists on the basis of its so-called moderation. The Republikaner may even go over to the new anti Islamist party. It is commonly agreed that the Republikaner were a set-up by the Christian-Social party in Bavaria. The party even chose as leader a former member of the SS to court a little scandal, whilst pushing ‘moderation’. Eventually, this man saw through the entire game – and defected to the NPD!

So the NPD has been aware of ‘the game’. It has also in the last year or so, moved to limit the impact of the faked up anti Islamist groups by directly competing with them on public concerns over Islamism on German soil, whilst still maintaining their correct overall position.

The NPD’s three tier strategy, its cadre training, its strict adherence to nationalist ideology, its courage under fire, its political strategy of building local bases of people’s power – all this shows health in the party.

And the NPD, like the freedom populists, has allies across Europe. The Australian nationalists would do better to consider them friends than the gaggle of opportunists promising a treat on the basis of clever tricks.


Conclusion: Uphold Nationalist Principles!

It is inevitable that nationalist principles come under attack. Liberal democratic capitalist states attack and seek to demobilize their challengers.

In this case, a populist temptation has come before our friends in Nationalist Alternative. If Nationalist Alternative seeks to uphold nationalism, then it must fight against the Zionization of the nationalist movement, against false populism, against the cult of the BNP which has been introduced into Australia by the opportunists.

At the moment, the opportunist current seems strong in some countries. But it is weak in others. Yet, even in Britain, the revived National Front is taking forward the battle to the BNP, the poster-boy of the fake populism. The battle will be fought out everywhere.

Australia First says plainly that there is no way forward other than to apply more adroitly than ever our nationalist ideals. There is no treat as a reward for capitulation to the enemy; there is no trick that can build a true movement of identity, independence and freedom, of Australian nationalism.

We do not accept that the article was really about the German movement. It reminds us a little of the Russo-Chinese dispute over the sanctity (sic) of communism. When the Russians denounced the Albanians and the Chinese lambasted the Yugoslavs, each was criticizing the other. We cannot escape the idea that this article was a new phase of the Australian war in which Nationalist Alternative expressed some doubts over general line.

We do not have free debate inside a nationalist party over our very reason for being. That is suicide. We are here to wage a struggle and to do it well. Our real criticism is that Nationalist Alternative chose to have a debate with itself.

Debate over!


End note: Three tiers method: integrates: electoral work at all levels, particularly local level ; community action (demonstrations, meetings, leaflet drives, petitions, action in schools, universities, unions and other associations and campaigns that incite community attention, that extends the impact of the organization and the psychological reach of its propaganda ; ideological and cultural work (forums and other events and publications that improve the ideological expression of the movement and campaigns, publications and other work tailored to the idea of the cultural defense of the national identity.

The three tiers method holds that a nationalist party cannot practice less than all three methods in tandem.


1. The three tiers of struggle – should identify what they are at the beginning, as they are referred to in the first part of the text.

2. The red herring of Nazism – the fact is.. a true German nationalist cannot but by nature agree with and want to implement many of the same policies the National Socialists had in place. As they were good for the German Volk. You can call your new movement/party anything you want.. but when asked a few key questions on the position of certain issues – the similarities to the ones the National Socialists had would be identical – therefore any party will be call Nazi. Your enemies are not going to stop using the term.

I find the articles reference to yearning for the good old days of the 50’s and 60’s and under communism an insult to what the German people suffered during those times. They yearn for the elements in society that kept away the jewish filth and westernisation of their societies, but a true nationalist government would do that anyway. They do not yearn for what they suffered under communism.

Becoming a lukewarm mainstream party dilutes your message – who are you trying to attract? The same lukewarm people who are not interested in changing the direction of our current society, or who only don’t like bits of it? They will only be attracted to the lukewarm message in your new party – and will fiercely resist the core nationalist components that you are trying to “hide” - therefore making a completely ineffective party.

Is the article summing up however our journey to how the communists got us to where we are today? Loved the anecdote about the communist party, and what we spoke about – how those people are now in the mainstream parties and have fashioned them to where they want, becoming more radical over time. Can this strategy really work with nationalists policies – they are so opposite to what is currently in place. This change also took place over 30 years or so – do we have that time.

If we stick to our core values – when the time is right and the mood in society is ready – they will come to us, as we will represent the only true alternative option. Not a watered down version that’s a bit different to the current status quo. We must stick to our core values – true nationalists cannot pretend to be what they are not.