An Error In New Right Australia / New Zealand: Is There An Effective Acceptance Of Multiculturalism And Multiracialism In Australia?
After this article was published, New Right Australia New Zealand published a reply. I advise this reply be read (go to our lInks page which lists the URL). Note also the comment I was kindly allowed to publish on their site.
A senior person in New Right Australia / New Zealand addressed a meeting in Sydney on February 15. Around the same time, he also did an interview for a certain magazine. A few important statements of position were made (and some strongly implied in the dialogue) that may not only imperil the acceptance of general New Right ideology within the broad Australian nationalist movement, but which could compromise the position of that group itself inside any front for Australian renewal. This situation arises because New Right ideology in Australia has been combined by the speaker and the group with the political philosophy of 'national anarchism'. And there are some ideological-political concepts in current national anarchism which place it in juxtaposition to long-standing Australian nationalist principle.
In writing this analysis, I seek to be balanced in discussing the evidence and I invite reply. It is crucial for all the issues are clarified.
Let us return to the bare bones. Some attendees at the Sydney meeting maintain that the speaker said that there could be no real thought of directing a population/immigration policy against "those here" in the migrant communities; ie the speaker was not looking towards a lessening of the numbers in the non European groups. It was said by some that the speaker said he did not favour any policy of repatriation. Meanwhile, other attendees maintain they did not hear those sorts of comments, but rather other statements about the New Right goal being to allow "communities" to exist in Australia as long as "we" can live in "our communities"; it was not clear to them as to whether "communities" implied non-European groups. Most agree the speaker posited a possible Australia future as a patchwork of quasi independent communities, living in loose association. Voila!- no Australian nation.
Meetings are often notorious for jarring accounts. Possibly, both positions harmonise (as below). We shall see if they harmonise, positively or negatively. It is certainly obvious that something was said which ignited concerns.
So, was the speaker arguing, that he had no problem with the existence of what are already bloated blocks of non Europeans within Australia as long as the European culture survived here? As long as each group lived in its own community? Did he omit also the idea that the European "culture", in its patchwork of communities, would have a specific Australian face? Was he therefore unconcerned with the Australian identity? Regretably, there is an implication that these were his suggestions.
What does this all mean ideologically and politically?
Recently, a supporter of the Australian New Right / national anarchists wrote (on an e-list), in a review of a book by a British national anarchist theorist, Troy Southgate:
"N-A is a form of anarchism which has no roots in the political left, but neither is it right-wing. It differs from the 'mainstream' anarchist movement in its support for racial separatism (amongst other things), but at the same time has no problem with those who want to establish mixed-race communities also. As Southgate puts it: 'We have no desire to rule over an administrative structure or disaffected population of any kind [...] Whilst they choose their own destinies, we shall choose ours.'
"But while this may be well and good in Europe or North America, what about Australia or New Zealand...thinly populated lands ripe for the taking by two populous empires directly to the north (Indonesia and China), as soon as the American ally's power declines? Would N-A perhaps have a negative effect in Australasia, weakening our capacity for self defence? The main Australasian exponent of N-A is Welf Herfurth, resident in Sydney. Herfurth's idea, as formulated in a recent interview, seems to be that Australia should consist of a patchwork quilt of different communities, all completely independent, but co-operating in the important matter of foreign policy. So these entities would not be completely independent, but would constitute a kind of bloc or casual federation. "
The Australian nationalist position has always been that the country is one country, neither for division nor for colonisation into spheres of influence, nor to be the subject of Euro-genocide by resettlement.. It has been argued that a single Australian European identity animates the "whole white people of this continent" (William Lane). The Australian nationalists have demanded a new White Australia Policy, organised humanely and logically to secure this continent for a 'race' and for a 'nationality'. In that regard, Chinese imperialism and Indonesian expansionism are - enemies and dangers. Further too, the Australian nationalists seek to break-down any barriers between European migrant groups and those 'whites' who think 'Australian'. Does the idea of "communities" on the national anarchist model extend also to a type of multiculturalism amongst the European racial group, fragmenting us into 'Aussies' and those who dwell in Little Germany, Little Italy, Little Russia, Little ... communities? It should not! But it could.
At the social-political level, Australian nationalism has asserted itself with increasing tempo as a freedom movement. It may indeed - must in fact - given the danger from without, favour a state, not a patchwork of communities upon the Continent. However, it has favoured the armed people, sovereign and active at the local level administering this state power. It is at the base level, at the level of shire and municipality, where this power can be rooted securely . The movement looks to decentralisation, advocates that the state not interfere in the realm of the family and the private-personal, guarantee property and work and welfare. Yet, a state there must be, if only to protect this people from the dangers without and to regulate for the common weal.
National anarchism runs the risk of creating goals which would disintegrate the nationalist vision into a compromise with the undesirable. There is little sense saying that we aim to salvage something from the disasters of non European immigration and multiculturalism and will take refuge in "our communities". The sad fact is that "their communities" will become the springboard of imperialism and recolonisation. It is really - all or nothing. Australia, unlike perhpas the United States, does not have the luxury of a revolutionary partition. It is further proper to argue for some decentralisation, but not if it denies the Australian identity and hamstrings the potential to maintain independence. In other words, the state is not an option either!
Errors abroad in the ideology and politics of national anarchism
A similar 'line' developed some years ago within certain English groups that had embraced 'Third Position' ideology, the latter being a model of thought and behaviour which could be said to be an activist face for the New Right. Similarly in Australia, the 'national anarchist' group has promulgated New Right in a more activist way than formally nationalist organizations (which is positive), whatever may be thought of the 'term' national anarchist or what may be surmised about its many implications. However, mistaken 'lines' do jump frontiers.
The English scene defines the problem. Some English groups took their ethno-differentialist position (ie. races are different and not to be arranged in hierarchies, which is certainly correct) towards overdrawn statements of 'equality', which undermined the expressions of English or British identity. Perspective was lost. They took their line on group-pride towards encouraging group-pride of the immigrants within Britain, not as a means to drive in wedges against the multi-culti system and to encourage the re-culturation of migrant groups such that repatriation could be ultimately easier, repatriation from the host society and a return to ancestral roots, but to solidify these community blocks. If that 'scheme' was ever to be arrived at, it would surely ossify into permanence, an apartheid patchwork of communities (sic) on the soil of the British Isles. Indeed, some persons in England now argue this very position as a line of least resistance. Nowhere is a 'white Britain' discussed, or any policy of repatriation (voluntary or otherwise) openly proclaimed.
It is of course quite right that nationalists in Australia eventually seek out and have some 'respectful' relationships with people in various non European migrant communities, with those who are in favour of the 'integrity' of their group. It is quite right that in some cases, Australian nationalists state their view on any matter of foreign policy which might have impacted upon their co-nationals overseas (ie. certain Middle Eastern groups should know our view of Zionism, US imperialism etc), and that other groups be aware we are opposed to the New World Order imperialism which imperils the identities of all peoples. However, none of this implies that we should surrender our right to our homeland to any group whatsoever, or compromise our 'integrity' as a people. It is definitely right that Australian nationalists do their best to develop alternate structures inside the current state, areas, whether geographic (regions, towns, suburbs) or otherwise (clubs, schools, businesses etc.) where our people may live as Australians, enforce Australian norms and ideals. This is part of any counter-power strategy. However, that is a strategic operation that permits us to husband resources for the long struggle for state power.
We note that cooperation with alien communities is not unknown to the European nationalist discourse. The French Third Way in the period around 1990 spoke of the "integrists" in certain Arab and African groups and their importance in undermining French liberalism. Jean-Marie Le Pen said he understood those French Moslems who rejected republican liberal secularism (as he did too for his own reasons) and urged France to build ties with the Moslem world to solve the immigration crisis. He received some Moslem votes accordingly. The German National Democrats have found friends in some Moslem groups in Germany because of their anti imperialism and anti Zionism, their opposition to the bandit war against Iraq. All this is good nationalist principle in action. No doubt, Australian examples of this sort of process will be found.
But any other policy that operates to undermine our purpose would ultimately be anathema to the maintenance of the Australian identity, a denial of the vision splendid of Australian independence and the potential of Australian freedom.
Assimilation to Australian facts
Why do I urge dialogue? Because New Right ideology is an important element in defining elements of Australian nationalist ideology and politics. One need not define that inter-relationship here, as this is a major article for the future. It is easier just to say now that the former is a bedrock for the latter. New Right Australia / New Zealand has to be on guard. New Right ideology cannot be swallowed whole. It must be adapted to Australian realities. Indeed, some Australians from the historical past contributed to the stream. One of them, P.R. Stephensen, once said that too much European cultural fertilizer can also kill the Australian plant. So in the case of Australians not attempting to integrate a weightly scholarly school with the facts arising from Australian conditions. If this ideology was to be discredited through non-adaptions or imperfect syntheses, courtesy of any person or group which purportedly upholds it, it would lose credibility. The group New Right Australia New Zealand has also been under attack by rampant ideological revisionists and political opportunists in the broad patriotic scene, people who have rejected its members' forthright support for Palestine over Zionism and by implication too - its anti imperialism. But now, Australian New Right might be giving ammunition to these very opportunists by having a stand open to interpretation by default that it stands for a multicultural / multiracial Australia, a position arrived at through the merger in practise of New Right ideas with national anarchism.
The question is how far these anomalies represent the policy of New Right Australia New Zealand. Have simply a few too many loose comments been made? It is up to the New Right people to define their position. If they went on to repudiate their actual Australian identity for some abstract European-ness to be exercised in the future inside some Eurostan on Australian soil - I would be very much surprised. Rather, it is the group that should commit formally without hesitation or equivocation - to the White Australia Policy and to the Australian Identity over all. I say that in a fraternal and not badgering way. If there was any opposition to that course, the members of New Right Australia New Zealand, would draw the inevitable conclusions.
So, we return finally to the matter of national anarchism. National anarchism may also contain useful ideas and strategies. However, it too cannot be swallowed whole, but must be adapted to Australian realities, if it is to move the general struggle forwards, in tandem (hopefully) with many others. We are all currently engaged in a struggle against the Australian Establishment, a traitor class possessed of physical resources, but also cultural and ideological power. The Australian New Right and national anarchist discources correctly identity the latter as just as important as the former. Some specialised and singular ideas are proposed by them to resist the anti Australian state and its ideological cultural underpinning.. However, if a faulted vision of the future has, if we can run the film in reverse, a complement in a faulted method in the present, then the experiment is in danger. Just as it is one thing to seek an anarchic formula for the future 'state', it is problematical too to argue for an anarchic method in the present. Hence, national anarchy builds no party, because in the end it wants no state. Against the traitor class, it is argued here, there must be a vanguard organization of nationalism to create a new protective Australian state.
I shall return to the matter of national anarchist organization (no, that is not an oxymoron) in a future article. For now, it is necessary to clarify the national anarchist position on key questions, to ensure the pristine quality of the New Right discourse and to ensure the continuance of this conduit force for challenging ideas. The ball is in their court.
Dear New Right,
I thank you for your reply to my article.
I must say, that if more discourse amongst those involved in the Australian movement (I use that term all-inclusively), was as civilised as our small debate, the entire scene would be much further advanced than it is.
You have clarified your position on my main point Even where I may disagree with some material quoted from, or with some ideas advanced, I was concerned chiefly to one core issue. I think it positive overall that it was clarified.
For the record two quick points
(i) I have long advocated the strategic/tactical line of the German National Democrats as being generally applicable in Australia. The three tier idea of contest makes perfect sense. A ‘party’ alone (ie some sort of electoral machine as most people think of a party) is not enough. A party (as the NPD does) can wage the other necessary aspects of the struggle, but should always seek allies who wage individual parts of the struggle according to their own organizational rationales.
(ii) While I can understand why the N-A minded supporters of New Right Australia New Zealand may reject the state (I certainly reject the current state and the worship of the state in general), I do reason that a new state power must be constructed. Possibly, because its initial form may be that of a revolutionary-democratic-dictatorship and to some extent be the product of a vanguard organization, some might reject it in favour of looser models both before and after the event. To be philosophical: history will impose the way.
I shall add this comment to my article at the earliest convenience. You would note – of course – that the Australian Nationalist Ideological Historical And Legal Archive site has links to New Right and national anarchist sites. It will continue to do so.
Fraternally, Jim Saleam
PS I note Richard’s comment. Clearly I’ve failed PR 101! I should say that all positive ‘nationalist’ efforts and persons have been under attack for some time now and many false impressions of people have been engendered. The editor of this site has also been attacked because of particular correct stands taken. Richard: examine my writing. I will certainly try harder.