For An Australian Freedom History School



Dr. Jim Saleam





At the Sydney Forum this year, I intend to speak about the urgent need for Australian nationalists, New Right thinkers, patriots, freedom activists - to start writing their own history. The alternative is that contrary groups will be those articulating (sic) what we are supposed to be and what our pathways have been and what our personnel are supposed to believe. That has serious ramifications. Ideology forms politics and if our ideological perspectives are misrepresented, it is easier for our opposition to mobilize forces against us. In that case, some folks fantasise we are something we aren't and that we could be bad to the core and they sacrifice accordingly in the struggle to overcome us. In another case, our opponents set out to psychologically disintegrate our groups as some of our friends cast about desperately for ways to overcome the enemy's falsehoods and madden themselves in the futile attempt.

That latter circumstances are the way things present. Groups mobilize against us on false premises that sour the public debate, causing some potential supporters to turn away and some persons supposedly in our camp desert or panic under fire.

I do not simply mean that what may pass as genuine historical research is composed with these goals in mind, although contrary historical research is part of the struggle to maintain the ideological hegemony of liberal-globalism. In the area of academic research, we are - of course - decidedly crowded out and denounced. There are a number of theses, books and articles that establish various lines of thought and our side is put into neat pigeon holes. It is true that I have authored a doctoral thesis and other material, but as readers would appreciate I don't exactly get a fair hearing. And there is some other accurate academic material too, but essentially the field is dominated by post-marxists, liberals and others, who come at us from the angle that our 'side' is a challenge to liberal-globalism and its purported humanism that is better castigated as outside of polite discourse.

However, these things are the least of our direct and immediate concerns. It has always been my view that ideology is one big nought unless it is in praxis. In other words, our academic critics establish the essential reference points that can then be used by our most dishonest critics and used as part of a practical politics of harassment and critique - and containment. I refer in that way to the various species of antifascism and their lies aimed at us. I say 'lies' because whether they lie by commission or omission, the aim of antifascism is never to be objective, or even necessarily consistent. It is simply to attack. That is an enormous strength - although as we can also appreciate it can also be a weakness (I will not discuss that case here). Antifascism must mobilize activists, alienate potential supporters and contain the forces of Australian freedom in a battle of endless duration and attrition and manoeuvre. If a lie is exposed, no error is confessed to - they simply move on. If one smear does not work, they find another. If a campaign fails, they reposition. Antifascism is not a positive politics. It is a politics controlled by people who do not reveal their real purpose to their agents.

Antifascism's 'history' is bunk.

I note that, particularly in my case and that of any movement with which I have been associated, everything degenerates to twist and smear. As one comrade who was trained in psychology put to me: if what they said about you was all 'true', you couldn't function intellectually, let alone practically; the contradictions are just so extreme. Oh yes, he forgot to add: there is one way I could function and it trails off into the realms of serious psychological disorder. But, lo, I should not have been surprised to learn that that allegation has been made too!

I note that the antifascism have developed various website sections that seem to have no other real purpose than to deal with me. As said, the way antifascism works is that it never repudiates what it has said and never makes the slightest admission as to any inconsistency, error or evidentiary failure. For example, one website quoted against me the writings of one, David Greason, a man who spent time in a mental hospital, shopped for the Trotskyites whilst he worked with the business end of town and who worked for a Zionist peak organisation and magazine and who plagiarised his main work, I Was A Teenage Fascist, chiefly from the stories of a defector from the Communist Party of Australia decades ago. Nothing about Greason's real lack of credentials! And I have little doubt they can only reasonably suspect something is amiss with him. Another reference on the same site quoted the notorious David Palmer, an ASIO informant, to the effect he had been politically associated with me etc and broke with me for such and such a reason, with the average reader invited to 'accept' the tale; but Palmer's minor contacts (sic) with me in the years 1989-90 were dictated by his role as a pimp and there is no advantage for antifascism in explaining why Australia's most prominent neo-nazi (sic) for over a decade was playing a game for ASIO.

I note that I am held by antifascism to be just such a quarrelsome bigot that I have argued with just about everyone within our camp, something which supposedly shows what a dead-pan idiot I must be. As a failure in life by that analysis, I am held out to be just such a frustrated creature worthy of contempt, but not too much contempt, 'cos that would mean antifascists could just go home. Indeed, some years back, one notorious antifascist even suggested I would pass him information on my fellow racist bigots to cause them to fall leaving me alone in the field. That was a good one - until the identity of a person who actually did that - became known.

I note too that ideologically I am said by antifascists to be a Nazi, a type of racist communist, a New Right man, a Third Position militant, a bit of this and that, inconsistent myself - and god knows what else. Pick a card, any card, and you can have a reason not to communicate with this bloke. Ho, ho, ho, and we are all meant to laugh at the poor sucker: 'we have you bang to rights and we won't let go of you'.

Why quote my own 'case'? Because it is done to all in one degree or another. Which person or group of any substance does not receive the some of the same treatment and does this not imply they must be doing something right?

Use by our internal enemies

I have become concerned over the last half-decade that the lie factory of antifascism has also intruded directly into our world. Various lines run against people, groups and ideas in the media, in academic literature and in particular in antifascism have crept into the internecine struggles that have plagued us in this period. It isn't really that hard to figure out why and one does not need a constructive-paranoid disposition to grasp it. As said, antifascism tries to train people on our own side to reason that if someone is shunned, or an idea repudiated and some activity ignored - then they will leave us alone and we can get on with the job and maybe enter the mainstream!

That position is poison. I have little doubt that antifascism has operated in tandem with people who have agendas inside our broad camp, feeding them and being fed in return. I further believe that, in deep cover there are conduits of communication, without the persons involved necessarily being directly aware of their full manipulation. Certainly, the history of antifascism in some countries points in that direction. Yet, even if we leave that out of the equation, it is bad enough to see supposed patriotic people using the same historical scripts as antifascism. Yet, that has happened. It is the case that some in our broad (very broad) camp are simply not really aware of the history of the struggle itself and of the myriad of people and groups who/which have made it up. Hence, they look for quick fixes and may turn away from proper organisations and legitimate persons in that quest. Perhaps, that is a lot of the problem. If all were aware of what piece fits in the jigsaw, they might then appreciate better the total picture and see that antifascism seeks to herd them in certain directions.. That comes back to my point: is it time to write our own history?

The way forward

I was contacted not too long ago by a nationalist who said that he was thinking of writing his doctoral thesis, taking up where my work left off and also going into assessments of some groups I didn't discuss and with new information and data and that he would challenge part of the academic discourse aimed at us.

I considered that a most valuable idea. Yet, we should go much further. It is surely time for people in different groups to document the histories of their associations, chart out the main ideas and detail the leading (public) activists, such that monographs can be written and published. It may be appropriate too that students at our universities who may be affiliated to our camp are supported in this way with basic data such that material can be written, that their degrees are - in one sense - earned in collective effort. With work in the Honours, Master's and Doctoral fields completed by people in our camp, we can contest ideological hegemony and answer the falsehoods of antifascism.

Where to start? I will start this project by offering whatever assistance I can to bona fide persons.

A veritable school of history writing needs to come into being, that the history of the Australian freedom struggle, in all its forms and ideas, can be composed and passed on to a new generation of activists. This will bedrock the movement and thereby contribute to winning the struggle. I look forward to discussions on this subject with participants at the 2011 Sydney Forum.



Homepage