What Is To Be Done 2004?:

Tasks For Australian Nationalists

In The Coming Struggle

Dr. Jim Saleam, Sydney, September 26 2003

We have published this pamphlet with the advice to our readers that some minor editing may occasionally occur. The last editing was done on October 10 2005 (The Editors)




Section One: The Development Of Modern Australian Nationalism.

(1) Gestation: 1974 to 1978.

(2) Second Period: 1978 -1982.

(3) Third Period: 1982 - 1990.

(4) Fourth Period 1990-1996

(5) Fifth Period 1996 - 2004

Section Two: Conservatism - The Greatest Danger To The Development Of A Nationalist Party.

(1) The Two Patriotisms.

(A) How Did The Two Patriotisms emerge?

(B) How Things Stand TodayThe Two Patriotisms And The Emergence Of a 'Third' Patriotism.

(C) Concerning British-Australian Patriotism.

(D) The Nationalists And The Conservatives: The 1980's Experience

(2) Against Conservatism - The Break Which Established Radical-Nationalism

Section Three: Ideology, Politics, Organisation.

(1) Ideology.

(2) Politics.

(3) Organisation.

(A) Secrecy.

(B) Members And Cadre-Members.

(C) Activism.

Section Four: The Road To Power - Against Erroneous Ideas.

(1) Infiltrationism.

(2) Electoralism.

(3) Terrorism.

(4) Political Struggle - The Proper Path To Follow.

Section Five: The Historical Tasks Of Australian Nationalism.

(1) The "British Question".

(2) Cultural-political Americanisation.

(3) Environmentalism.

(4) Multiculturalism.

(5) Asianisation.

Section Six: The Tactics Of Australian Nationalism.

(1) Propaganda.

(2) Visibility.

(3) The Atmosphere Of Political Struggle.

(4) The Importance Of Cadre-Members.

(5) Targets For Propaganda.

(6) Political Sabotage.

(7) The Patriotic United Front Organized From Below: Our Independence And Initiative

(8) Intelligence Organization

(9) Political Guerillaism.

Section Seven: Political Soldiers And Nationalist Struggle.

Section Eight: The Struggle Of 1990-2003: The Question Of A Synthesis Of Radical-Nationalism And National-Populism

Section Nine: The Development Of The Party.

(1) The Propagandist Party.

(A) The Massive Escalation Of Propaganda.

(B) The Energetic Development Of Ideological Work.

(C) The Creation Of Basic Organizational Structures.

(D) Conditions Of Membership To Become More Stringent.

(E) The Application Of Strict Secrecy To Our Work.

(F) Priorities Must Be Understood.

(G) The Principle Of A "Closed" Organization.

(H) The Foundation Of A Political Newspaper.

(I) The Promotion Of The Nativist-Nationalist Heritage: A Special PLace For THe Eureka Flag

(J) The Radical Psychology.

(K) The Importance Of A Youth Organization.

(2) The Militant Party.

(3) The Agitational Party.

(4) The Party Of The Nation.

Section Ten: Australia Today.

Section Eleven: Attaining Political Power.


Appendix: Questions And Answers.


This pamphlet itself is part of the history of Australian Nationalist politics. Under the title What Is To Be Done?, the first version authored by me, was issued by Australian National Action (ANA) in December 1985. The first pamphlet defined ANA’s history and charted future strategy and it governed ANA’s operations for some years thereafter. But in the early 1990’s, after particular events which are alluded to in the text, it was no longer applied by the ANA. Afterwards, some other Nationalist-minded groups did use the pamphlet as a guide and finally a new (edited, updated and expanded) version appeared as a pamphlet; it was later placed upon an Internet Site – the Australian Nationalist Information Database. It was recently requested by a group of Nationalist activists that I should produce a new edition to serve in present-day struggles.

How does one use a historical document? I shall use the earlier versions as the essential skeleton and move from there.

Dramatic historical events have certainly taken place since 1985 and the earlier versions need alteration. The 1990's versions of this document (to their credit) have taken historical events into raw account. I shall not abandon their input. The Eastern bloc disappeared after 1989-91 and the question of Australian independence necessarily took on a new quality. Further, with open-borders ‘won’ by stealth thanks to the endless (and growing) ‘boat-people invasion’, and with the threat of a new South-East Asian Trade Zone and a Pacific Economic Community which will open Australia to mass movements of people and capital, the fate of our country is being decided. It is not being decided in the favour of the Australian People. There is every likelihood that European Civilisation and the Australian People will disappear off this Continent within the 21st Century. As New World Order capitalism grows more desperate to crush all those who oppose it, Australia becomes a less 'free' society, thereby rendering our tasks as political actors even more difficult. The state grows stronger and acts to restrain opposition.

The Nationalists are resolved that a national resistance movement will be built. We are committed to the achievement of Australian Independence from New World Order capitalism and all that comes with it. We are for the survival of the Australian Identity. We are re-organizing ourselves to conduct this struggle through to success. We will take stock of historical facts, and then move to give ‘solutions’ to Nationalist activists and the Australian People.

Over the last two decades, the fortunes of Australian Nationalism have ebbed and flowed. Some advances have been lost by in-fighting and splits (in which the political police were often to figure as a contributing factor), as well as by certain unusual situations (involving agent provocateurs, political misfits and show-trials). New political forces have come onto the scene. However, much experience has been gained, lessons have been learnt, ideology has been further developed and deepened, and organizational practices and structures have also been improved. Australian Nationalism is ready to resume the offensive.

One thing is for certain: many leading and rank and file Nationalists have proved themselves by their persistence, becoming in the process, true 'cadres'. They are older, but wiser. The Establishment fears the potential of modern Australian Nationalism because it is the only threat to the creed of cosmopolitan-internationalism. The potency of the ideas and philosophy of Australian Nationalism has never been greater. We can build a people's movement but only if we have the determination to perform the necessary tasks..

There is much to be learnt, especially by people who are coming forward to embrace Nationalism. Herein, we look at the development of modern Australian Nationalism, and the tasks that must be completed in order for Nationalists to achieve their aims.

We are writing after a period when (as I shall explain below) Conservative Right and national-populist forces held centre stage; they had driven the Nationalists back to the margins and some groups began to use the term 'Nationalists' to define themselves. Indeed, we witnessed the virtual disintegration of certain Nationalist formations thanks to the existence of alternative structures. A number of false solutions were advanced and have receded. We are speaking here of forces like the One Nation Party, the City Country Alliance, the new Country Party, and the Australian Reform Party. Meanwhile, national-populist groups such as the Australians Against Further Immigration, the Confederate Action Party, the Advance Australia Party and the Australia First Party (1988 - 2000) occupied a certain intermediate ground between the conservatives and the radical-nationalist tradition which the Nationalists had embraced (I shall discuss in Section Two the meaning of radical-nationalism and national-populism and ask my readers to be patient). But the latter often appeared indecisive and were torn two-ways, torn between going forwards - and going back to conservatism. Their full potential was not realised and that too, was a tragedy. There were and there are thousands of good people in the conservative and national-populist camps; particularly nowadays there is considerable 'residue' from the break-up of prior formations. We intend to offer Nationalist leadership, to turn ‘good people’ into fighters for the resurrection of our nationality. However, leadership is not won except by struggle.

On a personal note, the reader will record that I am not involved in the existing grouplet which sports the title - 'Australian National Action'. Although I will make some general comments about the current ANA below, I will not enter into a discussion about why I am not one of its members. It is also a matter of record that I joined the Australia First Party (AFP) and I am now writing with this commitment in mind; even so, this pamphlet is not a document of the party. In that regard, it is not a policy document although the author hopes it will be widely read - and applied.

Further, I would say to the reader that I have known and laboured for only one 'tradition' in Australian politics - that of radical-nationalism. This term has been applied by historians to the great stream of Australian nationalism which began in the 1880's and that flowed through Lawson and The Bulletin magazine, through the giants of trades-unionism, in the Labour Party (labour nationalism), and which reappeared with P.R. Stephensen in the 1930s. It seemed to 'go quiet' thereafter as suburban mediocrity gripped Australia in the 1950's and 1960's. This tradition was consciously revived in the 1970s by new groups and individuals, and I played a role in that process. It is the tradition which best defines the Australian identity and the true heritage of Australians, which best articulates where and how our country can develop. It is the argument here that radical-nationalism is the engine which will drive the entire vehicle of national resurrection.

This is said for a reason: I advance here a position developed from the obvious 'lateness of the hour'. Essentially, I argue it will be incumbent upon the activists and theorists of radical-nationalism to amalgamate on the ground with the forces of national-populism. In effect, that would have been inevitable if radical-nationalism had won hegemony over all true patriotic forces in earlier periods; but, that hegemony was not 'won' then - and now it must be arrived at (indeed, can only be arrived at) - by synthesis. Therefore, if some people say I have 'changed', they are welcome to say it. In truth, I have not changed; it is the circumstances which have changed. Our aim is to participate in the Australian struggle. If we are compelled to a course of action, then so be it!

Dr. Jim Saleam, Sydney, September 26 2003



Modern Australian Nationalism grew from a realisation that no patriotic force in Australian politics actually represented the interests of the Australian people. Existing political organizations were either out-and-out anti-Australian (cosmopolitan-internationalists, communists, etc.) or on the Conservative Right side were of the British-Australian mind-set (blind supporters of the internationalist-in-fact monarchy, regarding Australia and the Australian culture as "British" - rather than as truly Australian). A new force was seen by a small retinue of committed activists as necessary to defend the Australian people and identity, to promote Australian culture against multiculturalism, Americanisation and Asianisation. There would be a militant defence of the Australian national identity particularly against the "Asian Future" planned for our country by the business class, against the internationalisation of the economy and internal repression. The forces of Australian Nationalism arose to meet the crisis facing the Australian Nation. I offer you by way of perspective an overview historical picture of events in the development of Australian Nationalism. If it appears a history lesson in brief, it is necessary for us to revisit the past in order to build the future.

(1) Gestation: 1974 to 1978.

Modern Australian Nationalists reject the political formula of both the "Left" and the "Right". However, the early Nationalists had a certain association with the "old-Right", as there was common ground in the issues of anti-communism and 'White Australia'. Some Nationalists from this period can recall agreeing with the old-Right on the general principle of White Australia, but feeling ill at ease with its 'extreme' monarchism, strategic-tactical conservatism, and inability to adapt to modern circumstances. Various groups declared their allegiance to White Australia (the League Of Rights, the Immigration Control Association, the National Australia Association), which was seen as the key question. Within the spectrum of this old-Right there was extreme diffuseness. Indeed, it is impossible to speak of the old-Right except in terms of fragmentation (interestingly, any expression of the need for unity was always agreed to in principle, but never achieved). The old-Right saw itself, not as an advocate of a new Australia, but as a defence force of the disappeared Menzies Era (1949-66). Embryonic Nationalist groups, such as the Eureka Students' League, Revolutionary Nationalists, Nationalist White Workers’ Party, National Resistance, came and went (1974-78). Few patriotic people even remember them. There was no continuity, a loss of cadre, weakness of direction and will. Nonetheless, there was an idea: that there must be a Nationalist popular movement, anti-conservative as well as anti-Marxist (the issue of anti-Marxism was more tacit than over-expressive), active and disciplined.

The point to be remembered is that the conservatives who dominated the cause of White Australia refuted the validity of the goal of Australian Independence. They desired only ginger groups outside of the Liberal or National parties, essentially lobby groups hoping to win Establishment figures back to the position they held on immigration during the "Golden Age" of Menzies. The Establishment had shifted ground of course towards rabid internationalism; the conservatives were hopeless. People won to "White Australia" (a radical proposition) were shunted off into mindless club life; no directives, no goals, no programme.

The period of the 1970s was certainly the time to establish some sort of Nationalist party. Yet working class support was not available (economic conditions were still good) and some valuable cadre on the Right rallied stupidly to the crass banner of Fraser-ism. However, the immigration flood had begun. Australia was becoming further internationalized economically and politically as part of the U.S. attempt to buttress Asian regimes with cheap economic resources. But reaction to these evils was minuscule. The troops of opposition were worse than ill-armed peasants fighting "professional soldiers".

(2) Second Period: 1978 to 1982.

One could argue that a second period in the development of the modern Australian Nationalist movement began around 1978. Not long after the birth of the Australian National Alliance (January 1978), a branch of the British National Front was set up in Australia (June 1978), while the Immigration Control Association became more active and more outspoken. The first two groups are more to our interest. Both were "radical", looking to the construction of a new party and suspicious of the old-Right. The National Front, however, insisted on a British imperial ideology. Indeed, John Tyndall, the British National Front's then Chairman, wrote to an Australian correspondent:

"I have never been able to understand this search for an Australian identity; you already have one and have had one for 1000 years: that of a British people who have pioneered a land to the best of British standards."

The National Front was not in fact Australian but foreign, a sort of last gasp, even militant gasp, of political British-ism. It rested on the Australian National Alliance to reject the fundamentals of "Menzies-ism" on the Right: conservatism, monarchism, rabid free enterprise capitalist ideology, states' rights-ism, pro-U.S. "patriotism". To a point the Australian National Alliance succeeded. It broke the ground, so to speak, made it possible to be consistently Nationalist, Australian.

Yet the fault of that group rested in its thorough lack of a political-tactical perspective. Some activists believed that an "open" party organized around a few issues offering an electoral "alternative" was needed. The true Nationalists rejected such simplicities and argued for a "closed" organization holding to a political programme, not vague "points of policy". The battle was won ideologically by the Nationalists and a lesson was thus given to later Nationalist organizations.

Most of the old anti-immigration lobbies effectively disappeared around the close of this period, 1981-82. After about 10-15 years of work, they vanished from the scene at an important moment. Broadly speaking, such lobbies had fought a rearguard action in the interests of the Australian people. Curiously, despite their conservative tactics, these groups were not welcomed by the anti-communist Right; the old-Right sects were continuously suspicious of any Nationalist group: could it be that the cause of a European and independent Australia - instinctively - has nothing to do with conservatism?

Whatever the case these anti-immigration groups had made a valuable point: that the defence of the Australian identity was a "radical's" cause, not a bourgeois cause.

(3) Third Period: 1982 to 1990

From 1982, the Nationalist struggle began to emerge into the light of day. It was no longer possible for Nationalists to confine their political propaganda to simple elaboration of their principles - it was necessary to enter into rudimentary ideological and political struggle against the Establishment's cosmopolitan-internationalist ideology and its politics. In April 1982, Australian National Action (ANA) was founded. This organization encapsulated Nationalism in the third period. I was proud to serve that organization, just as countless other activists had the same moral satisfaction. The struggle moved into a higher stage.

A military analogy shall be used here, and throughout this pamphlet, as a way to elaborate a new psychology for Nationalists. The Nationalists were like the embryonic guerilla forces in the Third World. "We", the "guerilla", turned our backs on the cities, the old parties, "acceptable" political struggle. We said we could not win against a system based on lies, and force, with the old bourgeois methods. We went into the scrub, the jungles, without uniforms, good weapons, cogent propaganda, or even a consistent political philosophy. We fired the first shots against the System. Others chose to stay in the cities, insisting that things could be changed freely - they may have even done "good work"; but we chose our road to victory, the hardest road, the most dangerous. We shall return to the question of "political guerillaism" again in our discussion of tactics. Suffice to say, Nationalists started the war - from the political "jungle". For no little reason did one academic call ANA, "the main meal" of patriotic politics in the 1980s! On the 'hard' issues of immigration and independence, the Nationalists were competed against generally only by conservative groups - which was hardly competition at all - and then later by particular neo-nazis who pretended to hold Nationalist perspectives on some issues.

The new tactics were first tried, and seen to work, in the period 1982-85. It was the work of Australian National Action which gave spark to the Blainey debate of 1984-85; caused the debate in 1983-84 over overseas students; caused an uproar over the twin issues of immigration and Asianization, such that moves towards repressive "anti-racist" legislation were initiated (and eventually completed) by several state parliaments (NSW was the first to do so - in 1989), as well as by the Commonwealth parliament (1995). Yet, it would be fair to say that the first Nationalist victories were more the result of "luck" (the enemy's state of unpreparedness) rather than due to planning. In Nationalist ranks in the mid-1980s there then arose a certain confusion over how to proceed from these victories. Returning to our warfare analogy: one wins a few victories and then begins to believe that the System can be confronted by an immediate march back to those areas where mass support awaits (supposedly). In truth, the System is resilient and the mass is still full of illusions, not ready to take 'dangerous paths'. And further, our forces are pitifully weak and yet we were told by a few people that "mass support is around the corner". We need no longer be "disrespectable", "dirty", "short of funds", etc. Turn to this mass, we were told. Thankfully this type of argument can in 2003 be answered, as most Nationalists have become aware of the true nature of the political struggle. But that was not the reality in 1985.

This must be one of the greatest dangers to the growth of a Nationalist party: the words of those who promise short-cuts to success, those who would mislead patriots into grave mistakes, errors which can only be recognised later after unfortunate experiences. So it was when ANA was confronted this soft line in 1985. It was a position advanced by the remarkable Jack van Tongeren who subsequently went on to espouse neo-nazi ideology and politics; he left ANA which he had joined to ‘convert’ to this line, and set up the so-called ‘Australian Nationalists Movement’ (ANM). In identical terms to the conservative call to the Nationalists (see next section), he asked us to bloc with the Conservative Right for money and supporters. He told us we were unlikely to impress this market, our 'natural market', with the Nationalist style. When ANA rejected Mr. van Tongeren’s argument about both neo-nazism and the utility of the Conservative Right, it led arrow-straight to the publication of the first What Is To Be Done? We would not turn to the Conservative Right, let alone because it supposedly mirrored Hitler’s technique in appealing to the upper-classes (sic). This enthusiastic reception of this pamphlet showed many were serious in developing Nationalist politics. It showed there was support for consistent Nationalist politics in the repudiation struggle against van Tongeren.

We did not have the time to waste upon "short-cut" fantasies, or the gross mistakes that they cause. In this pamphlet, as in the past, we must study facts, and seek truths from facts. We must make decisions of considerable importance, and move on to create the national vanguard party of the Australian People. The van Tongeren foolishness compelled Nationalists to understand the Conservative "Right", its evolution, and its "danger" to the building of a Nationalist party, a danger which has remained, although in a modified form today.


(4) The Fourth Period: 1990-1996

Up to 1988, it was possible to say that Australian National Action was the only Nationalist political force and, whether people liked it or not, it was taking up the running as a movement for the defence of the Australian identity. It participated in many struggles. Most importantly, it was building a cadre, destabilising liberal-internationalist politics and creating a clear profile amongst the people. Of course, it was a minority organization, but in the tomb-like silence within the ranks of the patriotic mass of people, there was no other alternative. Certainly, the militants believed that a party would indeed be built slowly upon the granite principles of the radical-nationalist tradition.

And then things changed! The Nationalists missed the significance of new events such as the foundation of the Australians Against Further Immigration (1988) and the Confederate Action Party (1990). As Chairman of ANA, I failed to observe that their national-populism reflected many of the concerns of Nationalism, indeed they used the phrase 'Nationalism' in their propaganda and advanced a political style which seemed less 'threatening' to potential supporters. These groups were electoral and also to a certain degree activist, and further, they set out to 'contest' ideology with the state. These national-populist groups were competitors for radical-nationalism. And not just that - they possessed within their ranks the very foot-soldiers radical-nationalism would need to become a mass movement. It was a crucial moment.

Let us give a working definition of national-populism to serve us in this pamphlet. It may take a long paragraph.

National-populism is a type of patriotic politics. It is not derived of a comprehensive theory of Australian history but relies chiefly upon the central 'myth' that the mature Australian identity emerged in an evolutionary way through the 20th century, involving a synthesis British, Euro-migrant and native-Australian features. This identity also involved an environmental component and a lifestyle aspect. This composite identity was challenged by the multiracial-multicultural experiment. National-populists do not recognise 'class', but only 'people'. They seek to empower their lives against the old state by instituting direct democracy and an armed population. In one way or another, they seek a constitutional arrangement which favours this. National-populism favours a well defended Australia, but is not in favour of overseas adventures. They are for the productive people. The national-populists are not conservatives because they think that is simply backward and they favour party organizations, of a basically electoral type (with adjunctive components) to get results. They are activists, but not too radical, prepared to defend themselves in public, but not 'violent', slightly 'older' than the mean.

National-populism is very close in many ways to radical-nationalism, at least in terms of practical effects. Yet, these two traditions have remained organizationally separate for fifteen years. A paragraph explains the quality of radical-nationalism.

Radical-nationalism has been more working class, 'younger', derived of a particular tradition in Australian life, less tolerant of the wrong paths taken in the national story, more direct in its modes of political struggle and therefore less electoral in tone. The radical-nationalists, while favouring an armed democracy, recognized the need for a National State for Australia and that the dangerous times in which we live might impose harshness upon us. Of course, in the emphasis often lies the spirit. The question is: is marriage desirable? Is marriage possible? I say "yes" to both questions.

These new forces came on the scene just as the State struck hard at ANA to break it, indeed to destroy it and punish leading activists with long prison sentences. Simultaneously, the state moved against the ANM neo-nazis. Moving from reactionary conservatism to neo-nazi political violence was not as great a step for the ANM as one might think; it was all about false expectations of the people and despair at the inability of the group to mould strategies and tactics for a long-haul struggle. But it showed isolation within that group. Just as true too, ANA was isolated from truly popular support and could be dealt with in the dark.

Of course, the state miscalculated. It disposed of two "dangerous" groups (to use the words of an ASIO report) only to witness new patriotic groups springing into existence.

In the short-term too, we saw the fragmentation of radical-nationalism The ANA split into two, new groups like the National Republicans were formed and the Phoenix Alliance became active. This organizational break up of radical-nationalism into competing sects was a decisive thing. It made it problematical as to whether, with the birth of new patriotic organizations, it could win hegemony over all and impose its style.

And the improbabilities grew. There were some worthy efforts to break out of isolation, to reintegrate the fractions, to seek new allies. Just as some options for this and for the possibility of gaining a new momentum emerged, circumstances changed again.

(5) The Fifth Period: 1996 - 2004

In 1996, Graeme Campbell founded the Australia First Party (AFP). This was a major event. It was significant because Campbell appealed to working people courtesy of his Labor Party background. In that sense he at least approached the mighty Jack Lang tradition. His policies were like Rex Connor of Wollongong, son of the ALP politician, who founded in 1988 the 'Rex Connor Senior Labor Party', later known as the Advance Australia Party after 1994. They did not unite, but the potential was there. Campbell was popular with the AAFI because of his strong stand against the immigration madness and he was popular with many other patriots for his idea of forging a new national-populist party. It is no wonder the enemy in the media, the Zionists, the political police and certain pseudo-politician-patriot types combined to 'discredit' Campbell for his "extremism" and his "connections to the League Of Rights" - and so on. Yet, Campbell did launch this party, did begin to make progress, until the ground was pulled from under him in turn. He was competed by the fraud 'Reform Party' of Ted Drane, a firearms' rights advocate who fell into line with the Zionist disinformationists at Australia-Israel Review. Drane laboured hard, and limited Campbell's thrust. Campbell was soon eclipsed in the press by the political non-entity, Pauline Hanson.

In April 1997, Pauline Hanson founded One Nation (ONP). The character of this party is still debated. For our part, it is important to note that the ONP (we shall style it this way) was essentially a political mobilisation from the conservative wings of the Liberal and National parties. They was some working class support drawn on the issue of anti-globalisation. There was some support from older people of all backgrounds. There were few young people. The party avoided the term "nationalist", eschewed all persons considered "extremist", embraced electoralism wholeheartedly and under the leadership of a non-entity it squandered opportunity. In due course, its base receded in a clever series of moves by the Liberal Party. If the ONP experience proved anything, it showed the utter hopelessness of a false competition with Establishment politics and organization.

Some people considered the ONP to be a nationalist phenomenon. It must be viewed as a type of conservative mobilisation, a catch-all group. Amazingly, it did sign up 20,000 members. Realistically, many people who joined it, would be available as supporters of a nationalist party.

Australian Nationalism, as this writer might prefer it to be styled, did not gain hegemony over the forces of patriotism in the fifth period either. Far from it! It is true that the ANA was rebuilt in the period from 1993 - 1996. It showed some vitality from its bases in Adelaide and Melbourne. The group did its best to rid itself of even those occasional links with certain marginal Skinheads who tainted it with neo-nazism, although such taints were hardly by its choosing. Other radical-nationalist formations stayed active also and contributed to ideological research and activism, particularly in Melbourne. This was positive.

Unfortunately for the ANA, it was now one horse in a big field of patriotic groups, and finally was overshadowed by conservative ONP activism. The other, less street-active patriotic groups soaked up the cash and the bigger resources, leaving the ANA dependent upon young workers and unemployed people. It was also the sad position that a quantity of lumpen dross entered into the broader confines of the group at different times, engendering perpetual crisis and internal disorders; only at great cost were they periodically driven out. The ANA was short on cadre and thus had to rely on a few persons to deliver results, a stressful situation at the best of times, but fatal when a group is vying to influence the entire discourse of patriotic politics. Other radical-nationalist activists stayed outside of it for reasons that need not detain us denying that group full hegemony over even 'its own' immediate market.

It is reasonably obvious that since 1998 - the ANA has faded away. It no longer represents an organized fraction of the radical-nationalist tradition. It is equally true that some persons within the former structure have embraced new lines, altering the essential character of the group to the point where an attempt has been made 2000-2003 to develop a synthesis of political-Catholicism and Australian Nationalism. This is an unworkable proposition. Simultaneously, new ASIO harassments of a leading member occurred, demonstrating the continuing interest of the political police in curtailing any expression of radical-nationalist politics. If the 'name' ANA has any utility in the market place, it may attract the odd youthful militant, but sadly, its days are past - and such enthusiasm must be squandered. It is time for these comrades, no less than the other survivals of radical-nationalism - to move on.

The mess of Australian 'patriotic' politics is related to the ONP disaster. It has left disillusionment amongst its former voters, shattered people and a structure that some still join, but which is essentially useless to any form of Nationalist politics. There can be no thought (not that true Nationalists would have considered it) of liquidating into the ONP. The ONP is organizationally doomed and cannot be resurrected.

The national-populist AFP continued to exist. The AFP is organizationally flexible. After Graeme Campbell joined ONP in 2001 (in the genuine hope of gaining a Senate seat), the party carried on at a low pulse. But the framework of ideas and its rules and structure, show it to be the ideal meeting point for new syntheses, new unities. The AFP is slowly gaining in numbers and is being rebuilt.

The radical-nationalist field is littered with individual militants. Slowly these cadre are looking about for options. They are the engine for a renewal. However, they need a vehicle. Only in the AFP can they unite with decent and practical people.

The author would say that the only way forward is for the radical-nationalist cadre to re-form within the ranks of the AFP. Here, they can apply themselves in new ways to achieving results. Here, they can build something out from under the shadow of One Nation reaction.

The situation of uncertainty, confusion, vacillation and crisis has gone on for years and hangs over our urgent work. To use a phrase: what is to be done? Abolish the fifth period!




(1) The Original Two Patriotisms.

"Patriotism" in Australia is a confused question. Historically, there were and there are two patriotisms: British-Australia patriotism (conservatism) and Australia-First patriotism (Nationalism). These two patriotisms are distinct entities.

How did this situation arise?

Answer: from Australia's colonial past.

Can these patriotisms be reconciled?

Answer: no, they cannot.

These two patriotisms have a psychological basis, a political basis, and (to a certain extent) a "class" basis. An understanding of these two entities is relevant to Nationalist development in the forthcoming period. It explains much of the weakness in our politics.

(a) How Did These Two Patriotisms Emerge?

During the period from the early 19th century the British Empire in Australia depended on the upper class for its administrators, governing assemblies, and control: and on the middle class for its primary social prop. The mass of working farmers, workmen, etc., were not "considered" economically, let alone politically. By the 1860s such working men had fought at Eureka Stockade, Lambing Flat, etc., and had established the dimmest rudiments of nationalism. By 1890 they had created unionism, republicanism, nationalism, and a folk culture. They had fought the Seamen's Union fight against Chinese labour, supported the "Kelly Outbreak", and more - for Henry Lawson's vision of a Social Republic; their demands were fought against by the upper class: and their primary demand for White Australia was most certainly fought by the British Empire and only won with great difficulty.

This ordinary nationalism was a political fact by 1900 and has underlay much struggle even afterwards. The upper class who governed a piece of real estate for Britain showed its true colours: anti-Australianism. The middle group was torn both ways, and confused the two patriotisms, claiming - like Billy Hughes - that Australia and Empire were "synonymous". (This ‘confusion’ is reflected even into the contemporary period – as we shall see.)

(b) How Things Stand Today: The 'Two Patriotisms' And The Emergence Of A 'Third' Patriotism

The upper class of colonial times has become the Australian Establishment with its policies of U.S. alliance and economic Asianisation. Despite its moves towards a republic (albeit a republic of mercants and bankers), it still stands draped in the colours of political-British monarchism. In any case, its loyalties are certainly not Australian. The conservative meantime finds in his "British Heritage" (Monarch, Parliament, Law, British immigration) a certain security in a society under threat. He identifies with the same rhetoric pushed by (weakening) sections of the Establishment. He is proud of being British and conceives the definition of Australia in these terms. Yet he also is willing to fight Asianisation and globalisation. Nonetheless, we can see an inconsistency: how can a conservative go all the way in such a fight - carry it through to the end - when one might have to trample upon cherished institutions and ideals? Or when one respects the Establishment's "law and order"?

The ordinary working Australians (and those who share their outlook) are capable of consistent nationalism. "Australia" means "Australia" to him. It is his identity. He does not have "Home" (or "the Home Country") to put into his thoughts. He is not a "British ethnic". In some cases, he has no British ancestry at all, but as a person of European ethnic heritage, adopts Australia as his country. He is realistic enough to realise that "our" system of law favours the rich, and that "justice" is often a commodity (or privilege) that can be bought. Therefore the Australian working man is the fighting trooper for Australian Independence, or at least, the first source of fighters for the new ideal.

There is now a third matter for consideration, a 'patriotism' which has emerged over the last decade and a half. It must now be taken into account. This patriotism had not revealed itself in the period to the late-1980's, nor did its existence exercise a real impression on those radical-nationalist activists who composed new editions of What Is To Be Done? Nonetheless, it was represented in the new national-populist forces described above.

This patriotism seemed to say:

Australia had reconciled the colonial past with the achievements of the 20th century; the British heritage with the European and native heritages, but in a synthesis that left behind a verbal support for old forms but had a tacit acceptance of the new. Hence, just for the sake of the argument, there emerged patriots who would say they would accept a republic but with the retention of the national flag. Yet, it went deeper. Some of these patriots considered Australia a lifestyle as much as an identity and as enviro-nationalists they argued for a stewardship of a continent where our identity would be merged with a green reality.

We may have criticisms of aspects of this patriotism, but we do not doubt its sincerity, nor can we doubt its 'marketability', nor that its bases can be fused into radical-nationalist propaganda. Indeed, the author considers now that we, as radical-nationalists, are obliged to deal with this new patriotism and utilise it.

In our view, in the long-term, the colours of Australian patriotism are the colours blue and white! However, in the short term, if we are to be somewhat 'green', and allow a little 'red' to splash about, it is all part of the process of mobilization and radicalization.

This third patriotism is at the basis of national-populism. This patriotism argues for a "people" whereas our tradition, while agreeing to that, recognized the centrality of the working class, and therefore saw more virtue in the labour heritage. If we look at the programmes of the AFP, the AFFI, the RCSLP and so on, the non-class view was substantive and not just a slogan. Let it be. We are strategists and tacticians, not mere ideologues. We must do what we must. In a dynamic fusion, we may yet advance!

(c) Concerning British-Australian Patriotism.

There are several organizations which - today - express a British-Australian ideology: the League Of Rights, the National Flag Association, Australians For A Constitutional Monarchy, The Constitutionalists, certain R.S.L. groups, etc. (there are others). These bodies draw their support from the mass of the conservative middle class and rural Australia.

Our petty bourgeois have dated visions for politics. Some of them talk of appealing for help via the English Monarchy; or by invoking the Magna Carta (1215) or the Bill of Rights (1689); or by "proving" that the Australian Government has been acting illegally via some pedantic interpretation of the Constitution (or by virtue of some other law, such as the Australia Act of 1986). As if the System could give a damn about bush-lawyer antics; even if any of their arguments were technically correct, they would just be ignored or overruled by the System and its judges. Indeed, this has occurred again and again. Sometimes it is useful that such struggles be conducted as 'experience teaches', but sometimes these efforts had no purpose. There is no need to go into detail.

Some conservatives reason that it is just policies and attitudes that must be corrected. Their argument with the Establishment is conceived as an "in house" dispute. When questions of Australian Identity or Asianisation are involved, the tendency is to "pressure" the government: to "lobby" and to "expose". The idea that it is the whole System itself which is at fault and must be overturned has not been considered at all. The petty bourgeois conservative is therefore a reformist at heart. He does not understand what he is fighting.

The conservative often acts as being so "reasonable". He tells the Nationalist that he should be more "moderate", more willing to accept the monarchy or the primacy of the "British heritage" over the other parts of our heritage. He used to tell us there is "big support" for us if we changed and were more like him. Really? These days, after decades of failure, he might say his method is better than the 'stink' of party politics. But would such conservative organizations be really able to create an effective opposition? We think not. The middle class conservative has, since 1960, thrown up at least 50 organizations to "fight" the enemy - and all have gone down the drain. The One Nation Party and its pimping child, the City Country Alliance, are cases in point, although they were/are the most substantial and significant. When the conservative finally ‘went political’ in the One Nation Party, it brought together all the fantasies of conservatism in one structure. It failed to function and broke into fragments. But even during its ‘rise’ it showed that it put its faith in conquering parliament.

It is this very "reasonableness" which is our greatest danger. If the conservative believes in defending Australia, then he must abandon conservatism. Therein lies the paradox. If the conservative has the best interests of his country at heart, his ideas and methods do his hopes no justice! There are many honest conservatives and some of them, particularly those in the League Of Rights, have seen the dangers of the New World Order and Zionism. We can, on some projects, unite with them. However, it is necessary to point to the failures of conservatism to supply an answer.

(d) The Nationalists and the Conservatives.: The 1980's Experience

The relationship between the nationalist and the conservative was necessarily a strained one.

The conservative middle class patriot was a desperate man by the 1980's. His world was shaken by events. He was desperate to restore it. Any quick ticket to "victory" (whatever that "victory" was) was what he was looking for.

The conservative was always calling us back into the confused swamp. He wanted us with him. And naive patriots, and budding Nationalists, were at risk of falling for his siren call. In fact, much of the trouble that the Nationalist cause has had in the past has sprung from this. We must remain constantly on guard against any such tendency to return to the swamp. We have seen this with One Nation in recent times. Although the conservatives were ready to enjoin in electoral action, they lowered politics to this activity alone and on the basis of watery policies.

We must ask ourselves: are we correct to renounce the British-Australian patriotism and System politics? Are we correct to step outside System rules? If so: it is the conservative who must come to us, not vice versa. We are the vanguard of the National Future.

Indeed, as long as the monarchy lasts, our conservative will be torn between the Establishment and the radicals. He can never gain consistency. Even today, many conservatives sees more value in the monarchy, constitution and Flag than in our European ethnic-cultural heritage. Yet continually (like many worthy groups from Correct Australian Parliaments to the League Of Rights.) he will look out for the cause of a European Australia unseeing of the multi-racial nature of the monarchy. He therefore remains tied to much of the problem. And some conservatives have other "problems" as well: they are afraid of confrontation, of getting a "bad reputation", being called "racists", or worse - "fascists". Their supposed respectability restricts their actions. And we are supposed to follow that line?! Drop "radicalism" for alleged success?

The fact is no fighting party can be built upon such middle class conservatives Their hysterical backward thinking precludes constructive action. Nationalists have had successes because the decision was taken to act outside of bourgeois conventions. True Nationalists are certain that we must develop this line.

In conclusion: it was essential that Nationalists made the break – ideologically, politically, and organizationally, - with conservatism. We must develop our line of approach consistently. The emerging patriotic White Australia movement needed genuine leadership. And it can never afford to be tied in any way to the very criminal Establishment that it is fighting.

If the fake-republic comes, the conservatives will be finally cut adrift and possibly then will seek Nationalism and Nationalist leadership. However, we cannot wait for that eventuality (it will come!), but must begin the fight now with what we have.

2) Against Conservatism - The Break Which Established Radical-Nationalism.

Even though Nationalist ideology has been clearly established, we are still liable to the arrival of conservatives (or naive budding Nationalists not immune to conservatism) within our ranks. What follows is often a course of dissension based upon a desire for "respectability", a "sure fire" formula to attract all middle class conservatives, and ideological "compromise".

Conservatism usually manifested itself by several recurring demands:

(a) That we cease "militant" action.

(b) That we do not retain "radical" policies (ousting multinationals, rejecting ANZUS) and, for "tactical" reasons, get involved in "family issues", "tax reforms", etc., in order to get "respectable" support.

(c) That we merge our forces with conservative patriotic groups, that is liquidate the independence and initiative of Nationalism to conform with outmoded formulae.

(d) That we abandon the ideal the idea of Australian independence, especially if one result of that struggle might be the disappearance of the monarchy.

(e) That we repudiate the great Eureka Heritage and condemn and/or ignore other aspects of Australia's nativist-nationalist, labour-nationalist heritage.

What was being said here? That we offer ourselves to the conservatives as their flunkeys, on the basis of their programme, and build their type of organization, - "open" and "respectable" - like the many and varied conservative organizations of the past and present? Surely they must be joking!? They seek to drag us back into earlier phases through which the Nationalist movement had already passed.

The fact is that conservative "patriotic" politics is inconsistent, compromised, ineffective, and diffuse. The fact is that any so-called "support" which actually weakens the fighting capacity and the cutting edge of an organization is not support at all. How does one measure "success"? In terms of mere numbers, or pats on the back by bourgeois suburbanites?

In our political struggle, we have learned the answers to the challenges of conservative patriotism, as described above. Australian National Action learned it first from the van Tongeren group and then in every struggle thereafter. We learned it again in the One Nation furore; we saw that party compromise on the issue of preserving a European Australia. We note:

(a) That we have learned the value, and the strength, of radical militant action.

(b) That "popular" issues attract people whose attitudes require perspective, require a framework for understanding; the construction of a party with a message which is, regardless of all verbal twistings, a "radical" one, needs to be a job in the hands of strategists not concerned citizens.

(c) That the conservative patriotic forces will not succeed at winning either their own objectives or any objectives even remotely similar to our own. We must network with them where there is an advantage, but only on those issues which can be the subject of our methods of action, thereby 'radicalising' them on the ground.

(d) That the defence of the native-Australian heritage (from the great streams of the labour movement, the republican movement, the anti-immigration movement) attracts those who are "Australian"; and discourages those of the "British-Australian" mind-set (usually middle class conservatives, who invariably are "armchair patriots", who end up causing Nationalists to waste valuable time).

(e) That the native-nationalist / labour nationalist heritage, in combination the very necessary elements of the Australian radical-nationalist tradition, attracts fighters, not talkers. It scares away the weak, the cowards, and the right-wing "nuts" of all sorts. It must find a new usage. It is the fire which can move the national-populist forces into a new level of fighting.

There we have it. Two lines. Two ideas. Both could not be correct. Nationalists must choose. But consider: once we concede in principle, where does it stop? Are we to advocate monarchism as the alternative to nationalism? Do we abandon the right of self-defence? Do we abandon the recruitment of youth? Why not "concede" on a White Australia as the long-term goal, as the National Flag Association did in the 1980's, and as One Nation did? After all, solid citizens do not like being called "racists". We must be 100% opposed to a single concession to conservatism. It is the conservatives who must concede to us. Do we have so little faith in ourselves? We left the confused swamp of conservatism to serve the cause of the Australian Nation. Why go back there? Australia is tired of "solid citizens". She needs fighters.

Beware: a conservative criticisms on mere "trifles", like the Eureka ideal, the labour-nationalist heritage and the native-nationalist heritage can actually hide a thorough-going rejection of Nationalist ideology, politics and organization. Nonetheless, it is not simple to formalise the rejection of all conservative ideas and norms. The fact is that persons with such views may continually join our organization, and it is clear that "bourgeois" ideals permeate our society such that no organization can escape the effects of some warping influences. Therefore, it must be an ongoing struggle to reaffirm again and again our principles. The "break" with conservatism has most certainly taken place. But politics cannot exist in a vacuum. Politics must be tested in struggle. Ideology may be "beautiful" in the abstract, but that is meaningless - unless it is rendered into fighting slogans inscribed on the party's banners. And "organization" exists only to serve those methods and those ideals.




It is now appropriate that we discuss our rupture with "traditional" ideals, political means, and organizational methods. Australian Nationalism is a movement which could be compared with a youth whose voice is yet to break. It is hesitant; yet its potential is obvious to all, if it has a fanaticism to push itself past any formation promising a goal even remotely similar to itself and to mould itself by continuous action. That does not mean we do not bloc with groups for specific campaigns, nor as discussed shortly, not build a patriotic united front from below, but it does mean we recognize the unique quality of our cause.

Let us look at some simple definitions:

(1) Ideology can be defined as a systematised body of thought which explains, then mobilises, facts.

(2) Politics can be defined as adaptation to opportunity, ie. placing other movements ("pro" and "con")

and general political circumstances within the scope of our operations.

(3) Organization can be defined as the methods of propaganda and administration conducive to the expansion of our party and the enforced disintegration of our opposition.

(1) Ideology.

In the earlier (largely conservative) anti-immigration and patriotic groups, there was no (or little) ideology. A few precepts were dished up: Australia was "British" ethnically, culturally, and politically; the U.S.A. was our best "friend" in the world; Westminster Democracy was the clearest expression of our national political heritage. Different groups argued these elements with varied vehemence or arrangement of importance. Anti-immigration groups could stress "national values" as an expression of a national identity that was supposedly "British" rather than "Australian"), but not necessarily be concerned with political structures, etc. In the current climate, much of this is rehashed by One Nation. The Nationalists are at variance with all of these conservative beliefs.

We have already discussed the historical factors behind the evolution of a Nationalist ideology. But unlike the imprecise precepts of conservatism, the Nationalists are forced to construct a coherent world-view, an ideology. The historical task of Australian Nationalism involves the political overturn of an alien Establishment through appropriate means. It is a struggle not only against a set of powerful organized structures but a battle for the national mind of the Australian people; either Australians accept that their country should be a Eurasian one with an internationalized export economy tied to South East Asia and certain multinationals - and globally dependent on the new defacto New World Order; OR Australians desire an European Australia with a national economy supporting an independent role in world affairs. The former scenario is "endorsed" by a wide array of historical, ethnographic, pseudo-scientific, and sometimes emotionalist beliefs. It can be "endorsed" "rationally" as some elements of the Human Rights Commission, the cosmopolitan churches, and certain parties have done. The continuous propaganda of internationalism has swayed key sections of the Australian people. Are we to assume that this vicious anti-national propaganda, which is the psychological pillar of the Establishment, can be defeated by a few leaflets espousing a few truths? Even an enormous machine pushing such "truths" would be valueless unless it could demonstrate the fundamental errors of its opponent, demolish them, and "re-program" those cosmopolitan-influenced people.

The construction of an ideology to counteract the mixed doctrines of multi-racialism, multiculturalism, and internationalism is surely an all-round matter. For example, in this "colonial" country uncertain of its identity we have heard of late: "who is an Australian?", "what's an Australian anyway?", etc. Such "genocidal" perspectives cannot be repudiated simply. An all-round answer is necessary - which means a theory of Australian history. Again by way of example: if a government of European Australia could be conjured, what foreign policy could it pursue - would it be tolerated by the United States? Of course it wouldn't be. That was proved conclusively in 1998 when U.S. president Bill Clinton spoke in the Australian Parliament of his fulsome support for multiculturalism and open borders. It was a threat against the Hanson movement, but few noticed it. So, yet again we see the need for an all-round answer to this question - which means a theory of New World Order politics and other issues peculiar to U.S. cosmopolitanism, etc. We could go on and on. And if we are to have a government (and certainly we are no lobby group to influence politicians who long since sold their souls for 30 pieces of silver) we need to discuss tactics, models for our party, and more. So ideology becomes a matter of urgency for the Nationalist party.

The construction of ideology is the process of seeking truths from facts. Out of the facts of overpopulation in the Third World, of the emergence of South East Asian capitalism, of the Red Chinese superpower's modernization program, of the increasing instability caused by the collapse of the Soviet Superpower, and the growth of New World Order capitalism, and the challenge to it by radical Islam and negative aspects of Islamic radicalism - we must create the ideology of Independence and European Australia. These matters are the core aspects of appreciation of Australia's place in the world. We can then mould these matters in to our theory of Australian nationality, of the environment, of capitalism.

To quote Lenin, "without a revolutionary theory, there can be no revolutionary movement". For us to have a party, accepted by a wide strata of the population, we must offer more than a simple programme. A "faith" (i.e. ideology) is needed to supplant, or combat, cosmopolitan-internationalist ideology.

The delineation of a Nationalist ideology has begun. Several steps have been taken. Pamphlet after pamphlet has appeared. A political programme has been articulated. The Internet is being used productively. A tradition in Australian political life has been alluded to, so as to psychologically adapt the Nationalist activist to militant actions, similar to those in early Australian history. However, ideology is something that grows as the organization grows, and as its political struggles cause it to wield increasing influence.

Some people have put to us that an ideology must be fully "created" before it is possible to act. In this scenario we behave like professors, and put pen to paper to author beautiful texts about ourselves, and about how Australia can be, and should be - one could spend a lifetime on such projects. On the other hand, we could act blindly as others desire, dramatise our "feelings" in public, proclaim our truths and wait for the masses to join us. Unfortunately, life and politics walk past such naive ideas. It was Mao Tse-tung (we should ignore certain "right-wingers" who might scream against us for referring to him! First Lenin, now Mao!) who saw a "unity of theory and practice". Firstly, one puts forward basic ideas, engages in political action, tests those ideas; and secondly, theorises upon the results. Then another action follows the developing idea. Each time Ideology and Politics grows more mature. The organization expands. Isn't this a more politically mature attitude when we compare it to both endless philosophising and blind action?

(2) Politics.

Australian Nationalists recognise the urgency of their political mission. It is necessary that "hostilities" be entered into with the Establishment and its supporters. We have developed a systematic theory of struggle, and an Ideology; however, we do not - at this stage - have a strong enough force to smash the System in short shrift. The fact is, of course, that the struggle will be a long one or a protracted one. It is on this basis that "Ideology, Politics, Organization" can be discussed as a unity in the struggle. Nonetheless there is sufficient materiel - ideological, political, and organizational - to initiate this struggle.

Hitherto, White Australian patriotism was the province of respectable middle class types working through major parties or weak lobby groups. Eventually national-populist or conservative ‘anti-immigration’ and patriotic parties (we shall define 'national-populist’ in this context shortly) came on the scene. The Nationalists decided against "respectability" (though not responsibility) and in favour of action. The Nationalists opted against working as a ginger group of established forces, in favour of direct work amongst ordinary Australians - work which would culminate in the construction of a new party. The Nationalists decided against ‘moderation’.

Therefore, the politics of the Nationalist party can be understood in the context of (a) recruitment of new forces, and (b) political "targets" chosen to establish an atmosphere of "political struggle".

"Ideology" dictated that the White Australia cause had very little prospects amongst the conservative classes and organizations. Nationalist politics was, and still is, consequently directed towards (primarily) working class Australians and younger people. It is also focused upon other people turning their backs on conservative organizations. As such, these people are a valuable source of finance, labour, and contacts. "Ideology" showed that the first White Australia Policy, which was part and parcel of the great Nationalist movement (1880-1910), was a creature of the trade unions, the cultural-nationalist intellectuals (around the "Bulletin", for example) of the activist psychology. It was successful because it overcame the hesitation of the Anglicised middle classes and intimidated the colonial administrators. "Ideology" showed that similar circumstances today demanded a similar solution: a party of ordinary Australians led by a conscious active militant Nationalist vanguard has become necessary.

The first goal of Nationalist politics was to break from the "clutches of conservatism", to recognise the need for a truly popular and Australian movement. The forms of Nationalist politics (a political programme, the Eureka heritage, activism, etc.) reflected this proposition with political realities. The second goal of Nationalist politics was to attract people on that basis, a process which has been continuous.

In our second broad political task, we can see ourselves in need of not only the psychology of attack that arises from continuous activism - but publicity. There needs to be victories to inspire new recruits. "Targets" are those which can be politically intimidated - easily - and at low cost. The "frightened" or quiescent Australian must be awoken not only to the sounds of a battle but to the idea that the battle is not hopeless (an answer to the often heard: "what can I do?"). Nationalist politics must demonstrate these possibilities every day.

To sum up. In its early phase Nationalist politics is all about, firstly, establishing the tactical forms of propaganda and action and to insist, blindly, ruthlessly, continually on the political virtues of the organization. The party steps forward, at first, alone but with its principles intact ready to assemble fighters for an idea. Secondly, it begins its fight for its cause with victories and with results, even if minor victories and small results. It must eventually become a mass Nationalist movement, led and organised by a solid core of dedicated and committed Cadre-Members - it must be an organization which encourages the fighter for the Australian idea to make his commitment to the cause of the Australian Nation, and National Independence.

(3) Organization.

Given the ideological precepts of Australian Nationalism, given the political tasks of the Nationalist organization, it is no wonder that, from the start, the organization called itself a party.

Clearly the Nationalist organization must be a party; its goals are obviously political. And there are enormous matters at stake! The alternatives to a party are many and we have discussed them: associations, lobbies, leagues, pressure-groups of all sorts. Australian Nationalists understand that fundamental political changes are not achieved either by "public education" activities or by lobbying ruling institutions, but solely and absolutely by the achievement of political power.

As indicated above, the "organization" exists to serve the Ideology and the Politics of the party. Three principles of organization arose very early, suggested not only by the failures of a) similar political forces of the past, and b) the conservative organizations, but by the urgent, vital and enormous tasks before us. Further: the party's aim - political power - demands a form of organization able to combat an alien Establishment whose methods of coercion are likely to become "illegal" and even violent. They are at this moment certainly coercive and manipulative.

  • (A) Secrecy.
  • As our party grows, and hopefully becomes a mass organization, general secrecy would be impossible. In its current state, secrecy in crucial areas is possible and desirable. (Behind its "mask" the party can gather strength). Later, this "secrecy" can still be applied to special sections of the organization, and to its internal life - even under conditions of mass membership.

    The need for secrecy arises out of our understanding of the Australian state apparatus. The state began as an instrument of British imperial control; it has developed into an agency for internationalist domination over Australia's economy and politics. Its methods were never "democratic" in ensuring state interests. Violence has always been the reality behind the mask of such a "democracy". Secret police often harness this violence against organizations which, or individuals who, express pro-Australian politics.

    It is against political police that secrecy must be primarily employed; though there now, and will be other, enemies of the party. Infiltration, names-collecting, media "exposures", wrecking etc. are problems which must be faced. No party anxious to serve the cause of Australian Nationalism could wish to be placed in difficulties arising from non-acceptance of basic rules of organizational security. The "open" form of party organization should be rejected - permanently. If anything, the history of the entire patriotic and Nationalist scene proves the case. In some areas, it is impossible to conceal data. Sometimes, it is impossible to protect oneself against intrusion. It is a matter deciding what we can conceal, and what we need not bother about. Yet, even so, we should when necessary, practise simple deceptions (I shall not elaborate).

    In the present situation, the political police are claiming the right to curtail general liberties to wage a "war on terrorism". Organizations can be proscribed, phones tapped, people detained to answer questions. A new crime of sedition has been dredged up.

    (B) Members and Cadre-Members.

    Given our political tasks and given those pressures which push for secrecy, an "open" organization is a luxury with which we could easily dispense.

    With this as our premise, we can divide Membership into two categories. 'Legal' ways should be done to affect this. The "inferior" status of an ordinary "Member" implies a loose commitment to the organisation's activities and programme. The Cadre-Member meantime is he who is prepared to act on his faith. Therefore, only the Cadre-Members have organizational "rights". In his work the Cadre-Member yields his decision-making powers to the appropriate Committee, but supervises and confirms in their authority the various Committees in National and other Conferences. In the current reorganization of Nationalism in Australia, it is necessary to assess people. In one sense, personal 'histories' have become known and some decisions as to status in the party are easy to arrive at. It should thereafter only be by absolute demonstration of loyalty and achievement that full rights can be obtained.

    Chatter and labour are two different concepts in inner-party life. In the bourgeois groups, gossiping and the formation of cliques and cabals have been facts of life. We must eliminate this from our organization.

    It all implies that discipline is necessary and that the authority of the relevant committees to direct their spheres of party work must be recognised by both Members and Cadre-Members. The weaknesses of an "open" organization (which gives our enemies opportunities to disrupt, disable, or cripple us) cannot be allowed within the party which fights for an Independent European Australia.

    The chaos of the erstwhile parties of patriotism (AAFI, ONP, the ON (NSW), the Great Australians) in the last several years, has proved the validity of this approach.

    (C) Activism.

    We have referred to correct ideas emerging in the actual processes of political struggle.

    Activism is the decisive factor in promoting the emergence of the Nationalist organization. Activism is the key to the "break" with conservative organizations and ideas. Activism defines itself as the correct disposition of the Nationalist; the psychology of the party grows in a healthy fashion. The "radical" ideology and the formidable tasks call for Activism.

    With the growth of ideology and the formation of political concepts, activism serves to sharpen those areas of concern. It raises the party into public view. Indeed action keeps the timid out of the organization - which is good. And it establishes the organization with a certain publicly visible profile, with a reputation for commitment to a cause and a known devotion to the Australian People. Activism breaks through the media curtain of silence and causes an issue or a series of issues to be debated. The mass is alerted to controversy. Activism is the propaganda of the deed!

    Needless to say, activism will always have its price to be paid at certain stages of our work: frame-ups, personal harassments, media smear, and physical violence. Yet such reaction merely increases the desire to further the aims of the party through ever more energetic struggle.

    To sum up: an organization exists to serve the ideal and wage the fight in accordance with a tactical plan. It is subject to those exigencies. It has its forms set as early as possible. Ideology is now being seen as the necessary guiding star of the new party. Basic political tasks are being elaborated and "targets" found. Once we have completed these necessary rectifications, the party would at that point move beyond the stage of political skirmishing, and be ready for its first confrontation.




    True Nationalists have turned their backs on bourgeois politics. The salvation of the Australian People and Nation is not a matter of "influencing" politicians and serving crumbling "institutions" (monarchy, constitution, etc.), but is a matter of winning state power. As much as some might wish it, some things cannot be saved - even if we were minded to do so.

    Only with power exercised by the Australian People can the Nation be secure. In politics, power is a function of force. Australia is being Asianised, multiculturalised, and internationalized because power (political, physical, psychological, cultural) is exercised by the Establishment through various means which exclude the people from decision making. Force (and the violence is latent) dictates that 'choice' is eliminated in these areas of the national destiny.

    Force is only ever defeated by equal or greater force. The task of the Nationalist party is to assemble that force, and then, and only if necessary, answer the reactionary violence of the cosmopolitan-internationalist Establishment with national-revolutionary violence. We hope that violence (even retaliatory violence) shall never be necessary. It is possible we may succeed without it and we certainly have no secret plan to start on the contrary scheme. We would prefer it that way. Yet, we can never be sure! The force that underlies the Australian state power is both physical and psychological. It is the latter form of force which would primarily concern the party in its early stages of development, though physical force (from the Establishment or its "left-wing" storm-troopers) would never be absent. The bourgeois patriots fear not only the force of opposition, but the also the concept of force itself. Nationalists repudiate such nonsense. Force has been the core aspect of the form of the exercise of state power in Australia. From the Rum Corps, to the secret armies of the 1930s through to the use of secret police in the last few decades, force has been applied to secure state policy.

    The proper answer to this situation has been difficult to arrive at. With the right application of psychological, street and community action, with the right combination of economic and ideological-cultural means, the Australian state may find itself unable to resist the assault of the Nationalists. Should the state alter the forms of struggle to make the ultimate move and resort to repression or even violence, then Nationalists, armed as we are with the idea of the function of force within Australian state power, would become obliged likewise to alter the rules of contest. All this remains 'theoretical' at this stage. We simply do not know the future.

    Erroneous ideas can arise in any discussion of the means by which the Nationalist struggle can be prosecuted. We can catalogue three basic errors: Infiltrationism, Electoralism, and Terrorism. Each can be discussed in turn.

    (1) Infiltrationism.

    This idea is a simple one: Rather than found a party of Nationalists, Nationalists join other, established parties, infiltrate the party organizations and somehow "take over". With a "respectable" and "established" party machine, parliamentary power can be achieved. While of course this theory intrigues mainly the conservative middle class patriot, it can also be put before the Nationalist. It is another area where the conservative calls upon the Nationalist to return to "the swamp".

    Infiltration destroys the need for systematic Nationalist ideology, politics and organization. It reduces the Nationalist to a secret conspirator whose connections with his fellows are such that the public could fail to recognise any new movement in national politics. Infiltration demands that the conspirators divorce themselves from the Australian People and subordinate their activities to manipulating their way into a party which, while it may appear suitable to takeover, is in reality an arm - and a valued arm - of the Establishment. The cosmopolitan-internationalists have innumerable mechanisms for the control of their parties. The "conspirators" have to overcome these obstacles, tailor themselves to the logic of the targeted party, and work for it to establish their credentials. We are supposed to believe that one day these plotters will control the party branches, and the party conference, and impose their policies. Assuming the party doesn't split on the spot, leaving the conspirators with a "rump"-party, they have then to win 51% popular support to "form a government".

    And if the public find the "sudden changes" "unusual" or they are suspicious of the conspiracy - despite its size and strength - the "new" party would be rejected. And then it's back to square one! Would these knights of the inkpot, conference-heroes, and chameleon parliamentary aspirants have the courage to resort to the politics of activist struggle? Not likely. They would have spent 10 years or more proving their "respectability" and would by then probably believe in it implicitly.

    The fact is that "infiltration" has nothing at all to do with Nationalist politics. It is bourgeois conservative politics. A living example of this tactic was the conspiracy of certain conservative monarchist Menzies-style "Liberals" to take charge of the N.S.W. state Liberal Party in the 1970s and early 1980s. As summed up by one of their leaders, the policies of the faction were: "God, the Queen, the Judiciary and the Services". These persons styled themselves as 1950s Liberals, anti-communist, and totally "free enterprise" in character. They had no popular support - and would never have earned it. They were not preparing for the politics of activism, but for a Parliamentary "takeover". The leftovers of this group are actually – still there. The ONP has come and gone and they are still in the Liberal Party. If we reason backwards, it’s clear what they always were! Even if they were successful, the Nationalists would still have been in the field - and ready to fight even these Liberals - for the cause of the Australian Nation, and true National Independence.

    There may have been and still will be other attempts at infiltrationism - but the point has been sufficiently illustrated.

    (2) Electoralism.

    It is a common myth of the politically naive that Nationalists will simply be elected to power. It is argued that the party must be based on electorate-organization and that its primary aim (after its basic propaganda-work) is the contesting of elections. It is held that elections give people "their chance" "where it counts".

    Unfortunately for such pseudo-nationalist daydreamers, it counts very little. Elections do not alter the fundamental elements of state power in Australia. Any Nationalist party which won an election would not be permitted to govern. But what is even more important to us, at this stage of our development, is what sort of party we wish to build: do we want to construct an electoralist party? If we choose to build such a party we must subordinate that party to vote-getting; its programme must be "modified" for "popularity". The party would be a machine for competition with parties attuned to their ground. Is it correct to fight on the enemy's ground?

    Nationalists should contest elections. It is necessary to establish "legitimacy" in this area. Elections provide an opportunity for public propaganda. Some indications of support can be found when the votes come in. Elections will, therefore, always be a part of the Nationalist struggle. But since state power does notentirely lie in Parliaments or in votes, Electoralism will have to be reduced to an aspect of a general assault on the Establishment. It is as simple as that.

    Given the state of our forces, and the rudimentary nature of our organization, it is far wiser to enter into political struggle against the Establishment directly, through our propaganda and public "actions". This may not necessarily help our "reputation" amongst suburban bourgeois at election time, or endear us to the political police. Yet these tactics match our level of development. The daydreamer with his plans of parliamentary power would only sidetrack us into meaningless electioneering. We are warned in advance to avoid this pitfall. We must place any electoral work within that framework.

    And then we could review the appalling history of national-populist and conservative electoralist politics. We refer first to the national-populists – the Confederate Action Party, the Australians Against Further Immigration and the Australia First Party (until recent times). Some of the populists ‘radicalised’ conservative ideas about the people being sovereign and did so in several ways: they advocated direct democracy, an armed people and some announced that their idea of the monarchy was the incarnation of a mass will. They argued that while the British Heritage was central, there was an Australian Way. They stood for electoral politics, but they organized as a mass movement would: in localised branches with grass-roots authority; often therefore, (unfortunately) they opposed any form of centralised party.

    The national-populist parties made substantial electoral inroads in the period 1992-96. Some very credible results were achieved. A climate of panic appeared in Establishment media. But electoralism increasingly became their central defining feature. They would organize by electorates. The programme would be pitched at "voters". As registered political parties, they would mimic the bourgeois parties. This electoral approach rested uneasily with the ideas of ‘mass’ approach, of challenging Establishment ideas and developing a counter-ideology. We saw some good ideas and good strategies subordinated to the electoral road. People came forward to parade as ‘candidates’; there were squabbles over positions on the Senate ballot papers; there were disputes over who was the ‘registered agent’ and so on. Parties were deregistered by scheming individuals and the law intervened in the parties to decide who was and who was not the representative of the members.

    The conservative One Nation Party and its successors took electoralism to its ultimate conclusion. This party had no use for ideology at all. It considered a ‘popular programme’ to be all that was necessary. The aim was to get into parliament at all costs. This party was without any strategic or tactical plan other than the contesting of elections. Further, the ONP argued that its members of parliament would be representatives of their electorates not even of the party. This recipe for anarchy was indeed rewarded with the resignation of its entire Queensland parliamentary body! The conservatives revealed themselves as failures in the art of challenging to the state power – in so far as that was their idea at all. But they did show one thing. By approximating some of the issues and style of the national-populist groups, the ONP (and successors) effectively limited the middle ground between conservatism and Nationalism. This might just might make the fusion of the two categories a little easier?

    We are pleased that electoralism has been put to the test. We saw the big parties do ‘preference swaps’, how they ganged up on Hanson and Campbell in parliament, how they denied ONP members of parliament their ‘rights’. We saw the state use all problems in the registration of the ONP as a party to cripple it. At a terrible cost to the Australian People, we can say to them that there is in this country (whatever may otherwise be the case with European brother parties), no parliamentary road to power.

    In the 1980’s, we had no proof of our assertions. In the early 1990’s the half-way house of national -populism was on the rise and showed electoral promise. It stalled. The ONP has failed. Its successors will fail. Enough said! It is time to revalue the weight that must be placed upon formal electoral work. It must be subordinated to other modes of struggle.

    (3) Terrorism.

    To even discuss this subject in respect of the Nationalist struggle pays the matter more credence than it deserves. Nonetheless a few words may be of some use, particularly at the present time where 'terrorism' is a preoccupation of the Intelligence sections of the state apparatus.

    Nationalists have no use for terrorism. The examples of terrorism waged by ostensibly Nationalist organizations in Europe - such as the Armed Revolutionary Nuclei (N.A.R.) in Italy; the Commandoes of Charles Martel in France; and others in Germany; etc. - have been not only failures, but have proved of more value to the Establishment in its propaganda war against Nationalist ideals. European Nationalist parties, such as the Front National (FN) in France, the National Democratic Party (NPD) in Germany, and the Vlaams Blok in Belgium, the British National Party, have all condemned the terrorism of small groups as counterproductive and nonsensical. Australian Nationalists can only concur.

    It has remained possible that a terrorist group espousing some nationalistic ideas will emerge. According to some 1980s sources, A.S.I.O. believed such "racist terrorism" could arise from certain men in the armed services and the police. Some political violence groups did in fact emerge, although their activities fell far short of terrorism. But such an event would have little impact on the general course of Nationalist activism, but would most certainly demand a clear response in the party press. Further comment is also appropriate.

    Indeed, we only need to look at the activities of the Perth-based Australian Nationalists Movement in 1988-89 as an example of Nationalist "terrorism" (if the ANM could really be called true "terrorists", let alone if they could be called true "Nationalists"?). While carrying out propaganda campaigns, the ANM (inspired by the U.S. novel, The Turner Diaries) commenced a campaign of fire-bombing Chinese restaurants (and simultaneously committing warehouse robberies to fund its activities) intending to scare the Asian population out of Western Australia. Due to the police frightening one member into becoming a police informer (after catching him "red-handed" with some of the ANM's stolen goods), the police were able to gather enough evidence to relatively quickly jail most of the ANM's leading members, thereby ensuring the group’s quick demise. The political police were able to turn another senior member of ANM and run this person as an agent against several groups thereafter. The ANM's plan was devoid of real possibilities and could never have been realised. The personal tragedy associated with the imprisonment of some otherwise basically decent Australian men is well known. The state said the ANM campaign was terrorist in quality and paraded that slogan through the media (it was in fact politically motivated violence although that term is used by ASIO as synonomous with terrorism) .

    The author knows through personal experience that a trial can be run to 'prove' that an organization and an individual was 'terrorist'. In this example, the Special Branch of the New South Wales police fabricated a case against me. This example suggests that the label of 'terrorist' is very important to the state power, just as the label 'communist' was in another time.

    The Australian state is well armed and prepared to deal with terrorism. In recent years, under pressure from the U.S. imperialist regime substantial investment has been made in 'counter-terrorism' equipment and personnel. This has strengthened the state-power enormously. This counter-terrorism structure can also have other applications and will undoubtedly be used against the Nationalists in any number of 'civil' ways.

    It is true, in the abstract, that the 'highest form' of political change is the seizure of power by armed force. Even allowing that such a thing would occur in Australia, and that the Nationalists would be the ones to carry it out, there is also a vast difference between a 'revolution' by force - and terrorism. The sad fact is, in the experience of the Nationalists, that those who might talk about terrorism are invariably either idiots - or more dangerously, provocateurs.

    (4) Political Struggle: The Proper Path To Follow.

    Far 'better' than Infiltration, Electoralism, and Terrorism, remains what we shall call Political Struggle: We must understand that we are at war with the Establishment, the anti-Australian state which is pushing our country to disaster. Our objective must be to disrupt the existing System while promulgating a new ideology and developing a new party. Political Struggle means some electoral work (particularly local government work), demonstrations, strike actions, propaganda. It means the primacy of forging a party that is ready - ideologically, politically and organizationally- for a collapse or fundamental crisis in the existing structure. Our party must become adept at the public rally; become a power in the street, in the school, in some unions, amongst ordinary police, in the university; organized to win publicity, and to make our issues living questions. It is appropriate to defend all symbols of the Australian Identity and wage the cultural struggle for the preservation and 'popularisation' of every aspect of our national heritage.

    After 1985, Australian National Action developed several campaigns directed at foreign property purchases, the anti-apartheid movement, the liberal-internationalist church network and ‘anti-racist’ propagandists. These brought great attention to the party. One campaign which continued later was that directed at the Multi-Function Polis conspiracy in Adelaide. This plan for a Japanese city was sunk by National Action. The party combined exposures, agitation, critical intimidatory propaganda and public actions into a system of action. This method seemed to die off the 'patriotic' scene in the 1990's. Other groups occasionally tilted towards the idea of a campaign structured around human 'targets'. By striking down its targets, disrupting their schemes and forcing a concession here and there, such a party could build confidence in the power of the national resistance forces.

    It has been said that political power is a function of force. In the final analysis we may need to make a show of force. The actual form that may take is speculative and as we said above we have no time for terrorism or other meaningless violence. But power must be achieved; "Whatever is necessary to secure the identity, independence and freedom of our nation" must be our slogan!

    We have looked at three broad political "errors" which could conflict with the unfolding of correct Nationalist tactics. But before we more fully discuss the correct tactics to be employed at this juncture, we should ask what the historical tasks of Australian Nationalism actually are.




    The tactics of a Nationalist party set themselves according to the historical scale of the tasks allotted to that party. Before us are immediate tasks and general historical questions which have stepped forward for resolution. Both the immediate and general tasks together indicate that our movement is no ordinary movement, but a truly 'revolutionary' movement. We must create a 'National Revolution' to carry out the mission that is ours to fulfil. Australia must become a Nation, secure in its identity, independence and freedom.

    (1) The "British Question".

    Australia must overcome her colonial past. Australia must first confront the "British Question". The Nationalist party cannot accept that the nation is "British" (or even "Anglo-Celtic"); the Nation is "European" in general, but Australian in particular. We are a nationality, no less than the British, the French, the Spanish and the other European nationalities. Yet, we are like the Argentinians for example - we speak one of the European languages as a result of colonisation, but we are a fusion of European stocks, and even more importantly, we are in possession of our own national identity formed by History and the Spirit of Place.

    It is vital to remove from the national consciousness any lingering confusion. Confusion in the national ethos aids and abets the national enemy and must be struggled against to the end.

    It is a fact of history that the British Imperial ideology, fostered so vociferously in the 1920s and 1930s, operated to kill off any form of true Australian Nationalism and has twisted Australian patriotism continually. Groups of monarchists have arisen to proclaim over all other aspects of our heritage -- our "British heritage".

    Yet to mobilize Australians for national survival, a mobilization of Native-Nationalist feeling is needed. Australia - alone - is the reality! We cannot be concerned, other than at the level of general heritage, defence of things that have no pressing immediacy. Our land, our history, our traditions are the target of attack here - not Britain nor its monarchy nor its history. It is a task of Australian Nationalism to create an Australian National State, to militarily defend that state, and to forge a vibrant Australian Identity. This means that we must render into context the British component of our heritage. By finally overcoming the colonial past by performing the act of contextualising our British heritage, certainly at the level of culture, language et al and not at the level of the imperialism of the past, we mature ourselves. Of course, this question is a lesser one to the other tasks confronting the Nationalists.

    (2) Cultural-political Americanization.

    Australia must free herself of cultural-political Americanization. Since the 1940s Australia has slipped under the political control of the New York plutocracy. With the buy-up of national resources at "bargain basement prices" and the use of "allied troops" in overseas wars not of our making, has also come the ghetto culture, the drug culture, the music of spiritual-rot, the capitalistic get-rich-quick cult, and much more. The cosmopolitan-internationalism of the United States threatens Australia far more than the rough imperialism of Moscow ever did. Cosmopolitan-internationalism is by its very nature a liberalistic ideology: a corrupting, weakening creed which places "pleasure" before discipline, "humanity" before the Nation, "rights" before duty. Once released into the national bloodstream it destroys whole sectors of the community-body.

    Australia's fight with "United States imperialism" is primarily a spiritual struggle, a cultural struggle. To have an Australian Culture and Identity, it is necessary to break free of cosmopolitanism: to raise up "borders" or barriers to the internationalisation of Australia. With the advent of the New World Order system, we are compelled to intensify this struggle.

    (3) Environmentalism.

    Our long-term relationship with this continent should be one of stewardship. This requires both population sizes and a range of lifestyles that can be sustained through generations to come, by the renewable resources of the earth.

    We must act immediately to control: (a) the loss or impoverishment of our soils; (b) the destruction of our flora and fauna; (c) the pollution of our rivers and degradation of our ground water reserves; (d) the pollution and congestion of our cities; (e) the nation's contribution to the greenhouse effect and ozone hole; and (f) the unsustainable exploitation of our natural resources.

    Such depletions of the nation's biological and resource capital cannot be reversed while our planning remains dominated by the twin goals of: (1) growth of per-capita consumption and (2) growth of population. We should revise all policies that commit us to living beyond the biological means that our continent gives us.

    It is idiotic that we are ruining our already poor soils by over-taxing them in the pursuit of foreign dollars; and destroying our rivers, forests, bushlands, native animals, and plant-life in the chase for temporary economic benefit. We owe it to Australia's future generations to leave them a country that is capable of sustaining its own population, not one that has been environmentally wrecked (a sacrifice made at the altar of the almighty dollar).

    (4) Multiculturalism.

    Multiculturalism serves the purposes of "national division" - prior to Asianisation. It is the task of Australian Nationalism to win to the Nation all valuable elements of the European migrant communities - who are being deliberately divided from the mainstream of the Nation. "Multiculturalism" is a major test of the strength of the magnetic quality of Australian Nationalism. The artificial "British ideology" of erstwhile patriots cannot reconcile these elements to the Nation. Only an Australian nativist-nationalist ideology can achieve this task.

    (5) Asianisation.

    Asianisation is the major enemy of the Australian People and Nation. This threat has many aspects: economic, political, demographic, and cultural. Cosmopolitan-internationalists (who now disproportionately dominate the bases of power in this country) see our enmeshment with Asia as a "good thing" (no doubt, this alleviates the "bleeding hearts" of many pathetic white cosmopolitans), and this development is encouraged and furthered by the traitor-class of "our" politicians, diplomats, and public servants.

    It is estimated that 26.7% of Australia's population will be Asian or part-Asian by 2020, Australia will finally become a truly Asian country in the 2090s. This will be a "do or die" struggle for our nation: either we will retain our national and cultural identity, or our nation - our people - will die. The peoples of Asia have homelands that enable the continuation of their identity and culture, but the Australian people stand to lose their very existence. It is the ultimate test of our national will and the Australian People's right to its Continent Nation. It is a matter which, in the end, is very likely to be decided by guns - through national war linked to civil crisis.

    Should Australian Nationalists resolve the questions outlined above we could guarantee the national future of Australia. Australia is one of the few "last frontiers" of the European race. It has the potential to become a self-sufficient nation, one that need not rely upon the smothering input of foreign "investment" and parasitic multinational corporations to achieve the ideal of a new culturally-vibrant European civilisation in the Southern Hemisphere.

    It should also be understood that such a new state could not be sustained without great internal change. In the late 19th century the organisers of the Australian Trade Union movement, the Labor party, and other Nationalists and republicans looked towards the creation of a new social order - a classless nation state which some called the Social Republic. To our mind, there is no sense making a National Revolution to guarantee the biological/cultural survival of the Australian People without forming a social 'republic' to ensure the livelihood, well-being, and equality of the Australian citizen.

    We have here referred to the broad general and particular historical tasks confronting the Nationalist party. Such a mission allotted to this generation is that for which sacrifice is called into play. The Australian Revolution is a true revolution, not a mere change of government but a total change in our living conditions and social surrounding. The New Australia will be built on the ruins of the old. That is the proper meaning of the term 'revolution'. This is what the great Arthur Calwell came to see as necessary as early as 1970.

    The party which fights this fight carries with it an historical weapon, a "truth" against which the Establishment has only corrupt and mercenary forces.



    So far this pamphlet has been two things. It has been critical of certain ideas or trends which may distort the development of a Nationalist organization. Secondly, this pamphlet has dealt with the question "what is to be done?" from the point of ideology and has elucidated general principles for the party. It is now time to discuss our question from the more practical point of view.

    Our aim is to win! Hitherto "patriotic" and even Nationalist organizations have fought a rearguard action against the anti-national forces of multiracialist cosmopolitanism coupled with some periods of failed offensive. We must no longer fight rearguard battles nor advance not fully prepared, but go over to the general offensive. For Nationalists there are no Monarchs, Constitutions, States Rights, etc. to "defend" ahead of the Nation and People. There are no sacred cows. There is only the cause of an Independent European Australia! With that in mind we have "lowered" the tone of debate from bourgeois private meetings to the street level, from talk to action, from "defence" to "attack".

    (1) Propaganda.

    Nationalists must provide an energetic propaganda organization. And that propaganda must be aggressive propaganda. We must have "exposure" propaganda - which points out what the treason is and who's doing it. We must criticise all the anti-Australian attitudes (particularly the Asianisation "ideals") of the Establishment. And we must do this with concrete examples of the betrayal of the Australian People. This propaganda must incite a reaction in the people.

    (2) Visibility.

    Nationalists must provide a "visible" organization. Unlike the old-Right or even some Nationalist factions, a viable Australian Nationalist party must become known to the general public, particularly to those with no concrete political persuasion. To that end activists need to be seen in public and ensure that other propaganda is displayed visually (slogans, posters, etc.).

    Australians must also become aware that a movement of Nationalist opposition is continually active. In this sense we engage in physical propaganda: the demonstration.

    (3) The Atmosphere Of Political Struggle.

    It is necessary that, where we have any strength at all, we must introduce an atmosphere of "political struggle" even if that is at the "gutter" level. We will fight as resources permit. This struggle is indeed beneath the "dignity" of the bourgeois yet it is necessary that Australians be alerted to a fight waged by those who P.R. Stephensen (a 1930s Australian Nationalist) called "the rough crude men who will save White Australia". The so-called "thug" image sometimes put against us by the lying media needs to be refined and developed, turning a negative idea into a positive; we can become, in the public mind through energetic action, vanguard fighters - and be seen in this capacity even in otherwise difficult circumstances.

    (4) The Importance Of Cadre-Members.

    The activist Cadre-Member is worth more than the ordinary Member, or the casual supporter. Our "radicalism" ensures the quiescence of ordinary Members and supporters within the organisation. With activists, organizations opposed to White Australia and Independence can be countered. The activist mentality must be promoted within the party.

    (5) Targets For Propaganda.

    "Targets" for verbal and physical propaganda must be found. Such "targets" are those which are (usually) "softer" than ourselves, those likely to "scream" to the media. Our propaganda, of course, must tell the truth. And it must achieve the "intimidation" of the anti-Australian person or group.

    It is necessary for us to win whatever objective we set - be it merely publicity, or the destruction of a group, or the embarrassment of an individual. In this mode of political warfare, victory is essential in that it inspires new recruits and solidifies the party, ideologically, politically, and organizationally.

    (6) Political 'Sabotage'.

    We must learn to politically sabotage the Establishment. Consider three areas "dominated" by the System: multicultural education, Japanese (and other Asian) property investment, and the sale of education to overseas students. All these things are "enemies" of well-being of the Australian People. The education system preaches System-propaganda and accustoms younger Australians to the recolonisation of their country. The obvious product of economic recolonisation (immigration) is praised by this education system; Australian history has been/is distorted by this propaganda to endorse Establishment treason. Asian investment "balances" the deficits in our trade. It is essential to Australian capitalism. Like the U.S. "investment" of the 1960s, Asian "development" is "vital" to the economic survival of our lunatic economic system. The people who collaborate are generally well-known. Education is now being sold as a commodity which has driven Australian students out of their own education institutions; it follows that many fee-paying overseas students then stay as 'qualified' migrants.

    If Nationalists could begin to "sabotage" just these three social props of the System we could cause considerable dislocation politically and economically in Australia. We can cause disruption and cause "questioning", thereby costing the System money and new "recruits". This a far more positive approach than electioneering (!) or "infiltration" (!!).

    In the interests of secrecy it would be completely incorrect for us to discuss in any detail here exactly how we could achieve results of this type. That is a matter for the relevant party committees. Nonetheless, we are sure our party members can understand our point. Nothing is ever gained politically unless a system is dislocated and - eventually - crippled. The Australian Establishment, which will concede us nothing, can only be overturned by methods which are not affected by bourgeois ideas. It can only be fought by intense planned political struggle which accelerates the destruction of the old-order politically, economically, and psychologically while at the same time a new party prepares to culminate its struggle in the acquisition of power.

    (7) The Patriotic United Front, Organized From Below. Our Independence And Initiative

    In the late hour in which we work, we are obliged to deal with other patriotic organizations. As is often the case, it is very difficult to arrive at any unity of purpose with the leadership of such groups. As usually occurs, they are narrow-minded and focus, like secretaries of some bowling club, for their own immediate advantages. Occasionally some matter of urgent importance will bring them to negotiate with us over a plan of opposition or protest and we must arrive at concrete results. Most important however, is unity with the rank and file of these groups. That is called 'unity from below'. We should always do our best to cultivate this unity.

    When a united front is arrived at, we should live up to our side of the arrangement. However, this unity is a dynamic thing. In any united front, our party must maintain its independence and initiative. That means, we are free to perform actions in accordance with the goal and can respond to events as they develop.

    In constructing unity we show its utility.

    (8) Intelligence Organization.

    As the reader could discern, any organization which operates particular activist campaigns, imposes a certain secrecy over its activities and which seeks some 'closure' in its structures, must also defend itself from disruption. The processes of the collection of information also imply the collection of data on those who would disrupt it, and upon the methods they employ. In this way, the Nationalist party requires its own Intelligence organ. It is possible to create a section in a manner which is efficient and cost-effective. By having the ability to identify the methods of the political police and cut off their activities, the party would grow stronger. The disruption of patriotic and Nationalist politics by the political police is a fact of life we must accept. In the past, some Nationalist groups have managed to resist the political police. It shall have to be done consistently henceforth.

    (9) Political Guerillaism.

    When we sum up the preceding eight points, it all adds up to a new type (for Australian conditions) of organization. The method of this new type of party is called: political guerillaism.

    Earlier in this pamphlet, reference was made to the "political jungle" from which nationalists initiated the struggle. Such an analogy is undoubtedly correct. The bourgeois patriots, as well as the Establishment, have abandoned this terrain; we must take charge of it as our "base" area. Those who have no inclination to "fight" there, who wish to maintain "respectability", are welcome to "support" such a course or abandon any pretence to back such a party, though we are sure the former line of approach on their part would be inevitable given results.

    It was said that we need to integrate Ideology, Politics, and Organization into one organic process. This can be achieved through the "guerilla strategy" of struggle. That implies a plan which integrates the party's political work.

    Once upon a time, long ago in the 1980s, there had been no plan. Certainly outside of the modern Australian Nationalists there is not even a strategy. This is not "criticism" but fact. It should not be said we are in possession of "the plan to victory" (some sort of armchair theorising) but we do have a plan for attack. It is more important that we recognise what we have by way of "resources" and who we are by way of personnel. We have no bourgeois media men or billionaires or much else to do the work for us. We don't daydream about these things either. We are who we are; we have what we have.

    Local Nationalist leaders and committees in their respective cities must forever break free of the idea that they are bodies to "educate" the public with interesting information. Nor are they initiating structures or support structures for electoral 'candidates'. They must see themselves as a "staff" employing various activists as part of a local plan to destabilise opposing organisations in a public fashion. And all this as a part of an offensive planned nationally.

    Some have challenged Nationalists generally for being "negative" and "destructive"; intra-nationalist opponents sometimes say that with an open "legitimate" party they would be "positive" and "constructive". Rubbish! Bourgeois nonsense! To win we must destroy public confidence in the state-power and force the public to have a "negative" desire to rid Australia of internationalism. The idea of having clean areas (a "nice" Nationalist party) in a political sewer (Australia today) is just laughable. The fact is that our hands will get dirty in our "jungle"; many layers of popular support would simply not be available to us at first. To "march back" to this "support" before we have moulded ourselves as a political force is equivalent to de-railing the organization and would be an offence against discipline in the party.

    Our struggle is an all-round concept. The all-round campaign builds the party ideologically, politically, and organizationally. We advance in a broad way amongst the people - with victory to our credit. (Even if some conservatives miss the point! - who cares?).

    Against our opponents we are in a position to hit and run. With a few issues "on the boil" in each locality we can push whichever barrow is convenient. We can pick political "targets" within the gamut of any single issue. And strike at will, invisibly or otherwise: lightning pickets, exposure leaflets, office occupations, etc. and local council election efforts.

    All of this implies "training", not the training of any "party-school" (though internal education will be implemented) but on the job training. Our activists and leaders must learn as they go. The fact is that it is not urgent that we always be "dead-on". We can err and learn quickly and apply our lessons. We can lose a battle but still have our "victory". We will have "casualties" (arrests, resignations, etc.) but will win new recruits to our forces inspired by action.

    The phase of political guerillaism in some ways never ends, it just becomes more sophisticated. But in the early period of party building we need to sharpen the aggression of our Cadre-Members, the political aggression to seize upon an "issue" and ride it to a victory. Australians must become accustomed to political turmoil and disorder. These things will most certainly arise. If the government can no longer guarantee that its policies will be enforced peaceably and in the dark, then it is discredited, not us.




    The adoption of political-guerillaism as our tactical form demands of us professionalisation. Of necessity therefore we must consider ourselves as veritable "political soldiers". In this regard, we are not referring to the ordinary Members of the party, but only to Cadre-Members (activists) and members of the Committees. Their style of thinking must embody the "military" frame of mind - "victories", "recruiting", "enemies", "the state power", "duty", etc.

    In our Nationalist movement there were/are two ways of pursuing this "war". One way is to behave as "zealots", scream our truths in the public squares, cultivate a vigorous or (pseudo) "heroic" style, announce our intentions openly and expect the mass to respond to our propaganda. In reality demoralisation would soon set in. The masses are passive generally, but lethargic in Australia. We would be a sect truly isolated from even the possibility of mass support. Those few who think that fascism provides a model of behaviour in that regard are likely to be extremely disappointed. Of course we cannot stop the frustrated or the naive from behaving in this way but we are in a position to practise what we have preached. We can pursue our model of political guerilla warfare, "the war of the flea".

    In this pamphlet reference has been made to Lenin and Mao Tse-tung. That was deliberate. The politics of the "Right" (as well as those groups that sometimes pass as "Nationalist") is usually devoid of any intelligence in the formulation of tactics and its public policies. Instead, we have looked at the activities of Marxists (who historically have been successful), and have examined closely Australia's political/ social realities. Other ideas have also been considered in expressing the formulation of political guerillaism. "Unfortunately" the lethargic/cynical nature of the Australian mass invalidated those types of approaches which were possibly valid years ago. However, the Australian people have become attuned to the "blood-concept" in politics; they like to see someone "pulled down". And so it must be. Someone, anyone, will be "pulled down"! Organizations will be demolished in turn - publicly.

    The fact is that our operations must work through (a) an "intelligentsia" (i.e. committees) which drafts a "project", (b) cadres who research and initiate the tactics relevant to the success of the project, and (c) activists who carry out the task. Today we deal with the "gutter". (But later the same concept could be applied to our "infiltration" of the armed services, the police, and the public service; so that a network of nationalists serving the party becomes such that our forces are seemingly everywhere.)

    Our "jungle" is that area of politics outside of Parliament and outside of other bourgeois institutions. It is the political gutter where the rules of warfare are irregular and often "costly". It has been our contention that political change could not take place within the parameters of the System. A new type of disciplined organization must be constructed to wage a struggle with a criminal Establishment. A key issue for Nationalists at this time is to accept the inevitable nature of this struggle. There can be no shirking from this struggle. The time is short but there is no end of play actors or "false idea salesmen" willing to mislead the growing patriotic mass of Australians. Of course, this mass is not ready to accept the need for a hard solutions. It hesitates, wavers, and apathetically avoids the issues - as we have noted. A duty falls upon our "political soldiers" to consolidate, consistently, a new doctrine; and to do so - in action.

    The political guerillaist method of struggle sees the roles played by "our" national institutions and forms as mere "methods" employed by the Establishment to coerce and confuse Australians. The "conservative" Australian sees in institutions (courts, laws, Parliament, Constitution, etc.) the very expression of our Identity which needs to be preserved. The Nationalist sees institutions merely as people, and corrupt anti-Australian people at that. The Nationalist method surely must be to reduce issues to simple questions (like for or against the Australian ethnic identity, etc.) to break through the confusing haloes and myths which surround institutions and even "traditions" in Australia. Showing not only his contempt for these things but also his ability to recognise realities, the Nationalist resorts to more basic methods of struggle. The "gutter", "the jungle", must become the normal area to carry out this war! In this "jungle" we can win. Outside of it, we are outclassed by institutionalised forms designed to blunt any attack!

    There is little doubt that the Establishment lends itself to the method of action being advocated here. Australia is a paradise for "subversive action" or "political guerilla" warfare. I say this despite the application of counter-terrorist methods to normal political struggles. Our enemies in the cosmopolitan-internationalist camp have many weaknesses. And this is stated despite the violence of the Establishment which has been a factor throughout our national history. Rather, once the "mask" is torn from bourgeois institutions, etc., struggle becomes a simpler proposition as greater forces make themselves available as the realities of state power are revealed. Consequently, our Nationalist party must take up the exposure and criticism of the Establishment's institutions as part of a style of aggressive propaganda.

    However, we are not "zealots". Time is needed to achieve results. It is a protracted war which will ebb and flow with high points and low points until the System will politically disintegrate. In that sense we speak of political "guerilla" warfare. And, once we realise that recruits are most definitely becoming available to us, we can then see ourselves as professionals, "political soldiers" to train and utilise these new forces for our struggle. We cannot promise instant success. We can leave this safely to the play-actors mentioned before. However, the lack of a "plan" of struggle is the question - again.

    The method of political guerillaism with its organisational discipline, secrecy, hierarchy, activism, new ideology, contempt for all old institutions and organizational methods, implies "health" within the Nationalist party. Struggle might (who knows?) move entirely back into parliamentary forms (though this is all but impossible) and this could be done. The method is flexible. Hypothetically it could (as mentioned above) even become an armed struggle or a combinational method involving disorder. Of course, for the sake of imbeciles, legalists, journalists or bent political police, the author is not 'advocating' the latter course, but is merely referring to the fulsome flexibility of the method. In the security state being imposed today, one should not support (sic) anything that smacks of 'politically motivated violence' (sic) lest one gets placed on the terrorist list and detained without trial!

    The "war of the flea" is as frustrating for us as it is for our opposition in the Establishment and its subsidiary organisations. It is, however, a realistic and professional idea. We need to mount an assault on state power. This is as much a physical as a psychological struggle, designed (as observed previously) to disintegrate the Establishment politically, economically, and psychologically.

    If this document has been somewhat "indirect" in places, the reader will be forced to "read carefully" - which you are sure to do. We thus may also avoid the media harassment which results from bland statements.

    Nonetheless our course is plain.




    The struggles of Australian Nationalism in the last decade, in an entirely new situation with the struggle against the Establishment intensifying, and with new national-populist and conservative movements in the field, must be assessed. Some of this has been addressed throughout the pamphlet. Now we must confront the question of a synthesis of the radical-nationalist and national-populist forces.

    In 1989, the State moved against ANA, with the intention of smashing it. The activists of that party were very proud that they were targeted this way. Between 1989 and 1991, there were many actions undertaken by the political police and their courts against Nationalist leaders and activists. The fake ‘National Inquiry Into Racist Violence’ manufactured propaganda against Australian Nationalism and other patriots.

    At the same time the traitor class made it clear that it was going to push Asianisation and economic globalisation to the limit. The process is with us now in full measure.

    Australian Nationalism had to survive. Fortunately, although the political police could boast openly in one document put before the Federal Parliament that "operational success" had been achieved against the Nationalists, they were not broken.

    But we cannot say that fortune ran in their favour way. In 1988, the Australians Against Further Immigration had been founded, and by 1991 it was a force, competing with Nationalism on some of the ground it sought to occupy. In 1990, the Confederate Action Party was established, and it soon filled the vacuum on the ‘Right’ in Queensland and in rural areas. This shut the formally-Nationalist solutions out of potential markets. Nationalists now found the going rough indeed. The ANA, for example, won a new recognition with controlled confrontations with Trotskyite sects in Adelaide and Melbourne and with energetic activities and some creditable electoral work. But it functioned more as an enlarged propaganda group than a party engaged in political guerilla warfare. Other Nationalist groups rose in struggle and were ready again to step forward and try to resolve the crisis of the national-populist groups in our favour, and to return to the principles of political guerilla warfare. There were new opportunities in 1996, but late that year Pauline Hanson made her debut in Federal Parliament on the immigration and multicultural questions.

    In 1997, the ONP came on the scene. This caused trouble for the development of Nationalist politics. The media focused on this force. Peripheral elements rejected Nationalism for conservatism. Even a few good people were ‘sucked in’. The ONP caused great damage to the forces of national-populism, appropriating members and resources. By late 1998, the damage done by the ONP to radical-nationalism was receding, but we were almost as isolated as we had been in previous times.

    From 1999, it became obvious that the potential for Nationalism was in a new situation imposed by history. After all our struggles, after all that had occurred, it was a case of being at the start – again! We would have to go over earlier organizational ground and reconstruct Australian Nationalism. We would begin at a higher level with our experiences and abilities at hand, but we would have to develop ourselves again.

    For this reason, the reader will understand what follows as we ‘retrace’ our steps as a Propagandist party before we go on to higher stages. We have to move quickly, and with the full sense of urgency. There is no time to be lost. The odds are heavy against us. But as we reorganize in accordance with a plan, we know we have answers our erstwhile ‘rightist’ competitors – do not!

    I have said that a new synthesis between the radical-nationalist and national-populist traditions is necessary. Let us briefly look what this means.

    First: we accept that the 'third patriotism' must be accommodated by radical-nationalism and its slogans and preoccupations thoroughly addressed in ideological material and otherwise integrated into propaganda. This covers considerable territory. It means that enviro-nationalism be utilised to explain our rights to the Australian continent; it means we explain the relevance of the quality of Australian life to our model of identity and political struggle, and investigate more thoroughly the relevant aspects of our inheritance derived of the wartime periods.

    Second: we need to examine the main programmatic concerns of the national-populist parties. These parties advocated direct democracy, the right to bear arms, the rights and qualities of small-business and farming groups. In some cases, these groups had therefore a country quality; in some cases they were urban and focused on security, crime, the attack on community symbols of belonging and identity. The radical-nationalist tradition has never disagreed with any of this, although its urban working class 'skew' and the non-availability of persons derived of such interest-groups, denied it any access to them. This can change. We can offer a worker - farmer - private business alliance on the economic front, as our axis against globalist capitalism. We can offer popular freedom against the state dictatorship, a harmonious community against ethnic and cultural divisionism.

    Third: we should mould the forms of Nationalist organization to the favoured structure of national-populist organization, a 'registered political party', structured as an incorporated association. While allowing and encouraging grassroots structures and membership involvements, we can introduce special models of conduct.

    Fourth: we must accept that any policy which splits forces that can be amalgamated, indeed synthesised, is negative. Australians are derived a various class/social backgrounds. One way, or the other, it was our radical-nationalist policy to create a classless party and a 'people's state'. The vision has not changed. It is simply that it can all be arrived at in another way. The multi-layered symbolism and historical and social references will create a structure more difficult for the state to combat and root out, one more resilient to the social-economic-cultural pressures of the present.

    The national-populist groups have often said that they believe in the construction of a grassroots political movement. They have said that people should be empowered to run their local affairs. In recent times, the author and others - have addressed this issue. In defining one aspect of our strategy/tactics, and in reaching out to encompass the national-populist groups, we have argued for participation in local government elections and for the localisation of our message and agitation. We called this method Community Action. Material of this nature has been passed directly to the Australia First Party. The localist model shows in practise our opposition to the pseudo-politician type who has offered himself up as a 'candidate' for State and Federal polls. It also demonstrates our wish to think outside of the square.

    There is no doubt at all that the national-populist membership bases would accept the Nationalist activists, those drawn from the various groups, as full partners in the fight. There is a long history of cooperation between leading figures in any case and there is no suggestion by those who have been leaders in the radical-nationalist tradition that they seek to 'take-over' existent bodies. Further, it is clear that both partners wish to continue the fight for Identity, Independence and Freedom. The effective synthesis of a tradition of patriotic politics which has sought to mobilize the vibrant historical traditions of our country with the popular concerns of Australians, is a mix with potential and dynamism. It is in fact - the only option. It will be embraced on that basis, because Australians are practical and the time for division has passed.



    It has been said that a Nationalist party is a minority force until the moment of national crisis calls it forth. That does not mean we do nothing until some future potential event. On the contrary. That has never been our way. The inevitability of a severe crisis in our disintegrating country should sharpen our determination to build the agency for the quickest and most painless change. Our movement was formed with that in mind. It was decided that Australian Nationalists needed to make themselves clear as to what party-form they should adopt.

    Nationalists realise that this debate has gone on for years. The choice narrowed to two options: the "open" party or the "closed" party. Given the nature of our Establishment (i.e. its growing authoritarianism to serve alien interests) and the severe crisis facing the Nation, the latter party-form impressed us as the best option. Cohesion, discipline, dedication in the party, not disorder and endless debate. That does not mean we turn the Nationalist party into a cult or a militant sect. But we are aware of the problems of the conservative and national-populist movements in the last decade and draw the lines. It means breaking with the model of the electoral party.

    To place our strategy in some context for the reader we shall elaborate on four phases of party growth, recognising exactly where we are today - and write extensively on the nature of our immediate general tasks. We are put back to phase one by the failures of each variety of hitherto existing Australian 'patriotism'.

    (1) The Propagandist Party.

    The propagandist phase is the first stage of party re-growth. Our ‘return’ at this stage meant that a structure was in place. Planning and coordinated work has to be redeveloped. Our ideology becomes a central –issue. But our ideology is of course not the only path that Australian patriots could follow. We have not yet entirely settled accounts with the exponents of religious patriotism, nor popular-conservatism, nor amongst some youth - even copyist fascism. Only our continued all-round development can win that battle. Therefore the party needs intolerance and 'fanaticism' to push it past formations of a vaguely similar sort, and against individuals who for one reason or another obstruct that development. The rigid insistence on our correctness - alone - guarantees that movement will not be directed into "safe" channels.

    The propagandist phase presupposes a certain degree of ideological, political, and organizational development. It assumes that at the very start a national centre has been created, embryonic branches formed, finances arranged, ideological work being developed consistently, and issues found for propaganda. We find ourselves squarely in this phase. There is no escaping this fact. Our membership is limited. We are short of money. Co-ordination between committees and organizers is loose.

    The propagandist phase demands the winning of numerous goals. Several important goals come to mind and we shall record them one by one:

    (A) The Massive Escalation Of Propaganda.

    We must distribute masses of recruitment literature each year, but literature structured to the plan. The public must become acquainted with a name and an idea - even if their understanding of our ideology and platform is limited. A primary aim of the party is to "make propaganda". In other documents, the author has argued that national issues need to be localised and, in general, electoral work should be (in this phase) limited to council work. That type of electoral work, along with the localisation of propaganda, permits a grassroots interaction with the people.

    (B) The Energetic Development Of Ideological Work.

    The basics of our world-view must be created in the propagandist phase. "What we want" has been set down in our leaflets and other publications. It must now be elaborated and closely argued. This is decisive in the delineation of an Australian Nationalism.

    It is pleasing to note that a number of texts have already been produced. More work is being done - and more people are writing. The Internet is gaining in practical application. The 'cheapness' of the Internet makes it a useful tool. It has become apparent in recent times that the ideological work performed consistently over the years is bearing fruit. The tradition of radical-nationalism and the production of other patriots is being examined by a new generation of people, including young people.

    (C) The Creation Of Basic Organizational Structures.

    We must aim to open bookshops and / or office facilities in a few cities. That program can include cities outside of the metropolitan zones. Such structures are exceptionally important, not only in the mechanisms of organization but also in the maintenance of the authority of the leadership of the party.

    The creation of intra-party discipline and order is something for our "first phase". So is co-ordination between committees. The Internet has some use here, cutting costs and contact time.

    (D) Conditions Of Membership Must Become More Stringent.

    Ordinary propaganda wins "supporters" and ordinary Members. Only the organization can produce Cadre-Members. Strong, propaganda attracts two types of people: those impressed by our uncompromising stand, but who wish to remain anonymous or at a lower degree of commitment, and, more importantly, those who wish to be counted as activists. The first type become ordinary Members. The second, disciplined by the party, become Cadre-Members. Anyone can become a Member; but only those persons who want to do more than just "help out", financially or otherwise, become Cadre-Members. Cadre-Members are those who pay regular dues, submit to the discipline of party officials, absorb the ideology, and agree to act on their principles. Perhaps a ratio of four Members to one Cadre-Member would be a correct estimate. Of course, we will have to find ways of formalising this structure within our chosen party. Structures currently in place may need modification.

    Cadre-Members are the dynamo of the organization. As we create branches and other units, Cadre-Members co-ordinate the Members' activities. As the party grows, the pressure of ordinary Members for a "say" in the organisation will increase. To succumb to such pressure would leave the party open to rule by the ideologically unsound, the organizationally untrained, the politically naive, and possibly even those bent on some sort of "infiltration" or "takeover". The attainment of Cadre-Membership must be carefully controlled so that those who run the party are not only ideologically sound, but are dedicated, determined, trustworthy, and politically aware - because the success of the party will be in their hands. Our principle must be: those who take no risks, or assume no responsibility, have no say in the running of the party. They must be consulted, but they cannot make the responsible decisions.

    In the propagandist phase of the party, a rule must be laid down for the future of the party: The attainment of Cadre-Membership is a privilege, not a right earned after only a few months affiliation. As we take in people from the old parties of national-populism and conservatism, this principle must be very clear.

    (E) The Application Of Secrecy To Our Work.

    This point needs explanation. The enemies of our party include the political police, the media, and certain "Left" groups. These forces have demonstrated, and will continue to demonstrate, their implacable opposition to the Nationalists. Methods must be found to shield our strengths and weaknesses from exposure. Persons whose anonymity needs to be protected, activists who work in particularly sensitive areas, details of our internal organization, etc. need to be concealed from scrutiny. Secrecy has served well in the past and has kept many members in reserve for future activation.

    Secrecy and confidentiality in our internal workings is essential to us. We must show a certain "openness" (i.e. availability) to the public, of course, with spokesmen, bookshops, etc. But the business of the party must not be disrupted by provocateurs, "investigative" journalists, or whatever. Inside the party, it is essential that information shall only be given on a "need to know basis"; gossiping and chatter should be stamped upon. This provides some security against disruption. Our ordinary Members and our Cadre-Members can rest assured their names and addresses are secure from "prying". Only the most limited number of names/addresses should ever be available to the enemy in any way.

    We can imagine, naturally, much being made of our "secrecy". Allegations of "illegality" and "conspiracy" may be made. But we are concerned with the party's survival and organisational expansion. The value of "secrecy" is certain to become obvious as the future brings political repression.

    (F) Priorities Must Be Understood.

    It is absolutely vital that our Members and Cadre-Members appreciate the priorities of the party in its propagandist phase.

    Let us look at an anecdotal situation: A young person joins the party. We explain the treacherous character of the cosmopolitan-internationalist Establishment, the disruptive and divisive nature of multiculturalism, the ongoing processes of the Asianisation of our country, the dangers of Third World overpopulation, the possibility of war in our region, the untrustworthiness of our Western "allies" (cosmopolitan-internationalist countries), the poor state of our military forces, the apathetic attitudes of the Australian masses, and give a realistic appraisal of the state power of the System. Australia is threatened with national homicide, for which Australians are unprepared. Our friend agrees that Australia is falling apart in every conceivable area. Then we tell our friend to put out stickers and hand out leaflets!! After what we had said! We could understand it if our friend thought we were fools. Therefore, we must make sure that we explain ourselves to all new members.

    It is impossible for us - today - to change "what is" in our country. We must begin somewhere - at the first level. The victory of our cause is something that cannot be decreed or won without years of patient struggle.

    The most mundane and seemingly irrelevant actions are purposeful when considered in context. That is how our priorities must be explained.

    (G) The Principle Of A "Closed" Organisation.

    Obviously under conditions of secrecy, founded on serious and considered reasoning, intra-party "openness" would be a commodity which we should ration carefully. Of course, under the conditions of universal surveillance which now operate in Australia, it is difficult to keep many things 'secret'. This might even mean, we dispense with certain considerations, leaving only smokescreens that cause the political police to waste their time checking over something we are not doing!

    In the propagandist phase, "closed" norms of organization must be established. Decisions of Committees, needless to say, should always be based on consultation; and the National Conference of the party should have authority over the party. But, once decisions are made, they need to be carried out, and basic party discipline should be enforced.

    These principles must be insisted upon. We are not running a tea party or talk-fest, where bourgeois rules of order apply, and where actions are of no consequence. Our intentions are serious; we have a party to build. The idea of running a party by citizens' initiated referendum (as one patriotic party tried to do, ignoring the fact that CIR was a fine goal for the nation itself not a party), can be dispensed with. So can any other idea of super-democracy. If some people don't like that - they can go somewhere else.

    (H) The Foundation Of A Political Newspaper And Internet Television.

    We should understand fully that a regularly issued political newspaper or journal can define the issues for Australian Nationalists - to factually and ideologically inform them, and arm them. In the propagandist phase, the newspaper is likely to be more of a "journal", since it is not agitational in form. It would not be issued often enough nor, given the state of the national party, be able to carry on agitation. But it would serve a valuable role in delineating ideology, consolidating the organization, and cementing the unity of the party. The paper could engender a network of correspondents and distributors, and bring new "ideologists" to the fore. Importantly also, our paper should be a showpiece for the party, an expression of our dedication and the quality of our members. Despite the wonders of the electronic age, the printed word is more relevant than ever.

    Funds must be organised to develop and advertise the paper. Every opportunity to build the paper's circulation should be utilised. We know from experience in the mid-1990’s how popular a professional newspaper can be.

    We need also to examine closely and develop Internet television. The same considerations operate as in our discussion of a newspaper/journal. However, it can reach a different audience with more immediacy. We could expect this would be popular with youth. Such a service would also allolw the archiving of useful documentaries or nationalist material for the instruction of a new layer of nationalists.

    (I) The Promotion Of The Nativist Nationalist Heritage: A Special Place For The Eureka Flag

    In 1977 a small Sydney-based circle of Nationalists took up the Southern Cross, or Eureka Flag, as the emblem of their movement. It was a critical decision for such a small group. The author was proud to have played a role in the decision to use the Flag. At that time the Eureka Flag was being used by certain "republicans", the Maoist "Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist)", and the Builders' Labourers’ Federation. The old "Right" blackened the Eureka Flag's "reputation" by equating it directly with such anti-Australian groups (particularly the CPA (M-L) and the leadership of the BLF). When the Australian National Alliance emerged with the Southern Cross, great confusion resulted - but the battle was decisively won. Today, as we well know, the Eureka Flag is often seen as the flag of the "White Australia" nationalists. It has a certain vogue, particularly with workers and younger people.

    In recent times, the Eureka Stockade has been discussed positively, even by some people who were previously in the conservative camp. This was a real advance. Many people now understand the mighty freedom traditions that underlay the Eureka uprising of 1854.

    The Nationalists had cast about for a symbol. We needed an emotive, visually effective, emblem - which had its roots in Australian history. Further, we needed an emblem which could be said to have "militant" connotations. The original history of the Eureka Flag as a badge of activist native patriotism impressed us greatly. The misusage of the Flag by the Left did not concern us. And this misuse has now faded back into the past. If it scares off certain conservatives, and upsets people who have confused political views, we are not phased - because we do not want such persons making decisions for Nationalism.

    In the 1990's period, with the emergence of national-populist parties, the native-nationalist heritage was not generally employed. Consequently, the Eureka heritage was (temporarily) forgotten. The continuous use of the Flag by radical-nationalist groups in that period, and its reappearance amongst the ranks of anti-globalisation workers, is all to the good.

    It is therefore a task of the propagandist party to popularise the Eureka heritage, the nativist-nationalist heritage. It might be more appropriate in the short-term to have that function carried out by a youth organization, by certain cultural celebrations and so forth. The year 2004 marks the 150th Anniversary of Eureka Stockade and it would be incumbent upon the Nationalists to organize celebrations in Ballarat. Stickers, leaflets, newspapers: can appear sporting the Flag. At the conclusion of the first phase of our growth, the public appearance of the Eureka Flag must cause the man in the street to associate it with the idea of Australian Nationalism. This Flag will be even more important in the struggle against globalisation and to organize people against the boat-people invasion. The Eureka ideal in general must be widely promoted as the very necessary adjunct to the usual national-populist concerns of our wartime heritage, and Australian folk heritage.

    (J) The 'Radical' Psychology.

    The party must ensure a high degree of commitment from its membership. The party is small and the load is great. It is also in the party's interest to draw clear dividing lines between its philosophy and other ideas and policies pushed by similar formations and the Establishment. In some ways the early party is a "sect", even if it wishes to - at the earliest possible moment - break out of its confines. It is a "sect" because it pronounces itself a special movement with the only programme which offers to the Australian people a solution to the urgent questions which confront the nation.

    On that basis a particular psychology, the radical psychology, is developed. The radical psychology is the enemy of compromise and opportunism; it refuses to admit (quite rightly) that any reform within the existing political structure is possible.

    (K) The Importance Of A Youth Organization

    It is very clear that the inability of the conservative organizations to develop youth interest, and the fact that hitherto the national-populist parties have ignored youth, imposes upon us now an urgent task. The recruitment of youth is paramount. Unless a youth market is opened, existing structures will 'age'. Unless youth enter the Nationalist struggle, liberal-internationalist politics will lead younger Australians down the anti-Australian road.

    The process of developing a youth organization is one best left in the hands of young people themselves. The party can, and should, provide funds, legal support and technical assistance. But an independent structure offers the best means to interest, and sustain the interest, of young Australians.

    There should be no thought in the party of controlling the youth organization. That is losing politics. The importance thing is to provide a framework in which a youth organization can exist and thrive. It is understood an embryonic structure for such an organization has been founded.

    The fact is that our party is not out to simply carry out its programme, but to carry out certain historical tasks (as elsewhere mentioned in this document). Our party is therefore not simply another party - but a party which springs from historical, and not only immediate, pressures. Such a party does not impress the weak-minded, the cowardly, or the bourgeois. It is a party for activists. The radical psychology is a critical aspect of the propagandist phase and as a principle will inspire our movement. The break with One Nation type failure imposes this logic upon us.

    The propagandist party is somewhat unattractive to the common person. The goals which we have outlined as essential are not things which will be achieved by "concerned citizens". Indeed, our party, particularly in this phase of its work, is appealing to individuals and social sectors which are not part of the consumer society. In general, our appeal at this time is being addressed to youth, students, the unemployed, to residents of depressed areas, to ordinary workers and farmers who are under pressure and to members of "patriotic groups" who are disillusioned with the achievements and ideology of such groups.

    Exactly how long the propagandist phase of our party will last cannot be calculated. It will last until the party has acquired active branches in all States, coupled with all the trappings of organization, a nationally known name (again!) , and a new set of able leaders. At that point the next phase of our operations would begin. However, we should aim to be out of this phase by a point in 2005.

    Although we are concerned primarily with getting ourselves orientated to immediate tasks, it is exceptionally useful to continually explain ourselves in context. We shall, consequently, survey briefly the other three phases of our projected party growth.

    (2) The Activist Party.

    The "activist party" is one which arises from the success of propaganda. Larger numbers of people become Members. The party takes on a more "open" appearance. The occasional Federal or State election may be contested. The media takes a reasonable degree of interest in our activities, while the rate of literature distribution and public demonstrations rises appreciably. The party is no longer a "sect", but an aspect of Australian political fragmentation.

    It may arise that we may tend to become slack in our methods of organization. Overestimation of our strength may lead us to make errors. Ordinary Members could clamour for Cadre-Membership and demand more say in the running of the party (a task we must reserve for those who are committed, trustworthy, ideologically sound, politically aware, and capable of running a political organization in a professional manner).

    However, it is our intention to ensure in our propagandist phase the acceptance of such organizational principles as will make such dangers minimal.

    Like never before, the "activist party" must be dominated by its Cadre-Members, and not by its ordinary Members. Education of the Members won by propaganda becomes an urgent job. As much as possible such ordinary Members should absorb the Nationalist ideology.

    At this time also we should note that, despite our greater visibility and seeming "openness", the "organisation of the Cadre-Members" will continue on with the "secrecy" and party discipline of the earlier period.

    The "activist party" is one which casts about for issues. We know that - generally - there will always be some basic major issues that concern us: Immigration-Multiculturalism-Asianisation, Unemployment-Youth, Economic colonisation, National Independence, and Environmentalism. The forms we adopt on each theme may vary. Each of these issues has already produced an across-the-board political mobilisation of Australians and can be expected to be continually relevant in the future. During the activist party phase our party must become active on all such themes to bring larger numbers of Australians under its influence.

    By the close of this phase the party must have offices/shops in all major cities, some full-time organizers, and be able to run effective national propaganda campaigns. This phase may take a couple of years.

    (3) The Agitational Party.

    From "issues", the party moves to specific areas. The "agitational party" is that party which strives for the acquisition of various social sectors. We could speak of acquiring power within certain factories, schools, universities, the police, the armed forces, and the public service.

    We are also aware at all points of a crucial factor. We expect our party will be mould together the urban emphasis and the country emphasis. It is understood that the labour-nationalist formulae are more 'popular' in urban areas. It is understood that certain forms of national-populist and conservative politics are more ‘popular’ in the country areas than Nationalism. So be it! We seek to be mould the latter forces into a recognition that we have to mount our challenge to the State power where it ultimately counts – in the larger cities.

    By this stage the party must possess the power to disrupt the Establishment - by demonstrations, by strikes, by simple propaganda. Of course, the party organization is greatly strengthened. Membership increases qualitatively and quantitatively. The means to make propaganda increases (the propaganda of agitation).

    It is at this time that comprehensive policies are developed. Electoral work becomes more impressive, which should help to convince people of our "legality" (while we concurrently strive for "power" in other important social sectors). But, as ever, the central discipline of the party remains, as the Establishment's campaigns of harassment intensify.

    The party's presence in the street develops, and it operates to win over wider groups to its policy - or at least cause them to respect our sincerity with the issues with which they are concerned. At this point, the ‘patriotic’ groups of all sorts must appreciate our vanguard function, thereby giving us the power to integrate them, if not into our party, into a broad patriotic front for Identity, Independence and Freedom.

    (4) The Party Of The Nation.

    As indicated elsewhere, we cannot predict the exact conditions under which the Nationalist party will come to power. But once empowered to govern, the party must become "the party of the whole nation", and use its social-patriotic platform to heal the deep divisions amongst our people.

    All this, however, is many years away. The problems of today should be our concern; we must address ourselves to the problems of our propagandist phase.




    A Nationalist party has enormous potential in present day Australia if it applies the correct tactics and preaches the right solutions. Our pamphlet has already said that our future support must lie within groups alienated from the System or disadvantaged within it. There is a recognition amongst the traitor class and its middle class elite allies that we are planning for the winning of this support.

    The 'National Revolution' will also be a class revolution, not "class" in the sense of the communists' historical theory, but in terms of the "haves" vs. the "have-nots". The truth is that the Australian Establishment is "comprador" in character. "Comprador" means simply that it is not "national" in any way, Its psychology and its loyalties are "International". The bourgeoisie is loyal to the U.S., the "Asian economic destiny", etc. It has no intention of developing Australia as an independent nation state. A political revolution against this group must also of necessity be a "class" revolution. The political-power dispossession of this treasonous group implies of necessity their economic-power dispossession.

    Further, when we discuss our middle classes we frequently find people whose commitment to money and property far exceeds any concept of Nation. In reality, this group (whose character was set in the post-War period) requires only economic stability in exchange for its loyalty. In "middle class Asian immigration", and "stability" (acquired by the economic suppression of the worker and working "small man" and farmer), the middle group finds "salvation". The middle class often provides the managers and the propagandists for the Establishment. The overturn of its "values" must also be contemplated. With that must go its "lifestyle".

    In reality, the Australian Nationalism will bring to power those who have "lost" under the System. The lack of "charity" on their part should be expected. This conditions our propaganda and the character of our party from the outset. Fishing for bourgeois support and petty bourgeois votes is setting sail against the wind. Our party must agitate, not conciliate, the upper-suburbanite. We cannot agitate "respectably".

    It should be recalled, as we consider the question, that our country is falling apart around us. Asian and other non-European immigration brings the equivalent of a small city of aliens to Australia annually. Tens of thousands of Australians, following Bill Hayden's former advice, and for whatever other motives, would happily produce, "biologically", a new "Eurasian Australia". The economy falters. The birth rate slumps. The farmers quit the land. The political police are strengthened. Australian industry is being phased out to serve 'global' requirements. The notion that Australia is "the best country in the world" is a sick joke.

    We recall a few lines from Henry Lawson:

    "They lie the men who tell us for reasons of their own

    that want here is a stranger and that misery's unknown."

    And these lines ring true!

    The myth of the "Lucky Country" should finally be laid to rest. Immediate issues and long-standing historical questions are coming forward for resolution. Several broad themes for propaganda have become apparent:

    (1) Immigration, Multiculturalism, and Asianisation.

    (2) Youth, and Unemployment.

    (3) Economic Colonisation (International Banks and Multinationals), Foreign "Investment", and Foreign Debt.

    (4) National Independence (economic, cultural, political).

    (5) Environmentalism.

    (6) Promotion of the Australian National Identity and Culture.

    Each of these issues carries within it immediate and historical questions. All are the focus of considerable "concern", which the Nationalist party must politicise and express firm views upon. Each issue implies the politics of instability with people stepping outside of parliamentary politics to get results. Nationalists are, therefore, a "symptom" of the coming gross instability of Australian politics. We hope to also "contribute" to this instability. The fact is that the internationalist System is finding it increasingly difficult to govern. It twists Australian political life to fit the demands of the internationalist forces - at the Australian people's expense. With this in view, with a clear understanding of the corruption and the malice of this political "order", the only logical decision was to begin the construction of a new party. The success of this party would mean a revolution in Australian life. There is certainly a clear "morality" in favour of this decision.

    As the United States' Declaration Of Independence (1776) reminds us: governments exist to serve men and nations. When they no longer do so, it is the right - indeed the duty - of men to abolish that government. Such an act of "abolition" is not likely to be a peaceful affair. The filth of Australian politics has tarnished too much. In reality, history teaches us the primacy of force in human affairs. Australia today has degenerated past the point where things may be corrected easily and quickly.

    Contemporary Australia is awaiting a party to act upon that which we have discussed here.




    Within this document it has been stated that power does not reside within parliament. To some people (those who believe that because parliament makes the laws, that therefore it is all-powerful) this statement may seem strange, and therefore needs separate explanation.

    The cosmopolitan-internationalist Establishment holds various bases of power within Australia, each having a varying degree of power: Parliament and political parties, the Constitution, the Governor-General, the High Court, the general legal system, the police, the armed forces, the education system, the public service, the unions, big business, the banking system, the media, and various lobby groups; not to mention foreign governments. All of these (and there would be others) have the ability to exercise a certain power.

    If Nationalists were tomorrow to control enough seats in parliament so as to form a government, there are several things that the cosmopolitan-internationalist Establishment could cause to happen:

    1) The Governor-General could sack the Government, dissolve parliament, and even appoint a "caretaker government" (and maybe, or maybe not, call new elections straight away). (Note: Precedents for this have already been set. The NSW Governor, Sir Philip Game, sacked the NSW government of Jack Lang on 13 May 1932; The Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, sacked the Commonwealth government of Gough Whitlam on 11 November 1975).

    2) The High Court could declare all new anti-immigration and pro-European Australia laws as constitutionally invalid (reversible only by enormously difficult referendum - which historically is likely to produce a "No" vote - and even with a "Yes" result, there are various things the Governor-General could do to delay or derail it).

    3) The armed forces could take over the running of the country, with or without the police, and with or without the aid of the Governor-General. (Note: In 1932, Australian secret armies conspired with the Prime Minister to stop Jack Lang from remaining the democratically elected government in one State; the answer was a "putsch").

    4) The internationalist-controlled unions, big business, the education system, and the media could all make running the country a difficult job (a general strike, various local strikes, economic boycotts, rallies, public disinformation, etc.).

    5) The Intelligence services could conspire with the New World Order governments to destabilize our nationalist government and overthrow it.

    The fact is, the cosmopolitan-internationalist Establishment will not let us take power (at least, not without a fight). The cosmopolitan-internationalists are committed to their ideology (just as we are) and will use "legal" and illegal means to try to stop us - the present undemocratic "anti-racist" laws are tame compared with what they can "cook up" for us. In Germany in 2000, the liberal state set out to ban the NPD. In 1999, the European Parliament said it wanted to ban "xenophobic parties" on the Continent. In 2000, a French Nationalist city-mayor was imprisoned for advocating support for French families before immigrants.

    On our road to power, the Establishment will go all-out to stop us. One of their best weapons - the media - will be employed constantly against us, using the most vile, lying, smearing tactics possible. We saw a taste of all that during the Hanson upsurge in 1997-98. The main parties voted together and dirty-tricks were employed to undermine that party. The ultimate was the threat made by President Clinton that the USA valued the "open" Australian multicultural society; was this a threat of armed intervention in the event of a Hanson victory?

    In order to achieve power, Nationalists will have to eventually win over certain sectors of the nation's power bases, both inside and outside parliament. We will need to win certain places within parliament, from which we can "link-up" to certain allies and those who will side with us on certain issues: Once we gain a sector of parliament, the potential for new laws (and, indeed, government) opens up to us. However, to protect such these arrangements from interference or destruction from outside parliament, we must control certain sectors of other national power bases. The unions and the public service are open for us to control certain sectors. Big business, the education system, and the media will be a lot more difficult (but once our laws are being passed, whether they are essential or not is debatable). But, it is the police and armed forces (or selected units thereof) which have the power to physically depose a Nationalist-controlled government, and therefore are most likely to be used by the Establishment to get rid of us - it is therefore essential that we cultivate support in these areas (especially to gain members) so as to stop, or render inoperative, any use of these forces that may be "illegally" used against us.

    The rescue of our nation, and the establishment of Australian Independence, is not a game. The traitor class will do everything to oppose us, and we must be prepared to not only meet the challenge, but to carry on beyond it. Success is not guaranteed. We raise the issues in this section to forearm people.


    This pamphlet has addressed itself to the general problems - ideological, political, and organizational - which beset Australian Nationalists at this juncture. We are about to enter another "period" in the development of Nationalist politics. The recent period saw the defeat of the national-populist and conservative parties by the Establishment, a major development which imposes urgency upon us, to regroup their forces where possible under radical-nationalist leadership, but generally in combination, and to resume the struggle.

    The question has arisen ‘what is to be done to win the coming struggle?" This matter was/is all embracing; involving the development of a Nationalist ideology, the immediate and future political tasks of the party, and the methods of organization necessary to procure results.

    In the 1970s and 1980s it was argued that the Nationalists needed to "break away" from the clutches of conservatism. The conservatives were identified as the main "danger" to a Nationalist party, warping its ideology to fit the notions of yesteryear, leading the movement to support reactionary politicians and creating flabby organizations which could not serve the Australian People. While certainly the conservatives were organizationally distinct from the Nationalists, they were also a strong challenger for hegemony over people developing patriotic or even Nationalist ideas. Through their ideological diversions (the defence of the Monarchy, Constitution, States Rights, decentralised government, U.S. alliance, etc.) it was possible that the conservatives could derail any prospect of a Nationalist movement. Their tendency of thought was explained historically in terms of the grip British Imperialism once held over Australia. Unbelievably, conservatives have even managed to penetrate into Nationalist organizations promising "support" "if only" the Nationalists would become "more reasonable" in their ideals. However, Nationalists made a "break" away from this poisonous weed. The Nationalists could see in youth, ordinary workers, farmers, and small-business people better fields of recruitment than in bourgeois and petty bourgeois circles.

    As time unfolded, the "break" became more and more obvious. Radical action, the location of new centres of support, a nativist and labour nationalism, and new tactics signified this "break" and the beginning of a new period in the development of Australian Nationalism. Finally, the reactionaries produced the One Nation Party and its successors. Their defeat has returned the wheel back in our favour.

    Clearly Nationalists were/are seeking organizational clarification. It was agreed that Ideology must always be paramount over vague pronouncements, and that political thinking must take the place of wishful musings as we gauge "support" and assess enemies on the political spectrum. It was demonstrated from this analysis that political power will not be relinquished "democratically" by the Australian Establishment. A new form of Nationalist organization had to be built. Debate on this question in the past was vague and undeveloped. It had led to splits and weakening. Finally, progressive Nationalists put forward the idea of political guerilla warfare. The basic theory of this type of struggle was elaborated.

    The truth is that there were no signposts on the road to the construction of a Nationalist party. It was obvious from the start that few overseas organizational "models" apply to our struggle - beyond certain limits. No Australian party or group from the past has addressed problems of the magnitude or type facing the country today. Consequently, game-players, "big dealers", or openly fraudulent types have often emerged from the fringes and it is essential for the Nationalists to build their chosen party beyond the reach of such vermin. We have amassed our own experiences and this is now decisive. These people however are continually generated by the corrupt society in which we live.

    It is unfortunate for us that we can lose track of the day to day struggle. Our work is extremely frustrating. "Victories" are difficult to obtain and Nationalists can easily be sidetracked into foolish actions by would-be "leaders". All Nationalists should realise that even the smallest function successfully carried out contributes to the overall success of the party All must contribute as best they can. There can be no "grandstanding" or big-noting in this struggle. Many must preserve their anonymity, and secrecy needs to be preserved. Public "acclaim" is therefore often an impossibility. A new type of activist is consequently a necessity: one who sustains himself in the struggle without over-reliance on the paraphernalia or open "praise" of the organization. In that sense, we spoke of the "political soldier", the practitioner of political-guerilla warfare, the cadre member. This person is the cream of the struggle and other, more passive people, should render him the fullest support.

    In proposing a new form of organization for Australian Nationalism we realise that our comments will not necessarily be popular with our detractors; however, we would suggest that the lack of a clear tactical plan is often an element produced by corruption in our own minds. We are speaking here of the fool's paradise that Australia truly is. Even the best of us often have misconceptions as to the reality of state power in Australia. Australians have had it too good, and so have we. We put off confronting real problems as a people. In the small "world" of Nationalist politics, hard decisions are also postponed. This pamphlet has urged that we give solutions to problems.

    The historical tasks of Australian Nationalism are such that we are in fact, the practicianers of a new type of radical politics. We are not party politicians with a new and interesting programme to put before the people. We are in fact talking of things that are difficult for Australians to accept. Consequently we are not a party among parties seeking votes but a truly radical organization. It has been said that Australia has never had such a nationalist organisation before. Even the first Nationalist movement (1880-1910), in which we find so much inspiration, did not need to produce a such an organization. Its goals were achieved through other methods; however, a combination of international historical factors have ganged together in collaboration with the corruption of the Australian Establishment and have precluded the possibility of a regular political change-over.

    It is not denied that the proposals that this document puts before you entail sacrifice and risk; however, we think that Australia is worth such sacrifices and risks. In that, we will be in good company. Other Australians before us have said the same things. To paraphrase Henry Lawson, we are "the vanguard of Australians" who have come forward to rescue Australia on her "darkest and grandest day". To succeed, we need committed, dedicated Nationalists who have the strength, determination, and guts to fight for a National Revolution in Australian life. In answer to the question "What Is To Be Done?", we answer: Become a militant in the movement of national identity, independence and freedom!




    Many questions are often posed by new Nationalists. Some of the most frequently asked questions are cited below, and "answers" given. Undoubtedly, this pamphlet will raise other and just as significant questions and the author would be more than prepared to reply.

    Question: Is the Communist "Left" An Enemy?

    Our enemy is the Establishment, the rich cosmopolitan-internationalist traitors who are making a colony of our nation, who have betrayed us to the United Nations, the United States, Asia, and anyone else out to rob Australia.

    We oppose the Communist ideology. It has worked in the foreign interest; it contains numerous opinions we reject. Australian communist groups, after the effective collapse of the international communist movement since 1989, are of little account except when they play the role in defending liberal-internationalist politics by violence – as occurred during the Hanson/ONP demonstrations of 1997-98. It should be realised that, although some residual communist groups (usually Trotskyite in tone) will always oppose our party because they particularly oppose the idea of a 'White Australia', we must be careful not to be side-tracked into a private battle with them. That would not serve the cause - it would waste our limited resources (time, money, and energy), which would be far better used on the primary task of recruiting Australians to the Nationalist cause.

    Question: Action or Knowledge?

    Without a Nationalist ideology there will be no Nationalist movement. For us, action and knowledge are inseparable. That does not mean all who "act" will be intellectuals, nor that intellectuals won't act. It means that, as much as possible, Australian Nationalists should be informed and able to express our "faith". What is important is that ideas be laid down and themes developed. In struggle, other activists, ordinary working class and other militants test an define ideology anew. Essentially therefore, we are not just educators, but militants, not just activists, but the delineators of a new faith for Australia.

    Question: How should we push the idea of ideological struggle while maintaining friendly relations with "similar" groups?

    The answer here is very simple. Agreements can be established with any "Nationalist", "patriotic" or "anti-immigration" group. The fact that we insist on our own principles, and try to convert people to them, should not preclude good relations. Of course, we should avoid needless public criticism of others. In general, "criticism" should be reserved for private discussions or ideological documents. We should pursue united front tactics as a matter of principle.

    Question: How long will it take to achieve our aims?

    This is an important question; even though we are not in the game of crystal-ball gazing, it puts our work in perspective. The fact is: it isn't likely that our success will come quickly (some have said that power must be achieved by 2020 - or by 2050 if it's still possible - or not all). The deterioration of our country is a long process. Some people may like a shorter course to power but there isn't one. We cannot really speculate on this question, and we will not.

    Question: Will we succeed "before it's too late"?

    This is a common question. It is usually asked by people who see our national crisis as one only of immigration, and ponder how large numbers of aliens can be removed from a society (but they should also realise that there are other questions - like war, or social "war", for which we may be unprepared). Removing aliens is a relatively easy physical task (with a Nationalist government determined to carry it out), and politically possible with an energetic Foreign Affairs ministry. For examples (though these may not necessarily be similar to our situation), we could look at Indonesia's expulsion of 125,000 Chinese in 1959-1960, Burma's expulsion of 300,000 Indians in 1962, Ghana's expulsion of 200,000 various foreigners (including many Nigerians) in 1969, Uganda's expulsion of 75,000 Indians and Pakistanis in 1972, Vietnam's expulsion of about 500,000 Chinese in 1979, and Nigeria's expulsion of approximately 2,000,000 foreigners (mostly Ghanians, Togolese, and Cameroonians) in 1983; not to mention Australia's expulsion of its Japanese population following World War Two.

    All that notwithstanding, it is a very pertinent question. The process of the Asianisation of Australia is steadily being carried out by the Establishment. It is estimated that by 2020, 26.7% of Australia's population will be Asian or part-Asian; it has also been projected that Australia will be a Eurasian country by 2050, then becoming an Asian country by the 2090s. The situation is deadly serious: It is quite possible that we may lose. We certainly won't win while the bulk of "patriotic" Australians are content to sit in their comfortable armchairs and simply talk about how "concerned" or "angry" they are about the problem.

    Our primary task must be recruiting, recruiting, and more recruiting!!! It is only by developing such recruits into a mass movement with thousands of dedicated Australian Nationalists, led by a solid core of committed Cadre-Members, that we can hope to wrest control of our country from the anti-Australian traitors who comprise the current Establishment and its institutions. However, beyond recruitment we need to consistently develop nationalist organization.

    If time is not on our side then we must act accordingly: No longer can we be "part-time patriots" - we must be prepared to spend much of our personal time and our personal resources (yes, that does include money) on the fight for our Nation. We could look at the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons and see people dedicated enough to specifically take on flexible jobs or part-time employment to give them enough time to work for their faith - our "faith" and dedication must be as strong as theirs, indeed stronger, if we are to win.

    We say this: It is only possible to succeed with a large militant organization, given the process of national disintegration and disorder, if we have the willpower and dedication to succeed.