The Nature of State Power
THE ANTI-AUSTRALIAN STATE
As Australia was born as a penal colony (i.e. a jail colony for convicts) the Establishment was therefore, by necessity, harsh and repressive. This style of governing, even with arrival of the later "free" settlers, remained autocratic and anti-democratic.
It took popular unrest, and the revolt at Eureka, to provide the starting point for a democratic system. Even then, it was only a quasi-democracy, with the colonial Governors (and, following them, the state Governors) appointing many (non-elected) members of parliament.
Later came the Federation of the colonies, which was supposedly a "concession" to the nationalist and republican movement of the 1880s and 1890s, but was actually turned into an opportunity to give Australia a national "British" government, rather than one which was truly Australian. In fact, the British favoured federation as it meant it would make the administration of the Australian colonies a much easier task.
Our Constitution was British, and regarded us as British (see sections 34 and 44 of the Constitution) rather than as Australians. We continued to be under British domination for decades.
Originally, most of those in Australia were British-born; and they regarded Britain as the "Home Country". It was not until around 1870 that the Australian-born population outnumbered those born in Britain (however, many of the Australian-born were raised as "British ethnics", still regarding Britain as the "Home Country" - even if they'd never been there).
Hence, the British cultural and political dominance of Australia was effectively ensured by the all-encompassing "Britishness" of the State, its institutions, and the "British" mind-set.
The State, although apparently democratic, was determined to protect itself and its ideology by any means, fair or foul. Laws were enacted to suppress opposition:
* The Coercion Act made it possible to arrest someone upon suspicion only, to be tried privately, to dispense with normal legal proceedings, and to be jailed without trial for up to 2 months.
* The Crimes Act even made it illegal to express Republican opinions.
* Sedition laws made it an offence to promote "feelings of ill-will and hostility between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects".
The interpretation of this latter law could be very loose; indeed, in the 1970s the Immigration Minister, Al Grassby, advocated that it be used in order to put "racists" in jail.
During World War Two, with the inability of the British to protect Australia from the Japanese, the State turned to the U.S.A. for protection and for a new "leadership" in domestic and world affairs (a move foreshadowed by Australia's Prime Minister Deakin arranging for the U.S. Navy's "Great White Fleet" to visit Australia in 1908). Instead of "loyalty to the British Empire", the Establishment's line became "commitment to the free world led by the United States".
Accompanying this swap of "ideological masters", came the enormous intrusion of U.S. interests (economic, military, and political) into Australian life; both during, and long after, World War Two.
Under U.S. influence, a new component of State power was added: A secret police, the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO). Its abilities and powers gradually grew and it obtained the authority to tap telephones, infiltrate organisations, black-list "enemies", and organise covert operations. ASIO became a key element in the coercive apparatus of the Establishment. It should be realised that the secret police had not been set up to investigate criminal matters, but to concern themselves with the political opponents of the Establishment; they are Australia's "political police".
Initially in the 1950s the secret police were used against the Communist Party. Beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, with the Establishment's energetic push for Asianisation and an "Asian Destiny", and following the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, the Australian Establishment (the State) now sees its main "enemy" as being those who threaten the existence of the planned "Asian destiny for Australia". On many occasions the political police have already acted against Australian patriots and so-called "racists" (by both "open" and "legal", as well as devious, underhand, and "illegal", means).
The Establishment is not democratic by nature; but, like a cornered rat, will use all types of dirty tricks to ensure its survival. These include laws to be used to jail and oppress patriots (such as the various Racial Vilification laws) and the use of political police to harass patriots whenever they deem it to be appropriate.
The true nature of State Power in Australia is that of a traitor Establishment, which has always been anti-Australian (in various guises - whether subordinating Australia's culture, independence, and destiny to that of Britain, the USA, or Asia). It pretends to be democratic but is actually concerned merely with its own survival - whenever the principles of democracy clash with the survival of the Establishment's cosmopolitan-internationalist ideology, the State acts in an authoritarian, anti-democratic manner to protect itself. This anti-Australian State deserves only our contempt. Our duty is clear: Smash the Traitor State, and proclaim a patriotic Australian republic.
THE REALITY OF PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
Many people believe that the right to vote "representatives" into parliament somehow guarantees popular sovereignty; that such politicians will represent the wishes of the people - the "popular will" of the voters. This is not true:
1) Political Parties.
Supposedly, people get a "choice" of candidates. In reality, there are two large party blocs : the Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal-National Coalition. There are sometimes other parties, such as the Democrats, just as years ago there was the Democratic Labor Party (DLP). But all the major parties are multi-million dollar machines. These parties are funded by big business, unions (for the ALP), and foreign monied interests; and therefore tailor their political policies to suit their existing/prospective paymasters. The policies may "differ", but none of these policies go outside of the accepted Establishment norms. Thus, the voter has no real choice at all.
Many Australians have come to realise that politicians do not represent the voters, but instead represent their chosen Party, if not actually a particular Party faction; not to mention the interests of certain Party benefactors.
2) Voting Behaviour.
The media prevents a free choice of ideas by the mass of the people, as it normally only promotes the personalities, ideas, activities, and policies of the major parties. Further, the heavy weight of "tradition", bolstered by years of subtle media propaganda, usually keeps most voters in the camp of "their" party ("traditional voters"). Although more people are now "swinging voters", they normally only "swing" their vote from one major party to another major party as they are still trapped by the media's presentation of there being only two viable party blocs. However, on a positive note, in 1992 it was pointed out by Ted Mack (then the independent federal Member for North Sydney) that "The non-major party vote is now running at 20 to 24 per cent around Australia. It has grown from about four per cent in the last ten years".
Although more and more people are rejecting this false two party bloc system, we must count on it existing for a long time yet.
The very process of our elections is designed to make the contest for government essentially into a "battle" only between the two party blocs. Elections for the House of Representatives (control of which determines who holds the power of Government) are based upon a system of preferential voting for single-member electorates, which almost but guarantees victory for one of the major Establishment parties (i.e. those with multi-million dollar budgets, provided by big sponsors, to cover newspaper, radio, TV, and other advertising; and who receive media attention, glorification, and validation - e.g. "even if an independent wins, he won't be part of the Government, thus our electorate will not receive proper attention").
The French electoral method of proportional representation allowed the anti-immigration Front National to gain seats in parliament, along with other smaller parties; from this the FN presence in parliament grew with each election - thus, the French Establishment changed the "rules of the game" and scrapped proportional representation in favour of single-member electorates, thereby neatly addressing the FN's growing electoral success. In the same way the major Establishment parties in Australia oppose proportional representation for the House of Representatives, on the excuse that "it would threaten stable government".
Aside from refusing proportional representation (which would allow greater representation of voters, i.e. allow greater democracy), the Australian political Establishment has enacted laws designed to "make things difficult" for smaller political parties. One example is that in order to have a candidate's political party listed beside his/her name on the ballot paper (which can gain more votes for smaller parties), the candidate has to belong to a "registered political party", which entails all sorts of bureaucratic hurdles, including submitting the names and addresses of at least 500 party members to the Electoral Commission (which could then be made secretly available to ASIO for inspection) - however, these requirements do not apply to those political parties who have a member in parliament (surprise, surprise!). Another example is that while public funding for election campaigns is available on a "dollar per vote"-style basis, such funding is only made available to those candidates who score above 4%, which neatly excludes the smaller parties - this 4% threshold allows all, or most, candidates of the two party blocs to receive public funding for their campaign expenses (again; surprise, surprise!).
The very essence of this institution is meant to perpetuate the domination of politics by the two party blocs. Supposedly, one party bloc "balances" the other; however, in actual fact, both sides "debate" issues only within a framework of loyalty to the broad cosmopolitan-internationalist ideology. They monopolise the chamber of parliament with neat rules, whereby the structure of debate centres around only the Government and its "Opposition". Parliament thus becomes a contest between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, the two twins of the parliamentary farce.
If both parties have a "bi-partisan" agreement on an issue (as in the case of immigration, tariffs, the U.S. alliance, multiculturalism, etc.) then there is very little the ordinary citizen can do to influence the voting and actions of his elected "representative". The citizen could try starting a new party, but in the current conditions of bourgeois democracy, the financial cost is too high. In those rare cases of an independent actually winning a seat, this is usually founded upon certain local conditions, and is normally based upon a local "personality" as a candidate - and, unlike a viable Nationalist candidate, would not be subject to continual smears and harassment from the Establishment media (and perhaps also from the political police).
Only the naive would mistake form for content in politics. The major Establishment parties are part of that "class" of Australians which has a cosmopolitan-internationalist ideology, and are closely tied to the world of big business as well as to certain powerful foreign interests. The form of the Establishment is "open and democratic", but the content is "closed and dictatorial".
The Establishment comprises various sectors and "institutions", such as parliament with its parties and politicians; the media with its journalists and editors; the courts with their judges; law enforcement with its policemen; the armed forces with its officers; etc. - thus we should see the Establishment not as a number of awe-inspiring "impartial-neutral institutions" but as simply a number of social sectors currently dominated by those who share a cosmopolitan-internationalist ideology or outlook.
These "institutions" are not staffed by neutral "angels", but by mere humans who are often willing to misuse their positions of power and influence to ensure the survival of their cosmopolitan-internationalist view of Australia. Although not acting in concert, these people will act in similar fashion to protect what they see as "right", and will often abuse their power to do so (in the case of the political police, and certain morally corrupt sectors of the police forces, this may include "illegal actions"). Thus, while the Establishment is no monolith (indeed, it includes often opposed and competing sectors), it is bound together by its cosmopolitan-internationalist creed, and will act to protect its "world" however it can.
Any movement for national freedom will be, and has been, denigrated as "unpatriotic". Those who demanded true independence were called "anti-British" (1870 to 1940), "anti-American" (1942 to 1980s), and now "anti-Asian and racist" (1980s to the present) and were/are moved against by the Establishment with both "legal" and illegal (criminal) force.
A new party has become necessary, and must fight to acquire State Power. It must be a party representing the great majority of our people, a patriotic Nationalist movement, ready to act to protect the independence and interests of the Australian Nation.
LAW, POLICE, COURTS
Many people truly believe that Australia has a system of law, police, and courts which preserve the essential equality of the citizens and guarantee justice. This is a misconception - and a dangerous one at that.
Before we proceed, one point should be made: Most police, and most courts, have a basic honesty as far as the formal laws of the country go. Police arrests suspects, and the courts judge them. However, we are not talking about the "ordinary" processes of the law. We are referring to the USES to which the State can put the law, the police, and the courts. There are many ways to organise and enforce repression.
The Establishment today is making great use of such bodies. The usage of "legal" harassment against unpopular organisations and private persons is commonplace. This type of harassment is difficult to defeat, since it is backed by enormous resources. In other words: the legal system is NOT impartial. In many ways, it is truly a rich man's law!
Police corruption and violence is growing; judges and magistrates have been caught out by honest police, etc., conspiring to pervert the laws. This process is indicative of a society under great stress, one which is in crisis. Money, social prestige, and/or political power, permits one to buy the right police and subvert the courts. In most states there are networks of entrenched judicial corruption. Drug crime has revealed the huge nature of "legal" corruption, and has dragged it out into public view.
Against such a system, the ordinary Australian has little recourse. The system of law has been endowed by its protagonists with a halo of innocence and virtue. Anyone who goes outside of the law to achieve justice, or who has a cynicism towards the police and the courts, is regarded as being somehow a "hooligan", "violent criminal", etc. - and is seen by some as "undemocratic". Anyone who suggests that the solution to this problem lies outside of the legal system is called an "advocate of criminal action" and may find himself outside of any protection from police or courts.
It must be remembered that our legal system emerged from the filth of convictism - and has been tainted by it. The history of Australian law is truly the history of monied classes seeking protection for their plunder and social abuses. For them, laws against gun ownership were, and are, essential. An attempt was made to introduce a nation-wide I.D. card. Laws against public assembly, the right to strike, and the right to petition to get redress, along with "contempt of court" and libel laws, all exist to protect the State from its citizens. And police have wide powers to ABUSE even these laws to achieve the "result" desired by the Establishment.
We should recognise that the State is always ready to bring in repressive laws when it feels that the Establishment, or its ideology, is under threat. We can look at several instances:
* 1868. The Treason Felony Act was brought in following an attempt by an Irishman to assassinate Prince Alfred during his visit to Sydney. It made it illegal to voice or publish statements "disrespectful to the Queen", or to be one "avowing a determination not to join in any loyal toast or demonstration in honour of Her Majesty, or who expressed sympathy with or approval of any offence under the Act"; and it also gave police "extraordinary powers ... for entering any suspected house and searching for persons, papers, or arms".(1)
* 1894. The Peace Preservation Act (also known as The Coercion Act) was brought in, due to the Shearers' Strikes, supposedly to "suppress lawlessness". It removed the right to a trial by jury, prevented the keeping of arms without special permission, gave police extraordinary powers to search premises and seize "evidence", and allowed "suspects" to be jailed for up to two months without trial.(2)
* 1900. The NSW Crimes Act made it a criminal offence to promote republicanism (i.e. "whomsoever .... intends to deprive or depose Our Most Gracious Lady the Queen, her heirs and successors" from the Throne). This section of the Act is still in law, making republicanism technically an offence in NSW.(3)
* 1917. The Unlawful Associations Act was used to combat the I.W.W. (the Industrial Workers of the World was a radical organisation seeking to establish "One Big Union") which had angered the Government by opposing conscription and Australia's part in the First World War. Under the Act, the I.W.W. was declared illegal, and it became a criminal offence to be a member.(4)
* 1941-42. The National Security Act was used to declare the Communist Party of Australia an illegal organisation (this ban was revoked by the ALP after it came into government).(5)
* 1942. The National Security Act was used to arrest - and jail in concentration camps (termed "internment camps") - various members of the nationalistic Australia
First Movement (its leader was kept locked up from March 1942 until August 1945).(6)
* 1950. The Communist Party Dissolution Act banned the Communist Party. However, financial resources were made available to them to have the matter taken to the High Court, which then disallowed the law by declaring it unconstitutional. A referendum was then put to the people in 1951 to enable the banning of the CPA, and this was only narrowly defeated. (Also; Sections had been included in the Crimes Act in 1920 and 1932, aimed in effect at declaring the Communist Party an illegal organisation).(7)
* 1989. The NSW state parliament passed Australia's first Racial Vilification Act, and other state parliaments followed suit, as did the Commonwealth government in 1995. These laws, while supposedly aimed at stopping acts of "racial hatred", were actually specifically designed to suppress nationalist groups, and any other organisations opposing the Asianisation of Australia, as well as to scare ordinary Australians into silence.
This system of repression is called into play the moment a normally docile citizen raises his voice against any national or social "wrong". It needs to be overturned. The means to do it are hazardous indeed; yet there is no alternative.
It is a fact that anti-Australian policies enforced by the State cannot be altered except by means of attaining State Power. And that implies getting rid of the present "State" which preserves the power of the established social order.
AND NEW POLITICAL REPRESSION
Secret police are a major component in the arsenal of repression in any State. As noted above, Australia has a number of secret police organisations. The most well known is ASIO which, by recent reports issued by it to parliament, is concerned about bodies which "incite community discord" (is this similar to fighting "sedition", the definition of which we have already noted?). Until 1982, ASIO acted mainly against Communists and the so-called "Left". However, over recent years the Establishment has correctly perceived that the "Left" is no longer a threat to its power. For example, the Communist Party came to be no longer regarded as "subversive", or as a national security threat. Nonetheless, some small sects would still be monitored - if only because of their extensive international connections. A "radical" grouplet like the International Socialists - despite its violent commitment to Australia's economic and cultural Asianisation - might also be the subject of investigation to assess its potential for illegality. In that light, secret police could also manipulate such "leftists" into anti-Nationalist activism.
Secret police have a function: To preserve the political status quo through illegal means. Of course, ASIO, ASIS, etc. are "statutory bodies" often overseen by judges - yet that does not stop their illegal phone taps, break-ins, harassments, infiltrations, etc. In other words, the Establishment uses criminal action in its own interest. Does that fact not help tear away from our eyes any illusions we may have regarding the nature of State Power?
The political police in Australia have a long history of criminality. In the publication Never in Nazi Uniform (published January 1985) the activities of certain State "Special Branches" were described in respect of a certain obscure early-1970s "Nazi Party"; this group was manipulated into numerous violent attacks on the "Left" and other forces which questioned the influence of the USA in Australia. There are many other instances where the political police have made illegal use of their powers and resources to harass and/or damage political opponents of the Establishment; but whereas this used to be mainly targeted at the Communists, such repression is now aimed at Nationalists.
Secret police exist to restrict democratic freedom of expression. Through a wide array of methods, secret police can harass or neutralise a political group. Members can be exposed to their enemies, lives ruined, etc. Confidential information can be "leaked" to journalists. Pimps are sent to join organisations and in one case - the famous Ananda Marga case - an informer was used to carry out an elaborate "frame".
Secret police, in the current circumstances, are becoming the necessary adjunct to a wider and more formal organisation of repression of the Australian interest. The Human Rights Commission and its "race relations commissioners", etc. are one such power. Also, there are the so-called "racial vilification" laws which have been created in an attempt to silence those who might object to Australia's Asianisation; such laws have been passed by various state governments as well as by the Commonwealth government. One Commission report suggested that any "accused" person NOT be given a jury trial for fear that the jury "might sympathise" with the "racist's case"!! The intention is clear.
Under the Human Rights banner we have the makings of a thought-police which would judge individuals on the basis of how well they accept Establishment ideology.
Australia could - therefore - have a set of "political offences" even wider than in the past. Naturally, and in keeping with the hypocritical two-faced nature of our State, these offences will be disguised as laws to cover persons who cause "hatred" against people of other races, etc. The truth is - of course - that opposition to, for example, Japanese imperialism has little in common with "Nip-baiting"!! Similarly, I.D. card legislation was brought forward in the past - supposedly to catch tax cheats! The point is: the usage of such "coercion" laws has very little to do with their avowed purpose.
Against such repression; Australians would be compelled to resist in new ways. They would begin to think of building a resistance-party, a revolutionary organisation.
Like any repressive society, the control of media (i.e. information) is an essential weapon in the Establishment arsenal. The media in Australia is centralised and owned by a few massive monopolies. Government connivance has assisted the process of monopolisation. The public mind is psychologically coerced by the media (as it is a powerful agency of social control and mobilisation). There is "linkage" between the government, the great corporations, and the "free" media to build A SYSTEM OF ECONOMIC-POLITICAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTROL.
For instance, in 1980, one newspaper editor, P.P. McGuinness, indicated that a "conspiracy of silence" existed on the issue of Australia's Asianisation. Only "information" conducive to brainwashing the public was acceptable through all media outlets. For example, Fairfax supported the 1980 "Directions Conference" in Melbourne which produced high-sounding phrases in support of our country's "Asian Destiny". The assembled academics, educators, politicians, and capitalists pronounced themselves in favour of Kenneth Myer's idea of renaming Australia as AUSTRASIA (!!!).
The media "boosts" politicians and academics who push the right "line" and creates sympathy for particular causes, etc. As a power, it cannot be challenged other than by tactics which force it to publish a version (even if distorted) of patriotic action. Essentially, the media cannot be confronted "head-on" - like every other weapon of the Establishment. It can only be "sniped at" from safe positions - and parts of it can be "demoralised" by our "intelligent, sensible, and serious" ideology, and our successes.
We should continually bear in mind that the media acts as a propaganda organ of the State. It exists also to "condition" those who fight against the Establishment; it mocks Nationalist activism, suggests "better" ways to go about things, and "criticises" our public spokesmen - to turn both the people and other Nationalists against them. It selects "facts" and it strives to paint for the Australian People a rosy picture of their national future.
But if we take "media" in its widest definition to cover information "dissemination" in the community, then the education system can also be considered as a part of the Establishment's propaganda apparatus. It teaches the related ideas of cosmopolitanism, internationalism, and multiculturalism. Cosmopolitan academics, internationalists, multiculturalists, etc., write the textbooks which are forced onto our nation's youth to "de-nationalise" them; and render them either helpless against, or in support of, the Establishment's cosmopolitan-internationalist ideology.
Australian history that has been twisted to a cosmopolitan-internationalist viewpoint is taught to our youth. Other school subjects are also taught in such ways as to reflect the cosmopolitan-internationalist ideology. Indeed, teachers are effectively "screened", so that any "racist" teachers do not enter, or at least pass, teacher courses. With electronic and printed media outside the school; and with teacher and textbook propaganda within it, there can be little wonder why so much of Australia's youth has lost its way.
It should be recognised that patriotic Australians are not just up against some mistaken ideas of government, but are fighting an ideology that is being pushed by the entire apparatus of the "machine" of the anti-Australian State.
CAN STATE POWER
BE TAKEN DEMOCRATICALLY IN AUSTRALIA?
So far we have looked at the essentially "colonial" nature of the Australian State and its evolution into a viciously anti-Australian entity. We have looked at its array of weaponry, both physical and psychological. The cosmopolitan-internationalist Establishment, that is running Australia, does not take kindly to opposition. The "State" answers to the United States (including via ANZUS), the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, etc.; but NOT to the Australian People. Under the current State, Australia apparently must be ready to permit its resources to be plundered, its land colonised by the Asian states, its manufacturing base to be taken over or destroyed, and its youth sent away to die for foreign causes.
So we pose the question: Can the Australian People take charge of their own State? Suppose the Australian People calls forth its Nationalist party to fight for State Power: Can it be done democratically? Or would the Establishment use its armed forces to stop such a development? Would the System have long since resorted to its police, repressive legislation, and courts to harass a patriotic party? Would not the State enact laws to effectively render Nationalist political action as "illegal"? And would not the Establishment media strongly advocate and support such a move? Can a semi-colonial country with a mentality of service to overseas - a service into which it has many times sent its armies to die, hocked its economy, and discounted its natural wealth - be changed "peacefully" into an Independent Nationalist State? ALL LOGIC BAULKS AT SUCH AN IDEA!
There is simply NO WAY that the ruling "criminal gang" (comprising the current leaders of the major political parties, and their associated friends in big business and the media) will give up freely their "right" to rob the Nation and oppress the People. And the powerful external forces to which they are loyal would agree with them! We are certain also that the Establishment's paid generals, judges, secret police, and media flunkies would fight rather than surrender their privileges and control over the Nation. It would seem to many practical analysts so very unlikely that a nationalist political party could ever gain the "magic 51%" of popular support to ever defeat this System; as it is too entrenched, politically, economically, and psychologically (especially by the dead weight of "tradition"). BUT, it can still be brought down in the higher National Interest.
In other words - bearing in mind that the Establishment will ACT to stop the possibility of Nationalists becoming dominant in parliament, and realising that State Power does NOT entirely reside in parliament - an effective "normal", "legal"-"democratic"-"electoral" response to the tyranny of the Australian State may be IMPOSSIBLE in practise.
If a response to this System could be expressed in a verse, it would be:
"And no man single handed,
can hope to break the bars
It's a thousand like Ned Kelly
who'll hoist the Flag of Stars."(8)
THE NATIONALIST PARTY
AND NATIONAL REVOLUTION
A break from democratic illusions is necessary in the fight for Australia's freedom.
Indeed, more and more Australians are turning away from parliamentary politics and its set-piece parties. Amongst the youth there is "apathy" towards politics and a healthy hatred of politicians. Perhaps this is the beginning of "anti-politics" - the desire to militantly destroy what passes in Australia as politics? Even older people are rejecting traditional voting behaviour. Many farmers are turning against the National Party; small-business people are suspicious of the Liberal Party, and the Labor Party - by its own admission - is losing its working class support. "Other parties" are more popular than ever before. IN OTHER WORDS, A POLITICAL FERMENT HAS BEGUN. It is a part of a broad rejection of Establishment politics by the Australian People.
A responsibility rests upon the Nationalists to deepen this feeling. It is the function of the Nationalists to UNDERMINE TO THE LIMIT OF THEIR RESOURCES public confidence in the institutions of the old order. It is their aim to recruit members and supporters within the organs of the State Power: armed forces, police, public service, and the media; while striving to impress the public with a new ideal for Australia, with a Political Programme which can win the goal of an Independent White Australian Republic. These are broad tasks, certainly, but very necessary and urgent ones, part of the process of building an alternate political machine.
Australia must become a Nation, renewed, returned to its basic national principles, the principles of the first great Nationalist movement (of the 1880s and 1890s). And on the basis of new problems and dangers pushed forwards into a new century. In that sense we speak openly of a NATIONAL REVOLUTION. And can a revolution really proceed as a meek transfer of authority to a new party, without a collapse in the old order?
AUSTRALIA'S HISTORY TELLS US THE ROAD WE MUST FOLLOW. All patriotic Australians need to imbue themselves with our true national mythology: the drama of the Eureka Stockade, the Kelly Outbreak, the Republican Riots, the Shearers' Strike. We need, perhaps, if history calls for it, to cast a dark eye on Lambing Flat.
As Henry Lawson once wrote:
"We'll make the tyrants feel the sting
O' those that they would throttle;
They needn't say the fault is ours
If blood should stain the wattle"
The rules for this new form of politics will be set by changes in the mode of struggle set by the Establishment. As the Establishment's "leaders" resort to oppressive measures, are we to be held to account for forging a "subversive" nationalism, for embracing those forms of political struggle which have brought down the strongest of States?
Last century, the broad goals of Australian Nationalism (Federation, tariff barriers, Immigration Restriction, labour legislation, etc.) were won by a mass movement. Today, these goals, "reborn" in the modern context, can ONLY be achieved by a PARTY acting against a State machine a hundred times more unscrupulous and organisationally proficient than the old colonialism.
In 1901, the great ALP, which was - in those early days - the best representative of the Nationalist principle, entered into a sort of compromise with the old colonialism. Its central goals were "granted" from above if this party accepted the imperial order and became the "second party" of our own Westminster democracy. It did so and many of its principles lingered until the 1960s. The new Nationalists, however, will NOT be compromising anything with the old order. Our vision remains the one looked to in Australia's yesteryear: the Social Republic - which can only arise through a National Revolution.
Australia's political evolution shows clearly the essentially alien (or anti-Australian) nature of its State machine; and its repressive, deceptive, and psychologically coercive nature. To rescue the Nation, it is necessary to smash this "State" and build a new State which is based upon strong nationalist principles and ethics.
"HE WHO SAVES A NATION, BREAKS NO LAW"
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Several terms have been used in this publication. Two in particular demand some explanation:
1) National Revolution: We shall take this to mean a revolutionary change in the social and psychological outlook of the Australian people (affecting an alteration to current cultural-political attitudes) with a consequent change in our political institutions, etc.; which would include the displacement of the former System of cosmopolitan-internationalist values, and the "abolition" of the present anti-Australian State. We do not consider this National Revolution to follow any "models" from history, nor do we promote the term to imply a commitment to violence (to be more explicit, we are talking of a Social Revolution).
2) Social-Republic: We shall take this to mean the ideal form for Australian society as enunciated by the early nationalist, labour, and republican movements. It implies "mateship" in practise, equality before the law, and economic justice for all Australians. It states that our new State is committed to the uplifting of the conditions of all Australians. The term also differentiates the true republican ideal from the fake ALP-sponsored "republicanism".
"I DO NOT RECOGNISE YOUR LAW"
1. Lyne, Charles E. Life of Sir Henry Parkes G.C.M.G.: Australian Statesman, T. Fisher Unwin, London, 1897, pp. 222-223, 233.
2. Fitzpatrick, Brian. Short History of the Australian Labor Movement, Macmillan Australia, South Melbourne, 1968, pp. 142-143.
McKinlay, Brian (ed.). A Documentary History of the Australian Labor Movement 1850-1975, Drummond, Richmond, Victoria, 1979, p. 391.
Pugh's Almanac, 1895, cited in Clark, C.M.H. (ed.). Select Documents in Australian History: 1851-1900, Angus and Robertson, Sydney, 1955 (reprinted 1969), p. 785.
Sullivan, R.J. and R.A. "The Pastoral Strikes, 1891 and 1894", in Murphy, D.J. (ed.) The Big Strikes: Queensland 1889-1965, University of Queensland Press, St. Lucia, Queensland, c1983, pp. 96-97.
3. Keneally, Tom. Our Republic, William Heinemann Australia, Port Melbourne, Victoria, 1993, pp. 1-2, 4.
4. The Australian Encyclopaedia, Second Edition, Vol. 5, p. 81.
5. The Australian Encyclopaedia, Second Edition, Vol. 2, p. 486.
6. Muirden, Bruce. The Puzzled Patriots, p. 99.
Munro, Craig. Inky Stephensen: Wild Man of Letters, pp. 223, 247.
7. The Australian Encyclopaedia, Second Edition, Vol. 2, pp. 486-487.
A Documentary History of the Australian Labor Movement 1850-1975, p. 703.
8. From the poem "The Death of Ned Kelly", by John Manifold, 1948.
Note from the editor: This publication has been produced using source documentation previously published elsewhere (subject to editing and alteration), as well as including sections written by the editor.
PL3 - 11 November 1996