Parallel to the ongoing circus of the 2016 election we have witnessed the usual sideshow concerning bit-players, back-benchers, and prospective ladder-climbers.
MP Peter Dutton “fanned the flames of xenophobia” this week with awkward remarks on refugee literacy, numeracy, and welfare dependency. PM Turnbull elaborated with a truthful statement which alluded to the fact that Australia’s refugee program is highly stage-managed. Such a level of oversight naturally comes with a hefty price-tag.
This nationalist has long suspected that learning from their past mistakes, the refugee program is nowadays consciously stacked by the immigration department with “nice” middle-class families, in relative terms educated and competent enough to be productive citizens given ongoing support and training.
For all their energy, the more shrill voices in the refugee “debate” hold little sway, and we workers would have to assume that given their bourgeois roots, the various refugee action committees are in on the plan; favouring photogenic, articulate and mentally stable subjects for resettlement. Where does that leave Nationalists? Faced with a refugee programme which is possibly “rigged for success” so to speak and rendered comparatively idiot proof do we merely move on to other business?
Traction is still to be gained on the issue of sponsored transnational migration if we take the long view — free movement of human capital being one of the lynch-pins of the Globalist Capitalist “New World Order”. Let’s face it, the task of Australian Nationalists is not reform, it is the overthrow of one system and the gestation to birth of another based on our particular concept of Australianism. The opposing force, the polar opposite of our way of thinking is not so much bourgeois liberalism or the faux “Leftists”, which in most circumstances are easily mollified, it is imperialism and this mad “Global Federalist” agenda.
Dare we, as Dr Jim Saleam of The Australia First Party has suggested, take up the Anti-Imperialist struggle so long stymied by the vested interests of the bourgeois “Left” and their circle of do-nothing pseudo-intellectuals?
Imperialism is a negative in any place or time. In one sense Australia is not even truly free at this point in history and the tug of war between the old Anglo Australian power structure and burgeoning Imperial China has only just begun. The true shape of the new socio-economic order has been hinted at, but remains largely amorphous in the minds of the Australian workers. We are vaguely aware that great changes are coming and that, on past experience, they generally won’t be to our advantage.
It appears that far from being immediately swamped by illiterate hordes, this country is in the short-term being systematically stacked with nouveau riche, and a nascent ethnic bourgeoisie. It would not even come as a shock to see some 21st century form of the Mandarin system re-animated to organise expatriates. The very last thing the Australian worker needs is to slowly drift back into the bad old days of the colonial free-for-all where he is at the whim of an imperial power (or coalition of interests), parallel societies and ruthless cartels.
In one sense the struggle for tomorrow mirrors the struggles of yesterday, as surely as night follows day those lumpenproletariat hordes we speak of will follow the middle-class migrants, and the fight for bread and a dignified existence will begin anew. We Nationalists, the educated proletariat, must re-evaluate the counter imperialist, anti-dynastic and anti-colonial movements of the past, wherever we find agreement. Whichever of their tactics appeal and seem practical, we should adapt them to our needs. We need not dismiss Lenin or Mao out of hand on the basis that some in the pseudo Left still pay lip service to their methods. They won their battles and achieved mass mobilisations of the workers after all; and some of their techniques may be appropriate.
Similarly we might examine the “culture of critique” formulated by Jewish intellectuals over the years. Stripped of its core principles that we must necessarily reject, which of its insidious tactics might prove useful? What can we learn from Sukarno? Ho Chi Minh? The Kreisau Circle? the Peronists” Bolivarians? Naxalites? Ba’athists or LTTE? We have an obvious pressure point in immigration, as present events show over and again it is a sore point with the middle-class and vested interests; a varied and flexible Nationalist bag of tricks to undermine and upset the movement of this essential human capital is what is required.
The asylum seeker project is a fraud inasmuch as it purports to service “those most vulnerable” while apparently importing the cream of the Third World middle-class as sponsored migrants. Further work needs to be done to annul the humanitarian aura spun around the enterprise and promote to the workers its significance to the imperialist agenda of the would-be transnational ruling classes. Similarly the centre of gravity concerning the legal migration of both people and capital could be shifted in creative ways to represent a more immediately practical anti-bourgeois/anti-imperialist sentiment rather than the tired tropes: drugs, crime, job security and so forth.
The semi fictional character “Horus the Avenger”, that impish American White Nationalist, gave us the maxim “Any means necessary under the rules or the law but never breaking the rules or the law”. In the post post-modern Zeitgeist where almost nothing is sacred and wherein the rules and laws are dictated by degenerates and fools this ideal leaves considerable scope for mischief to the creative Australian Nationalist.