PART ONE: WHAT IS AUSTRALIAN-SOCIALISM?

SECTION A:
Basic Principles Of A Modern Australian National Revolutionary Ideology


by Alec Saunders

November 2001

Last Update: July 2012

Note: The reader will note that this text was composed when the Eastern bloc existed. I have usually changed the text in that regard. Occasionally, notes have been inserted. The reader can determine, in the light of revealed detail whether the situation of the past was, as it was - presented.


‘TRUE PATRIOTISM SHOULD BE RACIAL!" -

W.G. Spence, "Australian Socialist"


"Every country has the inalienable right to determine the composition of its own population. Its policies on immigration are its own affair. It is entitled to enforce them without any interference from any other nation. And this applies equally to every nation, large or small, be it in Asia, Africa, Europe, America or Australia. The question of morality or ethics does not arise and cannot be artificially created."

Arthur Calwell, Labor leader.

"All peoples have the right of self-determination ... to freely determine their political, social and cultural development". Article One, Point One Of The United Nations Covenant Of Civil And Political Rights.

Until 1966, the official policy of all Australian governments – whether Conservative or Fabian-Socialist – was fundamentally to preserve the predominantly European racial and cultural character of the Australian Nation. Commonly this was referred to as the "White Australia Policy."

The purpose of this article is to summarise the roots of this geo-political/bio-cultural imperative, and to familiarise readers with the three Australian patriotic ideologies, which held that the White Australia policy was integral to our economic, military, social, cultural, biological and ecological welfare. These three racial-patriotisms can best be defined as CONSERVATIVE, PROGRESSIVE and RADICAL.

The Conservatives were predominantly represented by sections of the Anglophilic ruling elites (so called 'sterlings'), and they tended to be more accurately defined as Empire-loyalists rather than Australian-nationalists. This group believed that the British Isles (particularly England) was really home, and that Australia was simply an economic unit at the service of the Empire. They regularly sent their children "home" for an education, and thus were able to retain their British ethnic identity despite being ostensibly third or four generation Australians. A social division had emerged between those Old Australians who were defined as "currency" (having some convict blood) and those who were defined as "sterling" (allegedly with no convict blood) (refer to Robert Hughes, The Fatal Shore). Many of the currency group (some with sterling aspirations) sought to conceal what British imperialism regarded as a stigma on their origins. Today, this blood-stigma is the proud stigmata of all Australian progressive nationalists of Old stock (who serve as the medium for the White Australian psycho-cultural archetype), since the crimes for which their ancestors were transported were the direct result of the class struggle in Britain at the start of the industrial epoch.

Though superficially, the conservative-patriots believed in "White Australia," their ethno-centrism was Anglo-centric and not Euro-centric. Some even favoured the exclusion of fellow Britons who were of Celtic stock, because they believed that many Celts favoured republicanism and thus were hostile to Anglo-Saxon Imperialism. The imperial-patriots' obsession with Jacobite, Fenian and central European sympathisers (the immigrants and their descendents from the two German speaking empires who were found throughout the colonies, but in visible numbers in South Australia and Queensland and who were referred to as 'the sausage eaters'), was paramount during the First World War. This gave rise to a counter-phenomenon in the Australian isolationist movement with figures such as Cardinal Mannix understanding that there was no sense in Australia participating in a fratricidal war with fellow-European peoples, particularly when they were being pressed into the service of finance-capitalism and imperialism. Henry Lawson set the precedent for this in his criticisms of the Boer War which likewise was simply the pursuit of capitalist/imperialist goals (then, at the expense of the white working people of South Africa).

Later, Percy Stephensen and his Australia First Movement recapitulated the anti-war position of those Australian nationalists who did not see the merit of fratricidal wars and thus their insistence on Australian neutrality in the European theatre of the Second World War. Stephensen was not unique in proclaiming this 'Australia first' position - his singularity simply lay in his courage to continue promulgating it during wartime. In 1939, when Menzies committed troops to fight in Europe, the Labor Party under Curtin argued that Australia should not be involved in a European war. Once war was actual, Curtin naturally supported the effort, but in his declaration of war against Japan he demonstrated that he understood that the Pacific war and the war in Europe were actually two different wars. John Curtin's position was heavily influenced by Doc Evatt who promulgated a Pacific Monroe Doctrine for Australia and for which he was castigated by the United States. Curtin understood that once Japan entered the war on the Axis side in pursuit of her Co-Prosperity Sphere in Asia, that Australia and New Zealand were subject to fighting their own Great Patriotic War against the lebensraum ambitions of an ascending Asiatic imperialism.. Japan's Axis membership suddenly meant that the outcome of the war in Europe had for better or worse, become Australia's business and not simply an extension of our satellite status as part of the British Empire.

Although the Jacobite Rebellion in Britain was a war of contending pretenders to the Throne, it represented a consortium of Scottish nationalists in tandem with British Unionists throughout the kingdom who sought the restoration of the Stuart Monarchy. When it became apparant that no Stuart, let alone Bonnie Prince Charlie, would 'ere come back again', many descendants of Jacobite families became nationalist to the region where they were either born or had emigrated and often embraced French revolutionary ideas such as Jacobinism. Thus necessarily, Jacobite households either Catholic or Protestant were usually held under surveillance by those loyal to the descendants of George and the House of Hanover. Many of those who embraced a nationalist position reflective of the Jacobite diaspora embraced a neutralist position for their new countries and therefore found themselves in conflict with British imperialism.

The philosophic foundation for this neutralist position was articulated in old-Labor nationalist MP, Frank Anstey's two major works, The Money Power and The Kingdom Of Shylock. An example is the following Anstey reference:

"Men may die but money makes no sacrifice. It looks upon bloody war as a rich gold mine yielding fat dividends for ever and ever without end. Human blood suckers, who risk neither life nor limb nor penny, wax fat upon Armageddon."

This Australia first position was also replicated by recent Australian nationalists during the Cold War and after - and was simply an expression of what has historically been Old Labor nationalism. A well-known historical example was Arthur Calwell addressing an anti Vietnam War / anti conscription rally in Sydney (where an attempt to assassinate him occurred); Calwell also had no problems in reconciling his ethically-traditionalist Christian (Catholic) socialism with the necessity for a secular white nationalist Australian state. His philosophical successors reappeared as National Resistance - and its descendants. All have been vindicated by history as being the correct positions.

The existence of contemporary Welsh, Irish and Scottish Nationalist movements in the British Isles today, is a sufficient indication that the conservatives’ fear for the loss of Anglo-Saxon hegemony was well-founded, simply because it was an inevitable historical process. The conservatives, as always, represented the past and were hostile to the future. The devolution of power from Westminster to the parliaments of the culturally Celtic countries of Britain is an acknowledgement on the part of Westminster that the United Kingdom can no longer operate as a centralised unitary state.

The conservatives were completely attached to British and international capitalist interests, and so they opposed all possibility of Australia developing her own economic and military capability, because this could lead to economic and political independence. They desired that Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Southern Africa should remain purely primary producers, and that England should be the "WORK-SHOP" of the Empire.

This group was hostile to social reforms of any kind, and the Idea of "socialism" was regarded as the doctrine of the "RABBLE." Thus, by perpetuating the class antagonisms of old Britain, they were inimical to the development of a sense of national cohesiveness and solidarity between all Australians of European descent. Though they did not desire large-scale "free immigration" of coloureds or whites, as this could threaten the ethnic balance and ultimately mean a Republic, they often favoured the importation of indentured and coloured labour (Chinese, Kanakas, etc.) on a contract basis, providing that they would be compelled to return home once their economic utility was outlived. In this regard, it becomes self-evident that the conservatives were no better than the cosmopolitan capitalists who felt no solidarity with the newly evolving White Australian people.

Their willingness to subvert the interests of their own kin so as to be able to exploit cheap slave and alien labour, is an indication that these Imperial-patriots did not feel any biological or spiritual affinity with the less economically advantaged white settlers, and thus the 'Australianity' of the conservatives can easily be called into question. In recent times, Sir Robert Menzies can be identified with the Imperial-Patriotic tradition. Many former conservative "Immigration Restriction" lobbies have had his solidarity and patronage. By the late 1970’s this variation of racial-patriotism was an anachronism, and thus was only espoused by those Union Jack-waving geriatrics who continued to believe that "Salvation shall descend from the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (renamed Windsor when it became an embarrassing political liability to have a sausage-eater-pedigree)." A highly unlikely scenario, considering the racial and political chaos in which Britain finds herself, and which the British royal family, who are avowed multi-racialists, condones.

The proposal on the part of some Australian imperial-patriots for a trans-oceanic imperial federation whose governing capital would be London, in which all British subjects would have equal voting rights in a borderless English-speaking world, was unequivocally rejected by the Australian Workers' Union in its resolution adopted on January 27 1917 as follows:

Mr. Last moved that, "in view of the possibility of Australia being dragged into a scheme of Imperial Federation, which would abrogate our rights and privileges under responsible government, and seriously undermine that paladium of our liberties - the Commonwealth Constitution - this convention of the Australian Workers' Union places on record its stoutest opposition to this Dominion of the Empire being governed by the plutocrats of England which the proposed scheme would involve."

Mr. Last said that any scheme of Imperial Federation which Australia might be dragged into at present was liable to assail seriously the autonomy at present enjoyed here, and delegates should realise what the danger was. The franchise for the British parliament was somewhat analogous to that of shire councils in the Commonwealth, but even if adult suffrage were in existence Australia, on a population basis, would be outnumbered by delegates from the other British dominions. Australia would, for instance, be hopelessly vetoed when the teeming millions of India had to be taken into account. A scheme of Imperial Federation under existing circumstances would be goodbye forever to our system of responsible government, and an attack on the principles of a White Australia, which they all held dear. Mr. Holloway seconded the resolution which was carried.

Frank Anstey's view of plutocracy was almost identical to that of Last as evidenced by:

"The 'Money Power' is something more than Capitalism. It is its product, yet its master. 'Capitalism', in its control of the great agencies of production, is observable and understandable. The other lurks in vaults and banking chambers masquerading its operations in language that mystifies or dazzles ... modern Capitalism throws ever increasing power into the hands of men who operate the monetary machine. These men constitute 'The Financial Oligarchy'.

This anglophone world-imperial federation, against which the old-Labor nationalists railed, was the prototypal model of the New World Order of the present, the only difference being that the plutocrats' parliament, the London Stock Exchange, is now second fiddle to the New York Stock Exchange - but the concept and the concert remains the same. So is the bulk of its ideological orchestra who are all products of the Whig/liberal laissez-faire world view, the typical expression being the economics of Milton Freidmann, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Today, Bush, Blair, Keating and Howard were and are all products of this school of economics.

Australian Nationalism does not derive its ideological origins from the Imperial-patriotic tradition but rather from the early ideas and value-system of our nativist tribal-socialist republican movement. The racial-socialist "Australian-nationalists" in the last century and in contemporary times may be defined in two categories; these are, Progressives and Radicals. Both the progressives and the radicals were associated with the formation of the early trade union movement and the Australian Labour Party. The current A.L.P. has betrayed the racial-nationalistic principles upon which it was founded and today it is only an instrument of cosmopolitan capitalism.

Both the progressives and the radicals were hostile to capitalism as they favoured the development of a homogenous European nation in the Southern Hemisphere. This nation-state would be a completely autonomous Social-Republic and run on autarchic lines. The following two points from the 1908 manifesto of the Australian Labour Party will illustrate some of the objectives of the Australian social-nationalistic movement.

"The cultivation of an Australian sentiment based on the maintenance of racial purity and the development in Australia of an enlightened self-reliant community."

"The securing of the full results of their industry to all producers by the collective ownership of monopolies and the extension of the industrial and economic functions of the state and the municipality."

Both the progressives and the radical-nationalists were tribal-socialists and not proletarian-socialists. The Marxist notion of a state transcending organic realities, such as race and nationality, so as to create solidarity of all urban industrial workers at the expense of one’s own spiritual and biological kindred, was regarded as a perverse absurdity by most early Australian-socialists. Thus it is self-evident that "AUSTRALIAN-SOCIALISM", as an ideology, was hardly Marxist, and philosophically opposed to the cosmopolitan materialism of the Marxist and liberal conception of life. It is only in recent times that Marxist/liberal internationalism has infiltrated the Australian Labour movement, and as an ideology it only has infected its trendy cosmopolitan leadership and not the rank and file. The basis of our contemporary multiracial / multicultural society lay in the influence that Tom Mann who argued for a cosmopolitanism to be adopted by the Victorian Socialist Party and the whole labour movement - finally being implemented by the Whitlam new-Labor government Mann vied with Frank Anstey for intellectual influence over John Curtin, but ultimately Anstey's position prevailed, with its unremitting commitment to a White Australia Policy. This was endorsed by the ordinary Australian workers (ie the producers of all types, reconciled in an organic national community, representing more than the urban industrial workers of the so-called proletariat and desiring the state of the whole people) who continue/d to remain adamantly racial-nationalistic despite their betrayal by the Labour leadership.

This type of socialism was neither Marxist, nor fascist, nor liberal, nor libertarian - although it shared characteristics with all of them. It is more properly defined as producerism..Since the Whitlam government endorsed the Lima Declaration, we have seen a general transfer of Australian capital to Third World countries,;l eading to the undermining of Australian manufacturing. The Liberal / National coalition governments continued this trend, abandoning their own version of producerism, known as 'Black Jack McEwenism' - and ultimately they adopted laissez-faire liberal neo-conservatism. This was then to be absorbed into the Hawke-Keating Labor deregulating governments. The contemporary KRuddite (Gillard) Labor Party, as evidenced by the address of Lindsay Tanner (Labor Minister for Finance and Deregulation) to the Melbourne Institute in 2008, is totally opposed to producerism ( see:"The Battle Against Producerism"). In Australia and New Zealand in the nineteenth century, producerism was defined as 'socialism without doctrines' by our respective labour movements.

Lindsay Tanner, who left parliament because of a lack of confidence in the coalition of cripples that constitutes the current Labor/Greens/Country-independent alliance now led by the former Trotskyoid, Julia Gillard, is a sad comment on the state of the nation in 2010. The coalition of cretins (in the dictionary sense of a colection of pathological liars) led by an Abbott in budgie smugglers, equally does not have the support of the Australian nation as the electoral result on August 21 2010 indicated.

As a consequence of the racial-socialist (that is, macro-tribal producerist) nature of early and contemporary Australian Nationalism, some Marxist academics such as Humphrey McQueen (refer to his well-known book, The New Britannia) have chosen to describe early Australian Nationalism as a proto-fascism, and view contemporary nationalism as full-fledged fascism. McQueen’s view is propagandistic, for the following reason: -

The early and contemporary Australian Nationalist movements were/are in principle and where ever politically possible anti-imperialist and universally pan-nationalist, and then, more specifically, pan-Europid racial-solidarists (i.e. they believe in the sovereignty of all peoples, especially white nations, regardless whether in the European, American, African, Oceanic, Asian or Australian regions), whilst the nazi-fascist movements were ethnic and national chauvinists, similar to the British and Zionist Imperialists. Rather than a pan-Europid sentiment, the nazi and fascist movements desired to obtain territorial gains at the expense of other white nations. Those who would have forfeited not only their liberty but also their territory, had an Axis victory occurred, would have included the white peoples of Australia, New Zealand and the U.S.S.R. The Nazi objective of "LEBENSRAUM" was an imperialistic project to dispossess the white peoples of Eastern Europe, whilst the proposed "New Asian Co-prosperity Sphere" would have meant the absorption of Australia and New Zealand into the Japanese Empire. For this reason Australian Nationalism has never been unconditionally sympathetic either to Nazism or fascism, but rather it is a movement of national-liberation, which respects the sovereign right of all peoples to racial, cultural and political independence. This pan-nationalism / co-nationalism was very evident in the perspective of John Curtin and which was mistakenly interpreted as contemporary or marxist / liberal internationalism - but it actually had its origins in the thinking of the early Scottish nationalist, Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun (1653-1716) (Refer to the address of Professor Marilyn Lake, "John Curtin: Internationalist", available on the Internet; as well as, Section 3 of Nietzsche And Ethical Socialism For A New Millennium on this Site - and also refer to Part Four of this pamphlet, 'William Lane And The Metaphysical And Metapolotical Foundations Of The National And Social Revolutions'.

In fact, Hitler said in his 1945 Testament:

"The descendents of the convicts in Australia should inspire in us nothing but a feeling of supreme indifference. If their vitality is not strong enough to enable them to increase at a rate proportionate to the size of the territories they occupy, that is their own look-out, and it is no use their appealing to us for help. For my own part, I have no objection at all to seeing the surplus populations of prolific Asia being drawn, as to a magnet, to their empty spaces. Let them all work out their own salvation! And - let me repeat - it is nothing to do with us."

The spurious definition of fascism as a national-socialism, and thus related to Australian Nationalism which was, and is, socialist, is also a tendentious assumption. All the fascist movements which often claimed to be radical or socialistic were in fact seldom genuine social-revolutionary movements, but through their compromises often served as the militant arms of the old European order. The nazi-fascist movements persecuted and liquidated more genuine European radical nationalists (who were opposed to fascism’s pro-capitalist and imperialist position and challenged from within their movements and states) than they did their other opponents, such as the communists (whom they did not regard as a credible threat to their regimes.) Stalinism, Maoism, Sukarnoism, Titoism, Castroism, 'goulash communism', Black African socialism, Islamic Radicalism (ie.nominally Moslem, but progressive ideologies related to Nasserism and not to be confused with militant Islamic fundamentalism of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda types, which is reactionary), were/are all examples of ideologies which had/have synthesised a tribal-socialism or tribal-communism with an authoritarian and ethically traditionalist patriotism opposed to those dynamics of decadence fostered by liberalism.

These ideologies and states have not been generally defined as fascist by virtue of their nationally-specific socialism, and thus Australian Radical and Progressive nationalism are also exempt from this alien definition. Many of the previously cited states have mistakenly been defined as Marxist. They were/are semantically of the sort. However, since the failure of the Bolshevik revolution to realise the Marxist-Leninist cosmopolitan utopia, many states, which began as Marxist (in one of its versions), have been compelled by organic necessity (i.e. bio-cultural and geo-political realities) to gradually evolve into Radical-nationalistic societies. Many were, and some still are (eg. China and Cuba) in this process of evolution, and thus continue to cling to some Marxist rhetoric and ideas.

The implosion of many so-called Marxist countries (including the USSR), was the direct consequence of their dialectical contradiction between forces supporting necessary change and reactionary forces determined to maintain the ideological status quo, despite the obvious failures of official ideology. The capture of many of these states by the forces of plutocracy was a high-jacking and distortion of their natural evolutionary processes, achieved with significant CIA collaboration. The maintenance of Boris Yeltsin, plutocracy's court-jester, in power in the Russian Federation, is now commonly accepted as the contrivance of American hireling spindoctors (as admitted in Time magazine and television ie. common knowledge), in tandem with their CIA controllers.

One nation-state, which had totally philosophically broken with Marxist ideology (with its dictatorship of the proletariat, totalitarian state, command economy etc) whilst it maintained necessary cordial political relations with some so-called Marxist states, had been Colonel Gaddafi’s Libya. Colonel Gaddafi became the inspiration and the patron of Third Position political parties throughout the West and the Third World. Gaddafi was an acolyte of Nasser, and therefore a pan-Arab ethno-nationalist and also an authoritarian-socialist. Whilst being 'authoritarian', in so far as he recognised that without the state to regulate public/private enterprise and to protect the resources of his people from the banditism of global capitalism, he was never a totalitarian - as evidenced by the direct-democracy component present in the system of people's congresses and the armed people. Both Hitler and Stalin, two totalitarians, were always afraid of the armed people. Switzerland, a historically neutral country, also is a nation in arms which practises elements of direct democracy. Gaddafi's world-view makes the position clear as to the nature of all progressive movements advocating national-liberation:

"The nation is the natural unit for socialistic thinking."

Gaddafi

The murder of Gaddafi in late 2011 will have severe repercussions. The so-called Arab Spring, which is overturning secular states which have enjoyed good relations with the West, will only exacerbate the existing 'Clash Of Civilisations', precipitating the conflageration that the globalists desire as a prelude to a Third World War, out of which their New World Order will be finally created. The majority of youthful partisans in this so-called Arab Spring were/are consciously/unconsciously tools and fools of the globalists such as George Soros, reeling from Western plutocracy's winter of financial discontent : see: New Dawn Magazine, Special Issue, No. 16, Winter 2011, GPO Box 3126 Melbourne 3001, Australia; particularly recommended, are the articles by that prodigious author Dr. K.R. Bolton as well as items by Stephen Lendman.

Another feature of nazi-fascist ideology was anti-Semitism; or, more precisely, opposition to a "monolithic International Jewish conspiracy" (where secular, religious, Zionist, capitalist, and Marxist Jewry, had no genuine domestic conflict), a patent absurdity as understood by savvy politicians amongst whom were Winston Churchill and Stalin. (For a comprehensive appreciation of Hitler's Judaeo-mania, refer to Bolshevism From Moses To Lenin, a record of his dialogue with the poet Dietrich Eckart - to whom Mein Kampf was dedicated. (An example of this fantasy was Hitler's interpretation of the defeat of the ancient Saxon chieftain Widukind by Charlemagne, with the mass slaughter at Verden an der Aller in 772, of 4,500 pagan Saxons who refused conversion to Christianity. Hitler asserted their defeat was a result of Charlemagne's subjection to Jewish domination in the form of secretly-Jewish 'Catholic' priests and Jewish advisers who were merchants from Marsailles.) This in part contributed to the unnecessary polarisation of persons of Jewish descent who transcended their normal ideological/theological differences and mobilised themselves into an anti-Axis war effort - thereby fulfilling Hitler's fantasy. It precipitated his Wagnerian Goterdammerung. This centrality of anti-semitism became the case when fascism moved progressively under the ideological hegemony of Nazi Germany after 1934 - and therefore incrementally under the indirect personal influence of the 'mind' which produced the following quote:

"Wherever I went I began to see Jews, and the more I saw them, the more sharply they became distinguished in my eyes from the rest of Humanity. Was there any filth or profligacy, particularly in cultural life, without at least one Jew involved in it? If you cut even cautiously into such an abcess, you found, like a maggot in a rotting body, often dazzled by the sudden light - a Jew!" Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf.

Neither the early nor modern Australian Nationalist movements are opposed to the presence in Australia of Jews, either as an assimilable ethnic group (ie. those of Caucasian origin) or as a religion. If we are opposed to Zionist Imperialism, it is because we have consistently opposed imperialism of all types, whether it be Axis, American, Chinese, Japanese, West European or Soviet etc. Therefore our opposition to the policies of states, globalising movements and imperialistic institutions (such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and others which have mortgaged whole peoples in which gentiles figure in as great a proportion as Jews), should not be construed as hostility to any ethnic or religious group. The neo-con Paul Wolfowitz, one of the grand architects of the war on Iraq, nepotist extraordinaire in respect of his paramour, is an example of the patrons of world good-will who operate through the instrument of the World Bank.

Many Jews have in the past been Australian patriots and staunch advocates of the White Australia Policy as were General Monash and Isaac Isaacs. Indeed, both were opposed to Zionism and favoured Jewish assimilation into the Australian body-politic; so also did Jules Francois Archibald, founder and editor of The Bulletin magazine, who freely acknowledged his part-French-Jewish descent, but who was, without contention, a patron of Australian nationalism. He also founded and funded the Archibald art prize and the Archibald Fountain in Sydney's Hyde Park. Although raised as a nominal Roman Catholic he married the nominally-Jewish Rosa Frankenstein in a Presbyterian Church, demonstrating his 'liberal' religiosity. This eclectic/ecumenical (but ethically traditionalist) approach to religion is characteristic of Australianist spirituality which differentiates Australians from the sectarian zealotry of both the Old World and the Americas. William Lane articulated the position of Australian nationalism in regard to all religions in his 'Labour's Religion' (see: Part Five of this collection of essays).

The following quotation from the Radical-nationalist Bulletin magazine, published on 2nd July 1887, defines most aptly the objectives of Australian nationalism. The contemporary radical and progressive nationalist movements reaffirm the sentiments therein expressed. They did not divide Europeans from each other on spurious criteria.

"By the term "AUSTRALIAN" we mean not just those who were merely born in Australia. All white men who come to these shores with a clean record and who leave behind the memory of the class distinctions and religious differences of the Old World, all men who place the happiness of their adopted land before imperialism, are Australian".

It should be remembered that prior to Donald Horne's assumption of the editorship of The Bulletin magazine, its' masthead proudly proclaimed - 'Australia For The White Man'. Horne was responsible for its removal. It displeased the newly emergent liberal intelligentsia which today, are defined as the chattering-classes. Horne and this ilk of trendy renegades, who either wittingly or through delusion eroded the nation's patrimony, will be consigned to the rubbish-heap of history by a re-awakened Australia aroused by the resurrected progressive movement of national redemption. We must neither forgive nor forget that it was after 1972 that the trendy new Labor criminals, Gough Whitlam and Al Grassby, publicly acknowledged what had hitherto been surreptitious policy initiated by the Liberal government of Harold Holt, to end 'White Australia'. Whitlam and Grassby proclaimed "the White Australia Policy is dead, give me a shovel and I'll bury it" - and then systematically they and their successors, both Labor and Liberal proceeded to bury alive the White Australian nation, through mass coloured immigration. But the ghost of White Australia continues to haunt "this tired brown land" and will not be put to rest until her children, "the dispossessed majority", have resumed their country from "the future eaters" - and are masters of their own destiny.

Thus, the indigenous or nativist quality of Australian nationalism is readily apparent, for the above stated reasons, that neither early nor contemporary, racial-socialistic Australian Nationalism was/is in any way consciously inspired by the ideologies of the nazi-fascist era in Europe. Fascism, as an ideology, was dissipated in the ashes of the Third Reich, because it became inimical to the geo-political and socio-biological imperatives of the European continent. (To obtain an elucidation of these 'imperatives', the reader should refer to the material on Jean Thiriart on this site.) The Old World petty-state chauvinism of the 19th century, which influenced European fascism, have no place either in our New World, or in the new millennium.. We have never been the last of yesteryear, but always the first of tomorrow! Australian Radical-nationalism simply both preceded and succeeded the fascist era, ie. 1922 - 1945. (Mussolini declared 1922 to be Year One of the Fascist Era.) It should also be remembered that the more intelligent fascists like the pan-European Sir Oswald Mosley formerly the leader of the British Union of Fascists - repudiated the distorting totalitarian character of fascism which was instrumental in generating the Second World War; "fascism is a corpse regardless of how cleverly it is embalmed", he concluded. Our own P.R. Stephensen said of fascism that it was "the schoolboy bully armed". Indeed, he went on to say in his The Foundations Of Culture In Australia (1936):


"Visions of race-grandeur become dangerous only when they imply the extermination or subjugation of other races: our Ideal of a White Australia implies no such murderous doctrine. We can be 'expanding and swift henceforth', not at the expense of other peoples, but by our own virtue and under our own Australian initiative and dynamic; and in our own land."

The early progressive-nationalistic vision of a new Australian Nation varied between two parameters. There were those who desired an independent, egalitarian social-democratic republic and those who favoured the formation of a moderately authoritarian, meritocratic-populist, state-socialist republic. Within the progressive-nationalist classification can be placed prominent personalities such as J.T. Lang, Billy Hughes, W.G. Spence, Arthur Calwell, etc. (the list is endless). The progressives favoured a gradual evolution towards their goal, which they believed ultimately would arrive at a racial-nationalistic tribal-collectivist society – but, in their opinion, this would require time and patience.

Consider Billy Hughes who began his career as a progressive nationalist in the old Labour tradition. He later fused with the imperial-patriots to form the Nationalist Party and then advocated an Australia First position within the context of British imperialism as evidenced by his defence of the White Australia Policy at Versailles, which in fact contested Westminster designs that sought to placate their Pacific and maritime ally, Japan. Hughes's form of Australia First imperial patriotism as opposed to the secessionist nationalism of the various republican movements was to become the predominant ideological direction of many great Australians including Ben Chifley and later Labor Party nationalism generally. Sir Robert Menzies's imperial patriotism was devoid of an Australia First component and verged on Women's Weekly anglophilic monarchic sycophancy. His cultural cringe contributed strongly to the retardation of an uniquely Australian white anglophone cultural identity.

The radical-nationalists (a historic nomenclature employed originally by the revolutionary wing of the racial-nationalist Labour movement of 19th and early 20th centuries) derived their name from the French revolutionary Jacobins, and believed that a militant approach should be utilised to escalate this inevitable process. The radical-nationalists were the principal precipitators of the violent confrontations which resulted in the expulsion of coloured labour, and which ensured progressive social-reforms (e.g. Lambing Flat, shearers’ strikes in Queensland) as well as the "WHITE AUSTRALIA POLICY."

Like the progressives, the radicals too could/can be divided into two categories. The majority of radicals are slightly more state-socialist in their orientation than the progressives, but simply militant in their methodology. Under this classification were the radical Australian artists such as Henry Lawson, Banjo Paterson, Bernard O’Dowd and Norman Lindsey. The extreme socialists which were to be considered "left" of the Lawson-radicals, were the "tribal-communists", such as William Lane.

The Lane-radicals were inspired by the Cromwellian revolutionary ferment, amongst which was a rejection of Western civilisation in favour of a return to the Germanic tribal-communism of the early Anglo-Saxon pagan-pantheistic tribes. They were also ideologically motivated by some French revolutionaries who desired a return to the Gallic pagan-pantheistic tribal-communism of early Celtic society. (Leon Poliakov's The Aryan Myth, discusses these British and French cases.) Needless to say, their conception of communism had/has nothing in common with Marxist cosmopolitan materialism. For a more comprehensive anthropological interpretation of this tribal communism, which the early white Indo-European speaking peoples practised, refer to Vere Gordon Childe's The Aryans. Childe was a universally accepted academic of exceptional proportion and also a socialist in the old labour tradition which may have influenced his anthropoliogical research .The outcomes of his research most certainly influenced the labour movements throughout the European world and not simply Australia. To the chagrin of contemporary Marxoids, and those from the 1930's to the 1950's, Childe never conformed to their principal locomotive of history ie. class struggle. He did not proclaim the inevitable triumph of the proletariat. In fact, his pricipal concerns were with how cultures are able to assimilate economic dynamics - such as technology - and their cultural necessity to have philological equipment capable of its comprehension and transmission.

The following material in this collection (which is reproduced from other nationalist material such as the tabloid, "AUDACITY") on two prominent Australian-Socialists, Henry Lawson and William Lane, will provide an indication of the social-revolutionary vision of Australian nationalism.

The various historically-significant quotations, which are found elsewhere in The Social Revolutionary Nature Of Australian Nationalism, will demonstrate the continued validity of the progressive and radical-nationalistic ideologies. They shall reaffirm the need, at this critical time in our history, to reinstate the White Australia Policy, as a unequivocal statement of future immigration policy, constrained only by environmental considerations within the context of a Zero Population Growth regime, and stated without apology as an ackowledgement of the eternal verity of our Anglo-European national identity. This perspective was anticipated in the works of Arthur Calwell and is summarised in his extensive statement dealing with the necessity for an Australian socialist-revolution (see Part Three: Fundamentals Of Old Labour Nationalism on this sub-site).

This position was restated by a number of radical-nationalist groups in the 1970's. They were inspired by the old Labour tradition. This began with the student-activist National Resistance, whose principal founder, E.F. Azzopardi, was directly commissioned by his mentor Jack Lang. He was admonished to re-found a cadre inspired by The Bulletin, The Century and other Australia First traditions, who would, in a Janus-like fashion, serve as the bridge between the spiritual founding fathers of the Australanist Idea and the imminent movement of national renewal. The radical Australianist tabloid, Audacity, first published in 1977 and re-established in 2007 by cadres associated with the original Audacity, was to be the instrument (and is again) that Lang envisaged. Although racially ambivalent, a zero population position was later advocated by the politically significant Australians Against Further Immigration party after 1988. It too, showed an interest in this tradition. These 'deep-green' ecologically-centred patriotic groups were often denounced by liberals and marxists as well as cosmopolitan Christians (both of the liberal-internationalist and right-to-life conservative varieties) for being "eco-fascists" because they refused to accept that migration was a solution to the Third World population/food crisis. It should be remembered that Arthur Calwell said that the future solution to this crisis is not to be found in emigration but in a variety of domestic answers supported by the affluent countries.

The 'new Labor' criminals who in alliance with other anthropo-chauvinist 'world-consuming aedopists' actualised the doctrine of an economic/cultural/racial integration into Asia - "the Asian destiny" - saturated our labour pool, universities and professional classes with unassimilable aliens. Simultaneously, they often purported to be spiritually inspired by the labour tradition by making references to Jack Lang (like Keating did); they perpetrated the Orwellian swindle whereby day becomes night and night becomes day, and can only be judged by the following proclamation of Lang himself.

"ANYONE WHO IS AGAINST THE WHITE AUSTRALIA

POLICY, IS AGAINST THE AUSTRALIAN NATION!"

Jack Lang, former Premier of New South Wales 1929 - 1932, in a television interview regarding Australian immigration policy. (See his autobiography, I Remember for a full discussion of the White Australia Policy and the war against him by imperialism and international finance during the Depression years. For Australian-Socialists Jack Lang will always be 'greater than Lenin', to use the phrase of Jock Garden of 1931.)

For a hostile and critical view of the Lang Labor government and a summary of the activities of his opponents in the para-fascist New Guard as well as earlier conservative-patriotic anti-social revolutionary paramilitaries such as General Blamey's 'White Army', refer to Colonel Eric Campbell's biography, The Rallying Point: My Story Of The New Guard and Keith Amos, The New Guard Movement 1931-.35 and D.H. Lawrence's novel, Kangaroo.


SECTION B – WILLIAM LANE AND THE GENERIC PAN-NATIONALIST CONSENSUS AGAINST A UNI-POLAR PLUTOCRATIC WORLD.

"See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist - it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn't built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangeable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super-exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist - just because it's anti-human. And race is in fact a human characteristic - there's no reason why it should be a negative characteristic, but it is a human characteristic. So therefore identifications based on race interfere with the basic ideal that people should be available just as consumers and producers, interchangeable cogs who will purchase all the junk that's produced - that's their ultimate function, and any other properties they might have are kind of irrelevant, and usually a nuisance."

Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky, pp. 88-89, The New York Press, 2002.

"Capitalism has neither colour nor country."

William Lane

"The basis of all slavery and all slavish thought is necessarily the monopoly of the means of the working, that is of living. If the state monopolised them, not the state ruled by the properties classes, but the state ruled by the whole people, to work would become every man’s right. Nineteen out of twenty laws would be useless (i.e. unnecessary.)"

William Lane – The Working Man's Paradise, Page 119

"Surely we are all tainted and corrupted, even the best of us, by the scrofulous cowardice, the fearsome selfishness, of a decaying civilisation! Surely we are only fit to be less than human, to be slave to conditions that we ourselves might govern if we would, to be criminal accomplices in the sins of social castes, to be sad victims of inhuman laws or still sadder defenders of inhumanity! Oh, for the days when our race was young, when its women slew themselves rather than be shamed and when its men, trampling a rotten empire down, feared neither God nor man and held each other brother and hated, each one, the tyrant as the common foe of all! Better the days when from the forests and the steppes our forefathers, burst half-naked and free, communists and conquerors, a fierce avalanche of daring men and lusty women who beat and battered Rome down like Odin’s hammer that they were! Alas, for the heathen virtues and the wild pagan fury for freedom and for the passion and purity that Frega taught the daughters of the barbarian! And alas, for the sword that swung unscabbarded by each man’s side and for the knee that never bent to any, and for the fearless eyes that watched unblenched, while the gods lamed each other with their lightnings in the thunder-shaken storm! Gone forever seemed the days when the land was for all, and the cattle and the fruits of the field, and when unruled by kings, untrammelled by priests, untyrannised by the pretence of law, our fathers drank in from Nature’s breast the strength and vigour that gave it even to this little babe to fight its hopeless fight for life so bravely and so long. Odin was dead whose sons dared go to hell with their own people and Frega was no more whose magic filled the molten fire and veins of all true lovers and nerved with desperate courage the hand of her who guarded the purity of her body and the happiness of her child. The White Christ had come when wealth and riches and conquests had heaped wrongs on the head of the wrongers; the cross had triumphed over the hammer when the fierce freedom of the North had worn itself out in selfish foray; the shaven-pated priests had come to teach patience as God-given when a robber-caste grew up to whom it seemed wise to uproot the old ideas from the mind of the people whose spent courage it had robbed. Alas for the days when it was not righteous to submit to wrong nor wicked to strike tyranny to the ground when one met it, no matter where! Alas for the men of the Past and the women, their faith and their courage and their virtue and their gods, the hearts large to feel and the brains prompt to think and the arms strong to do!"

William Lane, The Working Man’s Paradise, Pages 130-131. (It was first published in 1892, under the nom de plume "John Miller" and was republished in 1980 by Sydney University Press.)

Lane’s anti-Romanism should not be construed as opposition to the Indo-European principles upon which the Greco-Roman Golden Age was based. He, like Nietzsche, Hegel, Blake, Emerson, Thoreau, etc., admired Greco-Roman values when they respected the noble heroic sentiments of our common Indo-European ancestors, as a complete reading of Lane’s writings indicates. What he objected to was the Greco-Roman period of decadence and decline, for which Christianity became a necessary panacea.

Lane adhered in part to the Indo-European pagan-pantheistic world-view (whilst also generally adhering to a broad mysticism that included a Christian ethic in a type of transcending synthesis which anticipated the contemporary New Age movement and what Aldous Huxley defined as the "perennial philosophy" -see other essays published here), which maintains that a cyclical process determines the life of all cultures. In this regard, Lane was no different from Hegel or Nietzsche or Spengler, all of whom believed that barbaric intrusions were necessary as a means to destroy that which is putrefying and to install in its place a new life-affirmative culture. Thus all of them welcomed the barbarian invasions as a necessary antidote to the living death of the Roman necropolis. In holding this outlook, Lane belonged to the same Radical school of Australian Nationalists to which Lawson, Lindsey, O’Dowd, etc. belonged. The only point of difference between he and they was that Lane was a communist while they were socialists.

Lane, like all the early "Australian-Socialists", was a racial-nationalist as well as a pan-Europid racial-solidarist. He was like his Australianist fellows and viewed Australia as a new realm where the Indo-European pagan-pantheistic values would express themselves as an active reverence for nature as felt by our ancestors when they were living in harmony with the ecosystem and this would institute a new culture and, ultimately, a new civilisation whereby a new people, formed from the most vigorous and heroic stocks from old Europe, would one day lead Europid man to greatness, just as their Indo-European forefathers had done before the dark age of decadence. Nowadays this perspective may be defined as the 'biocentric world view' of our deep-ecology movement, a force which has been propagandistically disparaged by Gaia's despoilers - as ecofascism. (For a contemporary valuation of the relevance of our Indo-European folkloric reverence for nature and its contemporary absolute necessity of respect, refer to: Stein Jarving, "Volvewitches And Valkyrjer: Magic And Paganism In Prehistoric Scandinavia.")

Lane was anti-western; he perceived that the Western liberal-cosmopolitan capitalistic civilisation was hostile to life and inimical to the interests of Europid Man. In fact, he viewed the West in the same light as the decadent Roman Empire, and he hoped that it would be overthrown by a new Europid barbarian invasion, by a white people who still valued its Indo-European traditions. In this regard, Lane's ideology was very similar to the anti-Nazi North German Radical-nationalists of the early 1920’s centred around ideologues such as Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (who was also one of the German-language translators of the works of Dostoyevsky) and Ernst Niekisch. Moeller van den Bruck and Niekisch rejected that Germany was spiritually a Western nation, and they looked towards Russia for a new Indo-European renaissance. They believed that because Russia had not been contaminated by Western liberal-capitalist ideas and was still relatively primitive (and therefore vigorous) she would one day sweep westwards destroying the new Roman Empire, as it gasped its last breath from its own internal decay.

When Lane refers to our "communist ancestors", he in no way implies the Marxist cosmopolitan materialism of our Western Internationalist proletarian revolutionaries. By communism, Lane referred to the organic-tribalistic-collectivist society, which the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples and all Indo-European peoples possessed, before their dispossession by the purely economically centred Roman Empire – and its successor, the Judaeo-Christian, cosmopolitan-Western civilisation!!

Therefore Lane's communism was founded upon organic socio-biological realities and not upon some weirdo mechanical theories, which would reduce mankind into raceless, cultureless automatons and appendages of purely economic thinking and interests.

As a consequence of Lane’s socio-biologism, he may be regarded as a prophetic thinker. Marxism, which was a product of English rationalistic-materialistic reductionism, has failed. It failed because, like its materialistic utilitarian compatriot, international capitalism, it denied the uniqueness of organisms and believed that all reality could be reduced to economics. Capitalism being the thesis and Marxism its supposed antithesis. In reality, Marxism was not antithetical to capitalism but simply its inversion, and thus confined in its thinking by the same determinants which precipitated capitalism.

For the same inorganic reasons that capitalism, as a philosophy is bankrupt, so likewise Marxism was finished long before the fall of the USSR. The only orthodox Marxists were/are in the Western world and not in either Eastern Europe or the Third World.

Since the Soviet Union in the 1930’s embarked upon the course of Soviet patriotism, Great Russian and pan-Slav nationalism (synthesised to Stalin’s programme of "Socialism in one country") communism had undertaken a radical transformation, which has in fact brought it towards the tribal-communism that Lane postulated. The same is applicable to China (see: Harrison Salisbury's 1969 classic, The Coming War Between Russia And China; Ronald Segal, The Race War, Pelican Books, 1967 and John Barron, KGB: The Secret Work Of Soviet Secret Agents, Corgi, 1974) and almost every nation, which the West believed was Marxist. Though many of these nations have continued to use Marxist rhetoric, they did so because it remained expedient to their geo-political objectives, which were often imperialistic.

Though Australian Nationalists support all peoples in their struggle for national-independence and national self-realisation, and thus we respect the achievements of the Chinese national-people’s revolution : Since the collapse of the USSR, the Chinese have progressively become aware of the globalist intentions of the cosmopolitan plutocrats and may yet play a wild card in geo-politics, we have as our primary consideration the welfare and interests of the bio-cultural/geopolitical organism defined as the "AUSTRALIAN NATION". In the period 1977-90, the growing Japanese and American economic and military investment in communist China served as a prerequisite for another World War, in which a Washington/Peking/Tokyo Axis could have attempted to envelope the Europid peoples of Europe, Africa, Australia and New Zealand against their kindred in Eastern Europe. For this reason we demanded armed neutrality for Australia as well as an end to Yankee, Great Han and Nipponese economic and political imperialism, which threaten/ed the stability of this planet.

We should never forget that Chairman Brezhnev of the USSR said to Margaret Thatcher in 1980, referring to the possibility of the Cold War becoming a 'hot war':

"The only question is whether the white race will survive."

In expressing this perspective, Brezhnev was simply consciously or unconsciously, recapitulating what Feodor Dostoyevsky postulated was the world historical mission of the Great Russian people, be they Czarist, Bolshevist, National-Bolshevist, or something yet to be determined. This was predicated upon the idea that it remained true to its Dostoyevskyan soul and Hegelian mission (to reiterate Spengler's postulates) of which Bolshevism was an advent distorted by nineteenth century cosmopolitan materialism and senseless bloodshed often of alien provenance. This view finds some echo in Henry Lawson's poem, "Vanguard": "For the vanguard of the white man, is the vanguard of the Rus." Dostoyevsky in a speech on June 8 1880 said:

"The vocation of the Russian man is indisputably an all-European and world-wide vocation ... Oh, the people of Europe do not know how dear they are to us. And I believe that we (that is to say, of course, not we but the Russians of the future) will all eventually understand, every single one of us, that to become a real Russian will mean precisely this: to strive to bring conciliation to the contradictions of Europe, to show a way out of the sorrows of Europe in our own Russian soul, universally human and all-uniting: to find a place in it, with brotherly love, for all our brothers, and finally perhaps to speak the final word of the great harmony of all, of the brotherly unison of all the nations according to the Gospel of Christ."

Through two major world wars, Europid peoples throughout the world have suffered great biological, economic and cultural cost, in insane fratricidal conflict. The victors have been the Coca-Cola imperialists, who have transformed this planet into a giant repository for MacDonald's/Coca-Cola and similar vestments of capitalist cultural enlightenment. All peoples, regardless of their race, have been subject to this economic and cultural imperialism.

Many non-white peoples have undergone tribal-socialist cultural revolutions in which they have expelled the fast-food mongers and their culture-distorting compradors. The white peoples of Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe, South Africa and North America are yet to undergo similar cultural revolutions so as to free the earth of this bacillus.

It is for this reason that Western Euro-centric Radical-nationalists should not have been influenced by the anti-Soviet propaganda of the Peking/Tokyo/Washington Axis. The Soviet Union was the only European power, which biologically defined nationality. Citizens had stamped upon their passports their nationality, and this was ethnically determined. Thus an Uzbek, regardless of where he resided, would always be registered as an Uzbek. The issue from a marriage between a Soviet Asiatic and a Soviet European was listed as Asiatic for statistical purposes (in the West, the reverse is the case and therefore the actual figures for non-Caucasians are falsified), and this classification remained upon all their documentation and upon the documentation of their progeny - unless it was self-evident that biological assimilation had been complete. There were quotas to restrict the number of Soviet Asiatics in the European part of the Soviet Union, and none did have permanent residence status until after Perestroika. Separate development had been the norm, and the white nationalities were concerned with the growing birth rate of the U.S.S.R.’s coloured peoples, as the white birth rate had been at Z.P.G. for the preceding twenty years. Of course, since the fall of the Iron Curtain, economic and spiritual circumstances have engendered a climate where the white population is now in radical decline, well below Z.P.G. level. President Putin may in the Russian Federation serve as a break on this spiralling process of decline, but he is not necessarily the best solution.

Whilst all Soviet peoples were encouraged to be ethnocentric and thus benefit from the U.S.S.R’s nationalist anti-cosmopolitan policy, the Soviet Union also had the potential to become - for the White Race throughout the world - a strong champion. In an age when the coloured populations of the West are rapidly increasing, the U.S.S.R. could have been the only great power on earth which unashamedly and uncompromisingly would advocate and maintain Caucasoid hegemony within its sphere of influence. It is for this reason that many Marxists who are in fact, liberal cosmopolitan intellectuals, became so hostile to the U.S.S.R.; they entered into an anti-Russian alliance with the cosmopolitan plutocrats and liberal-Christian churchmen so as to destroy the authoritarian, ethically traditionalist, tribalist nature of Soviet socialism. This tendency hysterically continues with western Marxists denouncing the so-called Red-Brown phenomenon in modern Russia - as a resurgent fascism. An example of this attitude is expressed in Martin Lee's The Beast Re-awakens, Little Brown and Company, 1997. Needless to say, by their amorphous, ahistorical definition of fascism, any authoritarian patriot, Left or Right, is a fascist.

Soviet socialism was pan-Europid racial-solidarist, and the USSR's leaders made many overtures since Khruschev’s time for close collaboration between all Europid peoples, regardless of their economic or political systems. Any power, which provoked such antagonism to itself, from this anti-Europid cosmopolitan element, should have been considered as a potential friend of the growing Euro-centric Radical-nationalist movement in the then-contemporary West. This perspective was held to be a truth by many of the then-contemporary European nationalists. For a more comprehensive understanding of the non-Marxist socio-biological bases of Soviet-socialistic ideology, refer to the work by the eminent Soviet geneticist, Professor L.N. Gumilev, entitled, On the Biological/Geographical Conception Of Ethnic History, which was published by "Voprosy Istorii" in 1974.

Another interesting feature of Soviet thinking, which brought it remarkably close to Lane’s national-communitarian ideology, was the ongoing Slavonic cultural and folkloric renaissance. All Soviet peoples were encouraged to promote their particularity via racial/national/cultural self-affirmation and self-realisation, within the parameters of the economic and military unity of the Soviet State. Those of Asiatic character, this author understands, are generally outside of the spiritual appreciation of the Australian people. Our Indo-European heritage meantime implies a natural sense of racial-solidarity with the white peoples of Eastern Europe.(Refer: Anne Ferlat, "Neo Paganism And New Age In Russia" at http://www.folklore.ee/folklore/volume23/new age.pdf)

In Eastern Europe, all Europid peoples were encouraged to take interest in their Indo-European (Slavonic, Baltic and Teutonic) and Finno-Ugrian folkloric traditions, pagan religion and history. The Soviet cultural organization "RODYNA" (motherland) encouraged the preservation of Eastern European antiquities, and there were even measures afoot to reintroduce the ancient Slavonic pagan-pantheistic religion, or at least a more sophisticated equivalent such as the theosophy of Vedanta, which is related to all the early religions and philosophies of the ancient Indo-European world. (The reader may consult: Alexander Yanov, Russia's New Right: Right-Wing Ideologies In The Contemporary USSR, University of California Press; David Shipler, Russia: Broken Idols, Solemn Dreams, Macdonald Futura Australia; Walter Lacquer, Black Hundred: The Rise Of The Extreme Right In Russia, Harper Perennial, 1993; Kevin Coogan, Dreamer Of The Day: Francis Parker Yockey And The Post-War Fascist International, Autonomedia, 1999; Bruce Clark, An Empire's New Clothes, Vintage, 1996) (For the relationship between Vedanta and Western European philosophies such as Pythagorean, Platonic and Neo-Platonic systems, refer to the writings of Sir William Jones, a father of comparative mythology.)

This folkloric renaissance in Eastern Europe coincides with the renewed Western European folkloric revival, which demands the integration of two thousand years of Western Christian civilisation into a new European culture and political unity, largely based upon our common spiritual-biological unity of pre-Christian times. We are speaking of a new transcendent Indo-European spiritual identity. To quote the French ethnocentric nationalist and pan-European solidarist, General Charles de Gaulle, "ONE EUROPE FROM THE URALS TO THE ATLANTIC" is an overriding imperative for the late twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Australian Radical-nationalism has, from its inception, been pan-Europid racial-solidarist (in the nineteenth century Australian socialists spoke of the need to establish a Caucasian 'entente-cordiale'), rather than petty-state chauvinist; and thus our early theoreticians may be perceived as men of vision who could anticipate the future by an understanding of organic logic. In this light, William Lane stands as a man of extraordinary dimension.

Lane, like Hughes, and the majority of early Australian Nationalists, was a first generation Australian of British descent. The fact that he was not Australian-born, did not colour his world-view in favour of an Anglocentric, monarchic perspective, but rather to the contrary. Lane belonged to the Cromwellian radical-nationalistic social-republican tradition of English Caesarism. Lane’s biological definition of the Australian identity was Eurocentric and not Anglocentric.

His conception of the Australian people and the role that they are to play in world affairs can best be illustrated by the following two quotations:-

In The People, which was the journal of the "Australian Socialist League", Lane wrote: "In Australia, Anglo-Saxon, Teuton and Latin are coming together as one homogeneous whole…. They demand that all undesirable races (ie. unassimilable, ed.) be immediately and absolutely excluded." In the Worker, which was the organ and initiator of the Australian Labour Federation and ultimately the "Australian Labour Party", Lane made his position clear: "We must be White First, or nothing else can matter." Lane proclaimed the Labour movement’s struggle to be "more than a national or social movement, it is a true racial struggle."

By a summation of William Lane’s pan-Europid national-communitarian ideology, it is self-evident that he, like most early Australian and British radical-nationalists, was related in his ideology to the various national-revolutionary and radical-nationalistic movements and thinkers in continental Europe. Lane's view, which favoured an atavistic existentialist revival (i.e. a return to our Indo-European socio-biologically determined essence), was almost identical to that of the French communards, Blanquists, historical Sinn Fein, Narodniks, Union of the Russian People, etc.; but in particular his anti-Westernism and pro-rustic/Puritanism places Lane exceptionally close to the North German advocates of national-bolshevism. (Refer to: Professor Alexander Dugin, "The Metaphysics Of National Bolshevism" (extract from The Knight Templars Of The Proletariat at www.arctogaia.com Dugin was an adviser to Zyuganov, Putin and to Medvedev)

The following extract is a paraphrasing of sections from A.W. Dulles, Germany’s Underground, New York, 1947, H.B. Gisevious, To the Bitter End, Boston, 1947, and Sebastian Haffner, The Rise And Fall Of Prussia, London, 1980. These words indicate the community of interest between Lane's ideas and the Western ‘national communitarian’ tradition. The British journal, Scorpion and articles from the French movement 'GRECE', also contributed in this formulation.

The Niekisch/Moeller van den Bruck school of Radical-nationalism had / has little in common with the unfortunate Nazi-fascist era. Its roots are to be found in the pro-Slav, pro-Russian (whether Tsarist or Socialist) Conservative-Revolutionary ethical-socialist implications of Otto Von Bismarck’s Prussian-Germanism. In the words of Goethe, in his In der beshrankung zeight sich erst der meister, Bismarck's greatness lay in his restraint. According to the historian Condon," the history of modern Europe can be written in terms of three Titans: Napoleon I, Bismarck and Lenin. Of these three men of superlative political genius, Bismarck probably did the least harm." However, Nazism was coloured by the political culture of its Bavarian and Austro-Hungarian origins and powerbase, and thus in part sought to recapitulate the Austro-Hungarian empire where the German and Magyar speaking blocs ruled over the predominately Slav ethnic groups which were all intent on national self-determination. It was also reactionary and chauvinistically, anti-Slav, and belligerently anti-Russian as Hitler held Russia responsible, initially for Tsarist Pan-Slav nationalist agitation and later Judaeo-Marxist pacifist agitation and revolutions - factors he concluded contributed strongly to the defeat of the Central Powers in the World War (refer to his fulminations in Mein Kampf). Nazism was also pro-Anglo capitalistic and hostile to genuine Radical-nationalist thinking, (including Hitler's refusal to support genuine colonial revolutions against backward imperialism), a position which Hitler later regretted as evidenced by his Testament as translated by Trevor Roper. Mussolini, who in his alliance with ex-communists like Bombacci founded the ill-fated Italian Social Republic, also regretted Fascism's departure from its initial revolutionary impulse.

Both in the cases of Hitler and Mussolini, it was more attempting to shut the gate after the horse had bolted. North German Radical-nationalists such as Ernst Niekisch (and their ideological counterparts throughout the later-Axis world) were either liquidated or incarcerated under the Axis regimes for professing this social-revolutionary ideology. Niekisch was placed in a concentration camp by the Nazis in 1934, and in 1937 he was condemned to life imprisonment. Niekisch and his national-revolutionary co-ideologues found great appeal amongst contemporary Western European youth, who believed that the "enemy of Europe" (Yockey) was never the U.S.S.R, despite its totalitarian excesses, but rather the liberal-cosmopolitan establishment and its Coca-Cola imperialism.

To present a juxtaposition between the national liberationist orientation of Australian nationalism which decisively distinguishes it from fascism, is that prominent persons such as Doc Evatt, John Curtin, Ben Chifley and Arthur Calwell, had supported national liberation struggles in our immediate area and often were called upon to adjudicate between the colonial powers and the nationalist movements, at times to the chagrin of these powers, as evidenced by the case of Indonesia. They proclaimed a Monroe Doctrine in Oceania with Australia and New Zealand as its centre. The Third World peoples welcomed Australia's intervention, demonstrating that White Australian nationalism was neither imperialistic nor chauvinistic - and they interpreted the White Australia Policy in terms of their own ethnocentrism. Non of these Australian nationalists took seriously the McCarthyist model of a monolithic communist bloc. They all understood that human beings are naturally subject to tribal aspirations - including that inevitably there would be rivalry between China and Russia (refer to the diplomat-intelligence-officer Harrison Salisbury: The Coming War Between Russia And China..

Their observations have been validated by the dynamics of history giving rise to the twenty first century. Professor Gennady Zyuganov president of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and formerly a presidential candidate for the Russian Federation confirms the perceptions of the previously cited Australian nationalists. I quote Zyuganov:

"We (Russians) are the last power on this planet that is capable of mounting a challenge to the New World Order - the global cosmopolitan dictatorship. We must work against our destroyers, using means as carefully thought out and as goals orientated as theirs are: the unity of all nationalist forces is as necessary to this end as air." (Russian nationalist magazine, Soil Tied To Our Blood, 1994)

Zyuganov's opinion here encapsulates the reason that the Anglo-American-Zionist bloc, compliments of George W. Bush and his successors, have included post-Yeltsin Russia as one of their targets. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation is a national communitarian party and not a Marxist-Leninist one, as evidenced by Zyuganov's manifesto, My Russia: The Third Road. He promulgates a mixed economy, only part-command structured, but not the Stalinist model and philosophically he repudiated dialectical materialism.

In consideration of the contemporary political developments in the world, the type of national-communitarianism advocated by William Lane appears to be the overriding ideology of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Contemporary nationalists will not neglect Lane’s contribution to our Radical-Australianist ideology. One day Australian Nationalists may yet see William Lane receiving global recognition, as one of the most perceptive philosophical and political seers of the nineteenth century. If not, he will always have a place in the hearts of a proud and free Australian nation!



The Social Revolutionary Nature Of Australian Nationalism