Revisionism And Opportunism On The Islam And Israel Questions:
Old Terms, New Meanings In The Fight Against 'Cleanskins', 'Mainstreaming' And 'Media Friendly' Myths

In the old communist movement the terms revisionism and opportunism were expressions of particular insult. A revisionist was someone who stripped away from communism its essential radical impulse in a sea of words about social change; an opportunist was someone who was looking for a line of approach that would vault the party into some sort of position inside the capitalist state without really challenging it, and whilst acceding to its norms.

In our nationalist movement these terms are also useful, because on Stormfront Downunder and in other places, persons have emerged with versions of the nationalist message which they say are publically marketable and media-friendly, more sensible ways to discuss older policies. Not only that, they say they have identified new methods to advance us from the margins in rapid time. I shall deal with one set of falsehoods here.

Before I enter into the discussion of our Australian case, let us look at a European example which really ties it all together. Once upon a time in the early 1990s the old man of Italian Nationalism, Giorgio Almirante, General Secretary of the Italian Social Movement (MSI), annointed his private secretary, Gianfranco Fini, to take charge of the party when he was gone. Fini told the Italian nationalists that he would take their party into the mainstream. He told them that the media regarded them to that point as a large fringe party, but an extremist party nonetheless. He said he would fix that by doing away with any policy that jarred, that was not electorally marketable, or nostalgic for the 'radicalism' of earlier days. He changed the name of the party to the National Alliance and won a swathe of votes in 1993. This fifteen per cent vote put Fini in the Berlusconi coalition government. Within six months of founding this party, a wise older man called Pino Rauti walked out, saying that Fini's inititial compromises or verbal twists were just the start, that he would end up a system man in system alliances, that he would rip the guts out of Italian nationalism, permanantly. He went back to found the MSI. Needless to say, Fini denounced him as unresponsive to the needs of the electorate, a wild man with wild ideas. Of course, Rauti was right, and not too long passed before Fini was all in favour of NATO and Israel and ultimately - giving immigrants the right to vote in Italian government elections; he also (quite naturally) favoured sending Italian troups to Iraq for the war on terrorism and he took the road to Jerusalem, bowing to Israeli propaganda and their demands for assurances that there was no anti Zionism in the National Alliance. Fini oversaw the job cuts of Berlusconi and made himself into another version of Italian conservatism. After waiting too long in National Alliance, Allessandra Mussolini also quit - and founded her own electoral league and an umbrella group - 'Social Alliance' - which united the few parties of real Italian nationalism in a broad front.

I have a taste for ironies. It was Eduard Bernstein who was the private secretary for Frederick Engels, and who was annointed by Engels to carry on his work and that of Karl Marx; yet he was the very man who went on to create revisionism inside the communist movement. It seems one can't trust private secretaries!

Our revisionists and opportunists would deny that that is what they are. Let us have a look at what they say and wish to do.

The charge against nationalist politics has come in from the side. Rather than attack fundamental principles head on, they have raised up the question of Islam as the main enemy. This leads them to court allies where they can, or to neuter anything that gets in the way of this focus. When I say that they have made Islam the main enemy, I say that they see it as a line of least resistance. It is easier (sic) to tackle that question, they reason, because one can get a sort of hearing from people in the current climate. It means they can appear popular. So clever!

The present regime has allowed people to give vent to a muted criticism of an alien immigrant group and of alien cultural values. Did not Peter Costello talk about alien groups and alien values?. During the time of the fake War on Terror, the government is quite happy to allow people to blow off a little steam in criticism of mad imans and terrorists. The opportunists can also get a hearing from right wing Christians and some supporters of the Liberal Party and try to set up alliances. The hard issue of Australia's place near Asia can be put aside on the grounds that they will awaken these anti Moslem masses slowly to the enemy of multiculturalism and they can pretend that they are part of a mass movement of concerned citizens.

If one criticises this anti-Islamism as something that leads nowhere but into a straight-jacketing bond, the nationalist runs the risk of being denounced as not being part of the community's concerns and of being pro-Moslem in some manner or other! Necessarily too, the anti-Islamics ignore the Zionist question and say that the electorate and the people generally have no interest in it, don't understand it and may even perceive Israel as a friend in the war on terror and our defence against Islam. Rather than sort a way through this minefield, they take the line of least resistance. Therein lies real poison.

To be a cleanskin, a mainstreamer and media-friendly, one cannot be seen be have views that 'jar' with people. The revisionists and opportunists then note that anti Zionism is 'dangerous' and the media will on occasion claim that people who espouse it might be neo-nazis. Again, the line of least resistance. Of course, as these people retreat from the hard question, they might make a bit of noise about Zionism being another internationalist ideology or so on, but not a real issue in our local politics. By a bit of quick mouthing, they escape from the discussion. They appear to be nationalist, but following a tactically wiser line. On the contrary, they have sold out on principles and must know it. For some who may still think themselves 'clever', they will end up where they don't want to go. The communists used to say that was "using the red flag to defeat the red flag". In other words, homage (verbally) is paid to principles, whilst they go the other way.

I have said from the start that anti-Islamism leads back to the Liberal Party. There are many ways to vent our concerns about Islamic religion and culture within the present multiculti system, without falling into the trap. I have seen this anti Islamist current grow stronger and it is now an excuse to throw out nationalist analysis of foreign policy issues and understanding of the state power. I note that in Europe Le Pen has argued against the War On Terror. He says that ultimately Europe must seek accords wiith the Moslem world in order to reverse the tide of immigration. He says that we therefore have no business attacking Moslem countries. He says that the main internal enemy is the regime and not the Islamic immigrants as much as he criticises their presense.. Le Pen, like the NPD, the Swedish National Democrats and others, has located the neo-con group in America and elsewhere, that new Zionist lobby, as the present engine of war. That being so, there is a Zionist question which cannot be escaped by semantics. The two questions are inter-related. Those who pursue the anti Islamic line internally end up supporting it as foreign policy. We shall do neither. But keep balance and keep it publically as well. Once anti Zionism is repudiated, one can drift about and if the War On Terror is 'popular' in some imagined way, then the Liberal Party has a new satellite. The Liberals are good at that, for once long ago, they had an army of good anti communists who disliked the Soviet regime so much, they would serve as useful political cannon fodder. Natiionalists will become no one's satellite.

I remind again: Italian nationalism could have been destroyed by the slick Fini. It hasn't been - because wiser counsels took the proper course. So it will be in Australia.

Home: Defend Australian Nationalism