More impoverished men equals the illusion of empowered women equals another capitalist gotcha!

By James Hillman

Employment minister Michaelia Cash, as quoted in the “Lügenpresse” this ANZAC weekend had the following to say in The Age (which sucks): “We keep on talking about, as government and a society, women needing to go into the non-traditional roles that have the higher-paid salaries,” she said.

“Why aren’t we also encouraging men to go into the non-traditional roles with the lower-paid salaries like nursing and teaching. You’ve got to have a two-way exchange there.” Workplaces also needed to become more flexible – but “not just for women”.

Never trust a Neo Liberal. We Nationalists will berate and denounce the pervasive Leftist Feminism present in the academic institutions and state bureaucracies, but there should be no quarter given to Conservatives and their “Other Feminism”.

I’ve often heard the Left Feminist program described simply as Female supremacism, which needs no explanation, but the Conservative or traditionalist version might best be described as having its basis in the ideal of innate Female superiority.

Traditionalists profess horror at the revolutionary ideals of the Left Feminist; their world-without-men save for stabled breeding bulls and their Lesbian autocracy, but is their idealised Madonna on her pedestal any less ludicrous in this current year?

Of course I have my tongue firmly in my cheek as I write these lines. Any student of the Neo Liberals, their globalism and pseudo free markets, will see through Senator Cash and her ruse. In these lines she betrays herself:

“New business models established by Uber, Airbnb and Airtasker had also changed the way Australians do business. Whether or not we like it – and sometimes these things can be a little bit scary – when you travel overseas and in particular to places like China, they are already embracing the future of work. And if we are to remain a globally competitive economy, it is not a choice for us. We have to ensure our systems and our regulation responds appropriately. To do this, we are going to need structural and cultural reform – and in particular in relation to our workplace relations system.”

Aha! Now let’s put some pressure on those points! Take for example the ‘Uber business model’. Fairfax also ran an article this weekend on the rapid transformation of the app-based ride-sharing service into nothing more than an unregulated facsimile of the “bad old days” of the Taxi industry. It appears that “entrepreneurs” are running fleets of as many as 30 vehicles and renting them out to Uber drivers at exorbitant rates, creating a new domain for a would-be rentier class to re-assert control over the means of production.

Have we spotted the set-up, comrades? The fact that China is the example for the “future of work” and these pseudo egalitarian business models are their benchmark ought to fire the hackles of any Nationalist worker. Surely the only conclusion we can draw from the assertion that “we have no choice’ but to emulate Asian business practices is that the objective of Ms Cash and her bosses is to reduce ALL Australian workers to the status of Coolie day labourers and piece workers (or peasants as the Bolsheviks would have understood the term). Where, may we ask does this “other Feminism” espoused by the Senator fit into the race to the bottom as far as wage growth and our standard of living are concerned?

It’s often been said that Feminism is capitalism’s little sister; that all the so called achievements of the women’s movements were engineered by the ruling castes and oligarchs to suit their own ends and bolster their bottom line. I for one hardly see that as a cynical view, politically incorrect for sure but not wide of the mark. Why would capitalists and their tame Neo Liberal politicians want to turn the gender ratios upside down and effectively redistribute higher paying jobs along those lines?

I suspect the answer comes back to crude questions of biology and the differences between male and female psychological make up: female employees are more loyal, less prone to question authority and unable to physically impose their collective will on those in power. Only men can fight and carry the threat of the use of force upon the bosses if they behave in a predatory or exploitative fashion, only men can hold a picket line and stand up to assaults by strike breakers or Police interventions.

The goal is always the ‘bottom line’ — the scam, so to speak, is to reduce or surreptitiously cap salaries and ensure a compliant and dependant workforce across the entire economy. Feminising the high-wage professions is probably the most effective way of bringing down such a regime: no strikes, no unions, and the best part is that taken as a group, men, once evicted from traditionally male occupations, have little interest in competing with women. It has been said that in post-Soviet Russia as many as 80% of doctors are women and that nowadays that profession has lost its prestige: wages have been stagnant over those decades and expenditure at rock bottom. If a relatively unsophisticated Nationalist worker such as myself can speculate upon the advantages of Feminising the professions then it can be taken for granted that those who presume to govern us and their capitalist puppeteers may also be thinking along those lines and pushing forward pretty spokeswomen such as Senator Cash to woo the voters with saccharine appeals to fairness and inclusiveness.

images (1)
The empowered “Aussie” female worker of tomorrow in China today



As a nationalist, I feel moved to write a few lines on the faux “scandal” concocted by the bourgeois media over the proposed logo submitted to the AEC by the Australia First Party and the inclusion therein of the supposedly sacred Eureka flag.

James Hillman

I won’t dwell on the facts of the Eureka uprising, but the description of its ethnic composition and supposed temper of the rebel corps is these days just a bludgeon forged by dishonest academics to be wielded by their capitalist masters against any worker who dares ask, “What about me?”

Any sober student of the events of December 3, 1854, comes to the inescapable conclusion that retiring to a fixed emplacement as opposed to adopting the hit-and-run tactics of the guerrilla was the rebels’ undoing.

Moreover, the concessions wrung from the colonial authority were won through diplomacy, not acts of violence. The flag in that light is both a symbol of resistance, but also of compromise, and to the romantic, it conveys the air of sorrow, loss and wasted lives; a thread which colours much of our nation’s history.

So too we can gloss over the bastardization of the Eureka myth and the adoption of its symbols by 20th-century communists, trade unionists, and others with a social agenda to push. This is, or ought to be, well known to nationalists. Many of us who are of a certain age were schooled in its lore in the public education system by unionised teaching staff.

The important questions we post-union era nationalists may ask might include where are we now? Who now flies the standard of Eureka and by what right do they claim that heritage? Who are the workers and what are their interests?

Any sober student of the events of December 3, 1854, comes to the inescapable conclusion that retiring to a fixed emplacement as opposed to adopting the hit-and-run tactics of the guerrilla was the rebels’ undoing.

What is beyond doubt is that as far as we have come, we are in an era very similar to that inhabited by the semi-legendary figures of Lalor, Humffray and Ross. Large sections of the workforce both then and now can best be described as independents.

The independent prospector of the 1850s took on personal risk and debt to carry out his puddling and panning on the alluvial goldfields of central Victoria; just as today the independent is in hock to start his franchise, buy his tools, and secure his means of production (to borrow a phrase from Marx).

Then as now, the independent pays taxes, licence, and often interest on all the above; he forms syndicates; enters handshake-agreements; parcels work out to his mates in boom times, and relies on his mates when work is short.

To cadge another term from the historical left, we might describe the life of the independent as “Anarcho-Syndicalist” in that he takes on all the risk of his own enterprises when he can afford it and thence all the profit.

When he can’t bankroll a larger job himself or lacks all the necessary skills, he forms a temporary syndicate with other workers to share both risk and profit.

Peter Lalor
Peter Lalor led the rebels at Eureka. He escaped the stockade seriously injured and went on to become a parliamentarian

Now, where does the current model of trade unionism fit? It is actually no more relevant to Lalor’s world than it is to ours.

Yes, the mass unionism which began in the last decades of the 19th century and which flourished was in most respects a necessity and a social good, yet it was of its time.

Then as now, the independent pays taxes, licence, and often interest on all the above; he forms syndicates; enters handshake-agreements; parcels work out to his mates in boom times, and relies on his mates when work is short.

That model fits the transitions of that era, to broad-acre farming, deep lead mining and large-scale industrial production, but it would not have worked on the alluvial fields in the 1850s and it certainly has no place in the “Anarcho-Syndicalist” 21st century.

The union movement of 2016 is a mere vestige of the workers’ associations of the past. So small are it memberships, we might well avoid dealing with them at all if not for the sponsorship of disruptive, anti-national tendencies and their efforts in the suppression of dissent against the globalising, neoliberal order.

The worker of 2016 could be motivated by a fraternal and exclusive guild if it was in his interests; he might even be motivated to rebellion like the men of Ballarat if, like them, he stood to profit — and if syndication of common financial interests could result from his activism.

What he will not cop is the universalist dogma and so-called “social justice”, the upturned noses of the bourgeois university bred union officials and the exhortations to Give! Give! Give! from “Pork Chop” shoppies and shirkers who have never swung a hammer or lain awake at night worrying about outstanding accounts.

John Basson Humffray
John Basson Humffray played the peacemaker in the lead up to the Eureka uprising

Eureka was not about social justice, in crude terms it was about maximising profit, there was no mass movement of oppressed workers only temporary syndication of independent small businessmen who saw some alignment of interests with the fellow on the next claim over.

So who may claim the right to fly the Southern Cross? It cannot be the old, irrelevant ACTU affiliates who still pig-headedly regard the majority — the independent workers and small businessmen — as class enemies and whose officials are not to be considered workers in any sense of the word.

I would argue that the Australia First Party has more right in the matter as it embraces the small businessman and the independent worker, the cottage industry, and promotes a regime of trade protection, domestic production for domestic consumption, and a “sky’s the limit” attitude to building the commonwealth of the nation.

Captrain Henry Ross
Captain Henry Ross raised the Southern Cross at Eureka

Nationalists are different to the bloated, moribund political parties and unions with their out of date ideas on “equality” and “social justice. We fix our eyes on the horizon; we focus on the emerging technologies and means of production — and the integrating systems of networking and neighbourhood scale syndication.

As Nationalists, we accept that the age of mass manufacturing and agricultural production may well be over; that with technology such as digital printing, highly affordable plant and machinery, and open-source distribution of ideas and technological progress via the internet will give rise to a new era of cottage industry.

So who may claim the right to fly the Southern Cross? It cannot be the old, irrelevant ACTU affiliates who still pig-headedly regard the majority — the independent workers and small businessmen — as class enemies and whose officials are not to be considered workers in any sense of the word.

Outsourcing of production to mum and dad workshops and all the other myriad distribution and logistical cogs in the wheel of the new marketplace will require a new type of workers’ movement, an “open source” movement if you will.

So yes, we Nationalists have the right to fly the Southern Cross as the champions of the REAL working class majority; the independent worker; the small-time syndicalist; the Mum and Dad workshop; and the speciality producers of fine foods and luxury goods.

More broadly we embrace the free thinker, the innovator, the open source nature of the digital age and we defend the freedoms of our age while resisting the manifold, creeping restrictions and impositions inherent in the present neoliberal order.

We carry forth the true symbolism of Eureka; the resistance to the state’s attempts to compromise our independence and freedom to do business; to form syndicates; make profits on our own terms and the slapping away of the grasping hand of “Old Privilege” as our sage Henry Lawson would have it.





As leftist groups harangue patriots for being “racist” along comes Chinese nationalists preaching on our shores for a foreign power.

The Age, which practically gave birth to ANTIFA, surprised us by reporting:

As Malcolm Turnbull prepares to embark on his first official visit to China as prime minister, some 60 Chinese community leaders in Australia gathered in Sydney urging him to watch his words when discussing the South China Sea in Beijing.

Unfurling a large red banner declaring the need to “Firmly Safeguard the Sovereign Rights of China in the South China Sea”, the forum was organised by the overseas Chinese patriotic association Australian Action Committee for Peace and Justice.

And these crusaders against the iniquities of nationalism have not emitted even a squeak. There are no counter-protests organised against the Australian Action Committee for Peace and Justice from the left side, or even the patriots (although once Nick Folkes reads this he’ll probably see it as a chance to leapfrog his Gumby party out of irrelevance).

As The Age has reported, this is a cell of the Chinese government inciting domestically-based enemies.

“Australia’s political elite should have a clear understanding,” the committee’s chair Lin Bin said at the Saturday meeting. “[They] ought to talk and act carefully on the sensitive issue on the South China Sea, and not make ‘irrational’ or incorrect signals to the international community.”

The rhetoric of freedom of navigation, freedom of overflight, international arbitration, changing the status quo and “militarisation” of the South China Sea, it said, were all mere buzzwords utilised by the United States as part of its strategic pivot back to the Asia-Pacific – “naked hegemonic behaviour” aimed at containing China’s rise.

What were previously fringe nationalistic and patriotic Chinese associations in Australia are now emboldened in the search for greater domestic political influence with the implicit backing of a rising China and its increasingly assertive foreign policy.

More to the point, patriot tub-thumpers are still banging on about Islam. But here on the nationalists’ news-vine, we don’t aim to hoodwink our audience in the interests of winning a popularity contest.

The Australian Action Committee for Peace and Justice … And it’s those words “peace” and “justice” that take on an inscrutable meaning with this bunch of sadistic noodle eaters

The action committee has close ties with the local Chinese embassy and consulates, as well as the Australian Council for the Promotion of Peaceful Reunification of China, an organisation under the umbrella of China’s United Front which rails against independence movements in Tibet, Taiwan and Xinjiang. The council is chaired by Huang Xiangmo, a prolific donor to both major Australian political parties, as well as the founding donor of the Australia-China Relations Institute at the University of Technology, Sydney.

“I can see in Australia, in the United States, even Europe, very strong lobby groups who work very closely with the Chinese government,” said Feng Chongyi, an associate professor of Chinese Studies at UTS. Dr Feng is not attached to ACRI.

Nationalists have long been warning Australians about China… and China has long been the primary concern of nationalists dating back to the days of Lambing Flats. The miners feared being swamped by Chinese workers undercutting hard fought for pay and conditions. The White Australia policy was implemented as a safeguard against Chinese hegemony, and yet here we are.

Australia’s finest poet knew what was what. Henry Lawson wrote:

Shall we in fear of the Dragon* or Bruin now
Keep back the flag of the Southern Cross?
Better to die on a field of red ruin now,
Under the flag of the Southern Cross.
Let us stand out like the gallant Eureka men —
Give not our country the sorrow to seek her men —
Fling out the flag of the Southern Cross!

The dragon Hank referred to was China. Late last year members of Australia First Party picketed the Chinese embassy in Canberra and no patriotic organisation thought it worth a mention. Nope, it was not Islam.

Australia First Party members protest outside the Chinese embassy in Canberra in 2015. But no patriots on hand because it wasn’t Islam.

But here we have China, which has bought up everything in Australia except for the giant pineapple in Queensland, funding both major parties while organising domestic activists to promote the imperial interests of bastard China.

There are signs the nationalistic rhetoric is targeting a wider mainstream – and younger – audience in the Chinese community. One of the first and most widely spread reports of Saturday’s Action Committee meeting was carried by the Chinese-language WeChat news outlet Australia Today and affiliate Sydney Today.

The news outlets consistently reach a large, young audience via the ubiquitous Chinese social media application with its blend of news and light entertainment tailored for young Chinese students and professionals living in Australia.

All WeChat news outlets, or “official accounts” are registered in China and by extension are subject to monitoring from mainland censors, and while many articles are translated from mainstream Australian media outlets, reports critical of the Chinese government are invariably avoided.

China is well known for viewing any Chinese anywhere as the property of China regardless of whether they were born in the US, or are even a generation removed.

The mainland has been quick to turn these (what are viewed as) ethnic Chinese into agents of the state. They play on their countryman’s dormant but innate sense of nationalistic pride.

And these are, for all the arguments of diversity, people who are NOT Chinese anymore; yet are just as quick to agree to turn against their adopted countries. Proving that diversity is a sham, and once you are Chinese, you are always Chinese: you are never Chinese-Australian. Instead, you are mainlander waiting like a sleeper cell to spring into action.

Just this week in the US a Naval Flight Officer was charged with handing over sensitive information to China. This is just one of many prominent cases.

Australian nationalists will be actively protesting these invaders who’ve bought off our government and are selling us into slavery to The Dragon.

download (2)
“Shall we in fear of the Dragon or Bruin now, Keep back the flag of the Southern Cross?”