The International Of Nationalism:
Speech To The Fifth Sydney Forum. August 28 2005
(Edited for publication)
Dr. Jim Saleam
It is a fact that the matter I am addressing about here might impact for me personally. As some of you know I was recently served papers by the Human Rights And Equal Opportunity Commission. I am to be investigated, as is Professor Fraser of Macquarie University, as a ‘racist’. It might be that demonstrations of protest could occur in European cities against this repression in Australia. Why this can happen is a matter my speech will address.
What we are seeing across the globe is resistance to globalisation, to the New World Order of capitalism. Some of this resistance is resistance about means not ends. Here I am speaking of the opposition of Greens, the ferals, the anarchists and Trotskyites, some people like the people outside who wanted to "shut down" this meeting. These people are all for open borders, the free movement of peoples, for the standardisation of humanity. They only argue with the capitalists as to who should own the rewards. However, there is another resistance, a true spiritual, political resistance.
This is the resistance of the nationalists of all countries, those who put value in their identities and who seek to preserve them. The issue here is whether a relationship can develop amongst them such that the challenge for identity and independence can be – for want of a curious phrase – ‘internationalised’ in the struggle against globalization. I believe it can - and has. We would have had a living example right now here at this meeting (our comrade from the National Democratic Party of Germany had the government not forbade his entry) and we have an example in the war in Iraq. I want to start with the latter.
The War In Iraq.
I urge close attention to the war in Iraq. Here we see the New World Order forces invading a sovereign country. Our Australian troops are employed as mercenaries. This is a criminal war.
The aim of the war is to extend the free market, open the Arab countries and the Moslem countries to the capitalist globalist spirit, to secure oil and other resources and to make sure Israel survives as the Zionist entity lording over stolen Palestine.
A movement of resistance has developed in Iraq. Despite the lies of Howard and Co., only some ten percent of the fighters are foreign holy warriors or jihadis and another fifteen percent are Iraqi jihadis (upon these all the label of terrorist is placed); the remainder are the forces of Iraqi secular nationalism. The resistance forces overall are not terrorists, but insurgents. This is a just revolutionary war for national liberation.
If we were in the business of employing heavy rhetoric like the old communists used to do, what could we say? Well:
"Iraq has been invaded by the imperialism of the New World Order and Zionism. Iraq is to be recolonised. A satrap has been appointed in Baghdad and called the president. The compradors of the Iraqis (ie. the rich foreign connected people) are his main support. Beneath them is an array of mercenaries, lickspittles, criminals, hyenas and jackals feasting upon the body of Iraq.
There are stupid separatist forces who can be manipulated with the promises that the new system will recognize them. From them and other collaborators a puppet army has been organized.
The organic four classes of the Sunni part of Iraq – workers, farmers, small business people and other patriotic people are in struggle. They have taken to arms, recognizing that only by force can the dictator-state be overturned and the foreign enemy expelled. With their vanguard forces, the Arab Ba’ath Socialist Party of Iraq and other movements of national liberation, they wage the revolutionary war.
They seek independence for Iraq, the reconciliation with those other Moslems and people of Iraq who are also taking the road of armed resistance, for unity in a true federal secular state and friendship with all freedom loving peoples of the world against the global imperialists."
And folks after I looked at this rhetorical blather I decided that it was more or less true!
Could I say these people are unjustified? No I can’t.
As an Australian nationalist, I cannot say Australia for the Australians if I cannot say Iraq for the Iraqis. I cannot say Australia is European by ethnicity and culture if I cannot accept the essentially Arab character of Iraq. I cannot say we Australians inherit the great traditions of Christianity and the Indo-European pre-history if I cannot accept the basic Moslem character of Iraq.
If the Ba’ath and its allies throw out the invaders, they will deliver a mighty blow to the New World Order.
If Australia is enslaved to this system, then this system will become just that little bit weaker for the victory of the Iraqi insurgency.
Is this why there is hardly a nationalist force on the planet which, in one way or another, does not oppose the nation-murder of Iraq, which does not harbour the idea that only in the defeat of the so-called Westernisers can we all become free?
In this notion we recognize a certain similarity of principle. Let us explore the questions of where this comes from and what does it mean?
To The Start: A Contribution From The Fascists
It is sometimes difficult as the Fraser affair showed recently to speak fairly and historically about anything in Australia. No sooner was the matter of our identity and the forbidden term ‘race’ discussed, then media cries about Nazism were trotted out. There were idiots outside screaming this at us today.
Hence, when I now want to discuss the idea of a necessary ‘link’ between the nationalists of different countries (and indeed as I shall say shortly: of all races and peoples), I need to say something about fascism, I could get into hot water. I can imagine the idiots outside trying to misquote my words.
When one speaks historically about truths hysteria breaks out and a liberal propaganda game begins. No, we are historians here! The liberals can write their own nonsense about fascism. Yet for all the claptrap, the men of the atomic terror and the war on terror, of innumerable acts of nation-murder, the CIA’s drug wars and all the rest of it, have committed vile historical crimes that dwarf the crimes of the former fascists.
It is simply a matter of fact that the first steps ever made over fifty years ago after the Second World War to co-ordinate nationalists of the continental European countries at least, were made by people who had been through the experience of fascism.
It is also a fact that the 1930’s and 1940’s fascists were hyper nationalists; their nationalisms often conflicted with each other and they contained gross aspects of imperial aggrandizement at the expense of not just the colonial peoples, but of other Europeans as well. There were aspects of the absurd and the tragic. The Italian fascists sought a new Roman Empire beyond their capacity to win and the German fascists sought to treat the Slavic Europeans as less than human. Europe paid a heavy price, as did all Western Civilization, for these stupidities.
Yet, t was from this realization of the failure of the fascisms, recognized first by ex-fascists, that a truth was stated by 1947. They said that all new movements of Euro-nationalism were bonded by a common European fatherland. There was a higher identity and loyalty to be held by Europeans everywhere: to the civilization itself, to the group that bears it.
These persons also recognized that the days of colonial empires were fading and that the colonial peoples needed freedom. They sought to practice the principle first put up by the communists that freeing the colonial world (we would say Third World) could work to undermine those at home who were working against the higher interest of the Civilization itself..
These were challenging ideas: by setting the colonial peoples on the path to identity, independence, freedom, there was a counter-ideology to trade, open borders, the export of labour to the white lands from the poor countries, capitalist rationalizations and exploitation. What I am saying is this: whatever the origin of these ideas, they traveled very, very far and fast. These ideas are the crude alternatives even now to globalization and they belie the charge (if we adopt them) that we are racists with white man’s burden ideas or hatred etc. of other peoples.
A number of ‘Internationals’ were founded first by the ex-fascists. These groups were coordinating centres, information services, ideological fountainheads. Their histories need not concern us. These groups recruited new people and time moved on. Only ‘anti-racist’ or ‘anti-fascist’ journalists and vested-interest-forces said these movements bore any real relationship to either the original fascists or those who spawned them. Ideas evolved fast and the new people cared little either about the past.
Hence new nationalist Internationals emerged. By the 1970’s we had the Euro-Right; in the 1980’s the Charter Third Way; in the 1990’s the International Third Position, the International Co-ordinating Committee For Revolutionary Nationalism; the European Liberation Front; today Jean Marie Le Pen operates a loose network and so forth for the Euro-elections.
We may be critical indeed of fascism or neo-fascism etc in any number of ways, but the idea from the ex-fascists of a fraternal relationship amongst those who stand Neither Left Nor Right, for Identity, well that was a valuable thing. The idea was detached from its origins. In the same way, we look at ideas from the Old Left for sensible ways to wage the struggle. And there are many such ideas although here is not the place to discuss it. Yet, we are not communists either. All movements leave something positive: I would say to you the only decent thing communists ever did is to end the murderous First World War by revolution. Perhaps these ex-fascists left something too?
Friendship Amongst The Movements Of Euro-nationalism And Beyond Europe
We would have liked to have had at this Forum a representative of the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD). Our friend, Gerd Finkenwirth, is the ‘foreign secretary’ of the party. Reasonably, this party understands the importance of its’ contacts outside of Germany. Indeed, I think the continual activities of Mr. Finkenwirth in Europe shows this very clearly.
The NPD recognized the criminal nature of the war in Iraq when it began in 2003 – and opposed it. The Front National’s Janey Le Pen directed - and still directs - an organization concerned with the welfare of the children of Iraq. Whatever else can be said of the Belgian group around Luc Michel, he sponsored Iraq committees to support the Ba’ath party, publishing some of the best material on the actual revolutionary struggle from first hand reports.
It is in this recognition of the right to nationality that it is possible to see the struggles of others as just. The Palestinian struggle against racist Zionism is one such example. The Palestinian struggle inspires all nationalists. For no little reason does our friend Dr. Christian Bouchet in Paris issue material informing Euro-nationalists of the parties of secular Arab nationalism – Palestinian, Ba’athist, Syrian Social Nationalist and others.
A European National Front now exists. Meetings are held in various cities. The parties which send representatives re-find their common identity in the struggle for a Continent free of the globo economy and the Yankee superpower, an end to immigration and a policy of repatriation with justice for the lands from which these people have come. From London to Moscow, from Rome to Stockholm, friendships build for the great day of freedom from the New World Order. In the short-term even President Putin of Russia talks of a multi-polar world where states and peoples can form friendships outside of strangling globalism or the outmoded United Nations centralist dictation.
This is the great revolution of the twenty first century.
As an Australian nationalist I stand on an island continent in the southern seas. We might be European by race and culture (and it must stay this way), but I am not a transplanted European. Just as I spurn foolish people who used to talk too much of Britain, I can’t think of myself as a Euro wandering the bush. No, we developed an Australian nationality here and we are called upon to defend it in a volatile region.
I note that to our north are modernizing powers that could go any number of ways. I don’t wish to get bogged in the details. But it seems to me that a free Aceh, a free West New Guinea, a free Mindanao, a free Pacific and so forth, implies the survival of our country too. The recognition of anti-imperialism as a principle is certainly a position of the NPD. I have held this view for thirty years myself and it breathes common sense. Australia must be free; we want no colonies – land, people or of the spirit.
The Quality Of The Movement Of Australian Nationalism
Australian nationalism has a certain historic quality. This quality was set in our colonial period. It was a multi-faceted ideological entity. For example, it was nativist in form, stating that it expressed a new culture (sometimes civilization) "creeping to the edge of being" as William Lane put it. Its core values were a localization of eternal Indo-European values. Simultaneously, it announced itself popular, in favour of a socialism without doctrines, anti-class. It was a new beginning.
It then said it was part of a generalized movement that accorded to the European ethnos a role in the defence of common human values and praised its function as a noble construct in the human story. It was proper to say that it was a racial nationalism. As the twentieth century wore on, great Australians such as John Curtin and Arthur Calwell spoke of a certain idea of human freedom which the Australian people supported, independence and dignity for all regardless of race, had pride in the real diversity of humanity, not diversity on the block which ends up as a big nothing, but diversity country by country against those who would create the universal market and a universal human type.
If we here have a true heritage, this it and we must apply it.
Those with a knowledge of history know that the Marxists of old were organised into an International with offices, structures to which the parties of socialism owed loyalty and had to submit.
I do not think such a structure would serve a movement here or anywhere. I say that because issues are as different country to country as the spirit of the peoples who strike out for identity, independence and freedom.
In the end, we will not overturn the ridiculous United Nations idea merely to replace it with a new dictation in microcosm.
However, I do think that, an ‘International’ as a fraternity, is possible. I know it is possible because in the past I have practiced it. I know it is possible because only this year, I traveled to New Zealand and opened up contacts with the leadership of the New Zealand National Front, people who are now the emergent leadership cadre of a Kiwi registered party – Direct Democracy.
For we Australians, we might say:
The goals: to ensure the cooperation of kindred movements, to exchange ideas and views and to do it systematically.
The methods: publications’ exchanges, forums (such as this?), and the building of understandings.
The future: united campaigns around the issues that bind.
It is going to occur whether we as individuals worry about it or not. The nationalists of all lands will work to defeat the New World Order and build a multipolar world of free peoples. This is the great dawn and renewal not just of the Civilzation we carry – but of all.
It is my belief that we Australians can only benefit from a recognition that we are part of a great historical drama. Our immediate great cause is to secure Australian independence. This cause may fail, but if it does the Australia of our forebears disappears off the Continent. The nationalists are resolved this shall not be.
But for all peoples and parties desirous of opting out of the global nightmare there are urgent tasks.
The world of war, loss of identity, mindless folk wanderings, chaos and poverty ruled over by a would-be class of the superrich is no vision for us. Getting rid of this false globo-world is the game of this Twenty First Century.
We cannot therefore do anything less than embrace fraternally all who struggle for their own countries’ identity, independence and freedom.