Comments On The 'Exposure' Of Baron Von Hund
Jim Saleam and another
The ultimate exposure of David Innes (aka 'Baron von Hund' of Stormfront) was a positive thing. If Innes now provides materials to FightDemBack (FDB), if it is clear he was 'collecting' incriminating (sic) materials on many young aspiring nationalists for a long time, if he has made threats of violence against several patriotic people over the last six months, then it raises a question as to what he was in the first instance.
It can only be concluded that Innes was never any sort of serious Australian nationalist. Rather, he was more some variety of 'actor', a psychological type unsure of his place in politics or anywhere else, someone ready to turn this way or that, as mood took him. Evidence of mood disorder and other depressive illness was obviously there, if one looked hard enough. And in any case, he had actually admitted the latter. The narcissist was present too, someone 'big noting' himself, centring the political world around himself. There were warning voices on these matters - but they were ignored by too many.
Earlier this year, Innes announced that he intended to "eliminate" three persons from the nationalist scene - one Western Australian, one Queenslander and Jim Saleam. It was significant that each was a target of FDB. And the language and style of the attack made upon each was often the same. If this was pointed out, Innes redoubled the invective. Why 'target' anyone? What gave Innes this right?
There can be little doubt that, as 'Baron von Hund', he had an impact. Invited into disputes within Australia First, Innes fueled them and demanded of a at least one certain plotter some sort of role in a 'new' Australia First. Allowed to deal with New Right, he eventually crashed their web site. Through Stormfront he turned people against each other and destabilised groups. It was all quite an achievement. The ranting, the sheer volume of invective, could convince the new-comer, if he was not careful, that this or that person or idea - was no good.
Therefore, we must deal with questions of great importance. Why was Innes not expunged from the scene long before? Why did some nationalists enter into all sorts of arrangements with him? Why was his word taken over others? How did he get away with it all?
We discuss several answers to these questions.
1. Structural Weakness
The broad Australian nationalist scene is divided. It speaks with several voices, some unsure and confused. A loud voice may therefore be listened to. The essential logic of 'baronism' was to maintain that the history of Australian nationalism, the existence of cadres and trends of ideas etc from the past - was all irrelevant to the present and less relevant to the future. In a political world that began only yesterday, the loud voice was the only one which should be listened to. Innes asserted that to argue the contrary was to shoulder the present activists with the burdens of the past. Clever. It disintegrated history, leaving the present adrift.
It should be recorded that new activists have emerged. They are integrating into structures, but the processes of encadrement are scarcely complete. They seek out the facts and in due course, find them. Accordingly, they 'stream' themselves, rallying not so much around leaders as around trends of thought. It is the movement which conveys strength, because it is not something conjured up yesterday. It reaches back deep into the Australian historical past and it relies upon the experience of nationalist politics over a few decades. As a true movement, it empowers those who serve it.
There remains the issue of the centralisation of people and resources. In an environment where organizational weaknesses operate, it is hard to command the majority of people and the weight of resources such that the malefactor is - and feels - isolated. The Innes type can attach himself to fractions - and survive. Only when all positive people unite is the negative person excluded.
Once there is one majoritarian nationalist party, the chances of new 'baronists' emerging, are minimised.
2. Outside Intervention
To 'create' Baron von Hund, as a 'player' in the nationalist movement, it was necessary that the opposition (especially the FDB group) centred attacks upon him. The gullible would believe he was what he claimed he was. However, the union of FDB and von Hund also operated. FDB and similar groups would condemn him, whilst Baron mirrored their attacks upon nationalist figures. It would seem that if 'each side' agreed about someone - then it must be true.
The decisive factor in the career of Innes was the use made of him by the opposition forces. His style allowed for no particular 'security' interest. He conducted himself in the open and in that way betrayed ideas, attitudes and people to the enemy. He further began, as the publishers of Whitelaw Towers reasonably suggest, to pass information to the anti-racists and anti-fascists (sic) if it led to the undermining of someone or some group on the nationalist side with whom he had a difficulty. Ultimately, he passed over information he had been collectiing for a long period. In other words, the relationship with FDB (in particular) was a symbiotic one ie. each fed off the other.
The elimination of Innes as a player, necessarily causes a dearth of intelligence data to flow to oppositional forces. Care must now be taken that no new 'Baron von Hund' is created.
3. A Matter Of Discipline
In ridding the scene of an alien entity, it is necessary to rely upon unity of purpose. It was proper that leading people unite and take a line and develop it. This did not occur as it should have.
But discipline is hard to arrive at. This might be a factor of division itself. It is also a matter of psychology. When some people consider themselves possessed of an unrestricted right to publish as they please and to consort as they are want to do, then a 'player' can easily worm his way into confidences and groups. At least, he can prevent the creation of a united front. Some people defend the fractious person - because they too are fractious. It means in fact that once a truth is found, it must be imposed. This entails those who possess the facts to make sure, by personal contact and other means, that the dominant view is regarded as a 'law of conduct'. If broken, then the offender should be shunned!
The political struggle is not a game. As it develops, it will have consequences for participants. Betrayal to media and poliitical police is not an amusing thing, especially when it can be prevented by simple organizational norms.
Regretably, there may be more von Hunds. How we deal with the next one, will prove if the classroom of life - paid off!