Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner Dr Tim Soutphommasane is not only an overpaid and under-talented diversity hire, he is also a weaver of bad fiction in support of his own, self-serving hoax narrative.

For a recent column in the Fairfax press, Dr Tim has cobbled together an extraordinary tale framing 2017 as a year which saw rising support for White supremacy, the mainstreaming of anti-immigrant politics and a resurgence of Neo-Nazism.

Yes, comrades, this painful screed is every bit as ridiculous as it sounds; if one-tenth of the commissioner’s mantra of rote-learned talking points bore any relationship to the real world then cosmopolitan, capitalist run Australia would be in serious trouble.

In the time-honoured Anti-Racist fashion, the commissioner seems to have written a list of everyone he hates, or who disagrees with the goals of globalist capitalism on his boardroom wall and wired together a schizophrenic narrative with push-pins and string, like some sweaty stalker out of a Hollywood movie.

Dr Tim attempting to absorb credibility through the armpit of celebrity activist Adam Goodes

Little of it makes sense to anyone who knows what they are looking at, Dr Tim writes of “Right-Wing Nationalism” as if it is an authentic political tendency; the reality is, of course, that few if any “Right Wingers” approve of the radical Nationalist program, preferring instead their attachments to Zionism and a version of multiculturalism which excludes Islam and Muslims.

This pig-headed refusal by Tim and his broader academic caste to look beyond the outdated binary view of politics has already made them into figures of fun; if there is an ascendant “Right Wing Nationalism” then according to that rigid worldview there must also be left and centrist versions, sadly for these blockheads no such tendencies exist.

In the time honoured Anti-Racist fashion the commissioner seems to have written a list of everyone he hates, or who disagrees with the goals of globalist capitalism on his boardroom wall and wired together a schizophrenic narrative with push-pins and string, like some sweaty stalker out of a Hollywood movie.

There are Right Wingers and Left Wingers along the mainstream political axis who all enthusiastically support the globalist capitalist programme of mobile Third World populations, totalitarian humanist equality for all and the replacement of the citizen with the atomised, unquestioning, apolitical consumer who is ruled by oligarchs and their bourgeoisie.

Nationalism, as we practice it is neither left nor right, what it truly represents is secession from cosmopolitanism, a rejection of the binary worldview with all its rigid conformity and ever-thickening tangle of artificial social mores and pedantic restrictions upon the liberty of the working classes.

Dr Tim wilfully misrepresents recent events in Europe and North America in his attempt to lull his readers into believing that, say, the mass actions surrounding Polish independence day, the electoral success of AFD in Germany and the ill-fated Unite The Right rallies in the U.S.A are all part of some global trend toward a resurgent White supremacy.

Again, real Nationalists would have none of this since we reject outright the mindset which allows one to believe that the world is now integrated to the degree that universal White unity is a realistic possibility; universal ideals such as this do not enter the heads of radicals, this is the mindset of the globalists or the religious nuts, Islamic Jihadists being the obvious example.

Muslims in Sydney demanding that they are taken seriously by the chattering classes

This brings us to another dodgy connection in Tim’s web of untruths: Why would the people he labels conservatives, anti Semites or neo-Nazis have such a problem with Islam?

On the face of it Right Wing Islamophobia makes no sense, there is no logical explanation as to why one group of socially conservative people should be hostile to another group holding basically identical views, that is until one listens to what the right wingers are actually saying.

The natural reaction of the upper classes, of which Tim Soutphommasane is most decidedly a member, is to scoff and roll their eyes at any utterance by the “little people”; the problem, though, in assuming that their class holds the correct values and opinions on all matters is that these twits render themselves unable to take seriously anything which exists outside their bubble of self-satisfied political correctness.

On the face of it Right Wing Islamophobia makes no sense, there is no logical explanation as to why one group of socially conservative people should be hostile to another group holding basically identical views, that is until one listens to what the right wingers are actually saying.

The Right Wingers, on the other hand, take both cosmopolitanism and Islam completely seriously, probably more so than many Muslims and the faults they find with that way of life are all, basically, to do with its perceived negative effects upon multiculturalism, women’s rights, homosexual rights and the interests of Jews and Israel.

Dr Tim mentions in his article Milo Yiannopoulis, the homosexual, Jewish, Libertarian provocateur who is married to a black man; Tim is seemingly agog at the popularity of such a character in this day and age, however seen in its proper context Milo’s stage show is pure multicultural theatre, he is a perfect poster boy for the Right Wing because he embodies all that they hold dear and all that the upper classes lay claim to but, in their cynicism, neglect.

Milo “The Dangerous Faggot” is not literally Hitler, he is more like the Dick Emery of globalist culture

The Islamic Jihad in the West is explicitly aimed at smashing social cohesion in multicultural societies by attacking its constituent parts,. The Right Wingers are one hundred percent correct on that score. Anyone who is capable of thinking tactically appreciates the structural weaknesses in cosmopolitanism, not to mention the studied indifference to this holy war among the upper classes, the politicians and the bourgeoisie.

This inability to think like one’s enemy by the people supposedly in charge leaves a cosmopolitan society wide open to subversion and the shock tactics of terrorists. If anything has become normalised in 2017 it is not “racism” as alleged by Dr Tim, rather it is this blasé attitude toward Islamic Jihad and its stated goals, which are the complete destruction of the multicultural West and the subjugation of its peoples by Muslims.

Further to his ballyhoo over the “Far Right” Soutphommasane also dramatically plays up the Neo-Nazi menace, albeit without specifically identifying anyone who openly admits to holding such opinions. We suspect this is because, like most people of his station his view of the new Nazis is likely informed by email circulars penned by Andre Oboler and the Jewish Board Of Deputies, so, therefore, we can assume that he knows nothing much about Nazis, either historical or contemporary.

Let us be blunt, Tim Soutphommasane is in trouble, if certain illiberal elements within the mainstream political scene have their way he and his fellow commissioners at HREOC will soon be out of a job, so he has to come up with something, anything really, to justify his three hundred thousand dollar a year salary.

The role most of the Neo-Nazis, as we have exhaustively explained in several articles is to stifle any dissent against globalist cosmopolitanism — to snuff out any spark of national feeling among Whites by tainting groups and individuals in guilt by association stings. True, some of these characters are motivated by the prospect of looting the money that organised political groups or clubs can raise, but in the main, they are wreckers under the direction of mainstream operatives.

Neo-Nazism, in contrast to Tim’s thesis, is actually the nemesis of White Nationalism and self-determination. It is chauvinistic within the context of White Australia since it attempts to apply phoney Third Reich racial categories to the White Australian ethnicity, something which, given our history on this continent, can never be accepted by true patriots.

The Neo-Nazi cuts a lonely figure at Unite The Right in Charlottesville

Dr Tim is peddling a load of horse manure. He is cobbling together a narrative of White supremacy and rising neo-Nazism to shore up his own precarious position as a globalist bureaucrat. If it all smacks of desperation it must be because Tim is, these days, a desperate man at the top tier of a widely hated bureaucracy.

Let us be blunt, Tim Soutphommasane is in trouble. Should certain illiberal elements within the mainstream political scene have their way he and his fellow commissioners at HREOC will soon be out of a job. He has to come up with something, anything really, to justify his three hundred thousand dollar a year salary.

Human rights are under attack by the minions of globalist capitalism; the idea is to roll back the legal protections available to citizens in the name of progress so that the transnational corporations can further embed themselves in the day to day life of working people.

Dr Tim is simply being made redundant by his real bosses. Maybe if he had done his job and protected the human rights of all Australians, rather than cultivating his reputation for arrogance, race-baiting and attacking the White majority, then he might have left his post in good standing and at a time of his choosing. As it stands though, he will probably be fired. His unpronounceable name will live on in infamy as just another haughty bureaucrat who got too big for his boots.

Pride comes before a fall, arrogant public servants in this country quickly grow into tall poppies, ripe for a hard pruning

Dr Jim Saleam: Fascists and Conservatives

Dr Jim Saleam: Fascists and Conservatives

Some people, who may be good patriots and who may yet make good nationalists attached as they are to the Alt-Right and to other patriot structures, have made favourable references to the Australian 1930’s paramilitary group, the New Guard. They have suggested it could be a fountainhead for Australian nationalism. I consider the New Guard – the exact opposite.

The New Guard, formed in 1931, was an armed and violent conservative movement which set out to undermine the Jack Lang government of New South Wales. In Lang, they saw ‘communism’. After all, he repudiated the war debts to London, stood up for the mass of the unemployed and pushed for credit expansion to ease the Depression. Lang stood for Australia first, for the struggle of the productive classes. Meantime, the New Guard espoused ‘unswerving loyalty’ to the Empire, ‘sane finance’ (deflation) and a managerial government run by ‘the best families’. The New Guard programme represented the class war from above dressed up as patriotism.

In 1933, the leader of the New Guard, Eric Campbell, met Sir Oswald Mosley of the British Union of Fascists. Mosley considered the New Guard to be fascist. He was wrong. And by this time too, Campbell was openly calling himself ‘fascist’. He was wrong too.

Colonel Campbell does the one-arm backstroke under hypnosis by a visiting American entertainer

What is the problem?

Well, the New Guard certainly went about uniformed and did violence, offering fascist salutes and saying it was fascist. It said it wanted to crush communism by violence and it claimed to be militantly patriotic.

But the New Guard was connected throughout its four-year life by subliminal sentiments, imperial and class ideological references and organisational threads to the Old Guard conservatives, the rich colonial-imperial bourgeoisie who wanted to hang on to their wealth against the challenge from the people. Social change, Australian economic independence, the Labor Party – all was communism. The Old Guard would rely upon the state apparatus and a secret paramilitary apparatus and putsch for power if need be. The New Guard, its bastard child, would do the street violence. It was no challenge to capitalism either.

Irony entered in. In July 1932, Lang was sacked by Sir Phillip Game, the governor, such that New South Wales be ‘saved’ from communism and civil war (sic). Four years later, Game was in London, making sure in his capacity as Commissioner of Police, that Mosley’s fascists could not be an effective challenge to the British elite. Two countries. Same imperial elite. Same interests to be defended.

For me, Jack Lang, brother-in-law to Henry Lawson, was the real deal. He was the champion of the people. He railed against international finance capital, against those who could not act and think as Australians in the banks and the corporations. In his extreme old age, he remained the fighter for White Australia. If there is a fountainhead for nationalism, it was Lang and not the New Guard.

The “communist” NSW Premier who was ousted for putting White Australia first – what sort of fascists would do that to such a ridgey didge Patriot?

In what must be suggestive of ideological place, I recall a chat some years ago with a Klub Nation reactionary, one of the shysters who recently conned his way into the Aussie Alt-Right phenomenon. He told me that the New Guard was a real nationalist movement and that its opposition to ‘leftist’ Lang was correct. It was ‘fascist’ too, he said – as if I would be turned on. So the circle completes and we again, in the immediate period, find ourselves assessing the relationship of fascism and conservatism – from the past.

Of course, there is a large academic literature these days that explains how fascist and conservative groups, under the pressure of events and the challenge of the Left in 1930s Europe, might share external features. Decades ago, the study was fresh and it was easier for political newbies and others to confuse the two. No more. Names like Martin Blinkhorn, Eugen Weber, Stanley Payne, A. James Gregor, Roger Griffin, Roger Eatwell can be traced by the curious today and it’ll be explained. Conservatism and fascism were mutually exclusive things.

Nonetheless, in my decades of political activity, I have continually come upon conservatives playacting at being militants and at being ‘fascists’ and even ‘Nazis’. It took me time to understand their essential ‘bs’.

When I was a high school kid, I came upon Eugen Weber’s Varieties Of Fascism. It taught me that fascism in one vital sense was a synthesis of nationalism and socialism. It varied from country to country, in how it arranged that synthesis from source-material and in what it looked like, but that synthesis was a key element of it. So, I tried to apply that knowledge to people I met.

I remember blundering into a Brisbane meeting of Eastern European ‘fascists’ in 1972. They gave each other salutes, chatted about fighting the Labor communists (?!) and doing violence – and then talked over how to help the Liberal Party stay in government. The Liberal Party? It seemed the Libs were going along with the USA to roll back East European communism and they would help the Libs make it happen. They were not alone in that sort of notion.

Consider the colourful – if ridiculous – Australian Nazi phenomenon during the period that the extreme-left in Australia gained some size (1969-75). Some of these so-called Nazis believed that they would ‘prove’ themselves to the conservative moneybags by fighting those commies in the street and, out of desperation at being unable to stem the Red tide any other way, the conservatives would ‘call them in’ to save the country. A Liberal-Nazi government would form to fight communism and perhaps even win the war in Vietnam! I remember asking one of these Nazis if that meant the Liberals would allow some socialist reforms of banking and the multinationals – but I was told that was communism too. “Are you a communist?”, he asked me. Much of the time, the Nazis took cues from the Special Branch political police in attacking the Left, yet considered that normal, a primer before the curtain was raised on their taking power. Nazis in Queensland thought Premier Joh was Australia’s von Hindenberg, the patriot who would team up with the tough boys to save the country. Delusional maybe, but all this demonstrated the essential linkage between the conservatives and would-be fascists. These fascists (sic) considered themselves as conservatives with one difference: they reasoned the conservatives weak and unwilling to do the dirty work – which meant someone had to break the law to fight those Reds!

Joh Bjelke Petersen was tipped to be the next Liberal Party Nazi leader… or something

However, there was for me, one good bump in the conservative road. I also met the émigré Hungarian fascists who had a different story. They told me that you: “cannot have nationalism without socialism and socialism without nationalism”. They said most of the émigré fascists (Eastern Europeans by and large) were flunkeys of the Liberals and that the Libs were the quintessential party of capital. They even told me that if ever they returned to Hungary, they thought it best that the property socialised by the communist regime from the aristocracy and the old wealthy elite– stay in state hands! Maybe they were communists like me?

In the late 1970’s, I was in Sydney, a member of the first nationalist groups when we met those Liberals known as ‘the Uglies’. Their descendants still survive as rabid free marketeers. This gang posed then as the toughest of the tough and the hardest of the hard Right. Or so they said. They told the nationalists that they were us and we were them, except they were going to take over the Liberal Party and ‘come out’ when the day came. The day never came and generation after generation of young people has heard their story. The nationalists worked it out. The Uglies were spinning a yarn to suck people in and neutralize them forever. The Liberal machine would mince them up into becoming Libs and run them as lures for other ‘radicals’ who might upset the conservative applecart.

There was a twist. This Liberal lot also told us that they were secret ‘fascists’ and even ‘Nazis’. After all, Menzies who had been an ‘Appeaser’ of fascism in the 1930’s had let into the country the East European collaborators after 1949. They said Hitler really knew how to screw communism by fighting it in the streets. Why he finally grew up and attacked the Soviet Union. Nazism was the highest form of patriotism because it defended its principles violently. But Aussie people didn’t really know all that so its secret message would stay the glue that will bind us – while we take over the Liberal Party. I started to think: is the Soviet Union even the enemy? Why fight them for the USA? And why are these Uglies all the way with Uncle Sam? How does their taking over the Liberal Party help the nationalist cause? We, nationalists, wanted an independent Australia and their programme isn’t nationalist. They said they just hated the ‘wet’ Malcolm Fraser, but supported everything he said about deregulation and ‘fighting communism’. After 1979, they followed Margaret Thatcher; she would beat communism by privatising everything, they said.

The dirty truth (part of it at least) came out in 1978 when the leader of the Uglies (Lyenko Urbanchich, a Slovenian collaborator with Germany and Italy) called for the recruitment of Vietnamese and other Indo-China ‘refugees’ into the Liberal Party as supporters of the war against communism. We, nationalists, were concerned with our European identity not communism as threats to the nation, so the division was in the open. Even so, they kept telling us for years they were ‘fascists’, just like us, ad nauseum. When one of us quipped to an Urbanchich follower, we would prefer a Soviet White Australia to a capitalist multiracial sewer, the old Slovenian guru finally said that Australian nationalism was bolshie anyway (1987). Thanks for that!

Lyenko Urbanchich called for Vietnamese and Indo-china refugees to join the Liberal Party against communism

In the mid-1980’s, a wag in the nationalist Australian National Action, of which I was the Chairman by then, came up with a goodie: the conservative Liberals will tolerate Nazis, but they will never tolerate nationalist-socialists.

Did these Liberals ever want the nationalisation of the banks? Did they want free education and socialised medicine? Did they want our mineral wealth controlled by the nation? Did they want direct democracy? Not at all. They adored free dog-eat-dog enterprise and government by parliament. They abhorred ‘dole bludgers’ (read: anyone who lost his job), considered themselves the born-to-rule elite and they regarded the working class person as not their equal. They never thought in terms of the fiercely independent nation with a destiny of its own, but revelled in the dependent country beholden to great allies.

Not too much ‘socialism’ in their national socialism? I suspect that in so far as they liked (sic) Nazis and fascists, it was all about the fascist regimes that went to war against communism and then only so far as they did fight communism as a system. Such social change that the fascists did implement was ignored in that argument. Past that, these conservatives weren’t part of fascism at all, but no end of game-players calling themselves ‘fascists’ would hang around them. They could sit around and talk and talk and dream – and do the dirty work of the conservatives.

What I did see in most of those who wanted to talk about fascism in those days of the 1970’s and 1980’s (and in possibly even now?), is that they wanted to discuss regime-fascism and how ‘good’ it was. They liked pretty pics of parades, invasions of the USSR, a few criticisms of ‘Jewish capital’ (but seldom, gentile capital), the myth of the great leader. In so far as any of it had some transcendental relevance to any Australian struggle, none seemed that interested in the mechanics of revolutionary action. This alone should have suggested that their talk of fascism was a block in the way of action! Fascism was for them just a myth to be talked about in a club of such people with Libs in attendance who could provide a ‘political’ outlet for them.

It became clearer to the nationalists. There had always been a real demarcation line between historical fascists and conservatives. If there had been anything positive in fascism that ‘line’ was it. And fascism’s essential sin (not the only one I would add) had been its alliances with the conservatives. Its revolution was bowdlerized before it got going. In that regard, I do remember meeting in the 1980’s an Italian who fought for the Italian Social Republic. He opined that the Mussolini regime till 1943 had been an illusion, a travesty of fascism’s potential. The Italian civil war brought the people into play against the industrialists and the landowners, the church and the monarchy, those whom the regime had previously indulged. That sounded different!

Of course, the discourse of a revolutionary fascism hardly gets a look-in with the debate on fascism, locked as it usually was, into a look-in at the regimes and their wondrous (sic) surface-appearances. The curiosity for me was the deepest fault of fascism in the 1930s and 1940s – that it temporized with the conservatives and the joke in the contemporary world was that the would-be fascists confused the two and pimped for the conservatives as errand boys.

The joke is still being played out in small circles.

I write as an Australian nationalist. My interest in fascism would be literary only if it was not for conservatives who put out bait and for a few people who muck about with fascism in the hope it might offer them something. The latter is more of the problem. Do they still mean regime-fascism? Or do they mean that synthesis of nationalism and socialism that the fascists, to their credit, attempted? And if they do mean that, did not the Australian radical nationalists and our labour movement achieve that synthesis but in our language and in a popular-democratic form? If that was true, why have the discussion about fascism at all?

I would conclude this article with a commentary about Australia from Antonio Grossardi, the Consul General in Australia of Fascist Italy. He said:

“Australia…since the day of its federation has lived…in the rosy certitude that it was the wealthiest, most capable, privileged and hard working country in the world, a type of Earthly Paradise,” God’s Own Country”, such that with a blind and constant faith in the present and future resources of the country, it abandoned itself to social-proletarian experiments of all sorts without taking into account the obstacles, the costs and the possibilities of success.”

Grossardi thought such was the wealth that the Australian people enjoyed they could afford to launch “continuous experiments in social-democracy”. This included a pragmatic labour party, distant from the ideological strife of the Old Continent, bent on enriching the poor rather than taking from the rich like the old socialisms. He went on to describe Australia’s social security system unsurprisingly as “overly generous”. Such comments beg comparison to the Italian reality at the same time, where the Fascist government was only beginning to introduce the rudiments of social welfare.

I am not surprised really that the regime-fascists thought ill of us. Australia is not the Old Continent, but a New Continent – and our challenges are our own.

It’s all too familiar





Shane Burley of the Black Rose Anarchist Federation website has favoured observers of alternative politics with an article outlining his Twenty-Five Theses On Fascism.

By James Hillman

Without conducting a tedious point by point examination of his theory of Fascism in the post-modern era we will nevertheless confront Burley’s hysterical, reactionary screed on the historical continuity and mass appeal of so-called 21st-century neo-Fascism.

This brand of Anarcho-Idiocy should be laughed back into the oblivion of cyberspace by all right-thinking people, however, as we all know, the basic principles of this anti-Fascist argument are being adopted by globalist-capitalist public relations officers to further the interests of the international commercial elites.

It would appear to the casual reader that Shane Burley is singing from the same hymn sheet as the evangelists of hyper-consumerism, indeed his thesis puts him in a very safe space; his views would tend to endear him to the proponents of totalitarian humanism with their dreams of a global village inhabited only by consumers.

Antifa: The guardians of the political vacuum caused by the retreat of the Left

These 25 talking points, even though they are repetitive and obtuse in parts scream Bourgeois adventurism with every line, Burley puts so many theoretical roadblocks in the path of grassroots radical action, applies so many caveats to working-class mobilisation that we might imagine him, in silk cravat and frock coat, swooning on his embroidered chaise through the effort of writing his polemic.

This brand of Anarcho-idiocy should be laughed back into the oblivion of cyberspace by all right thinking people, however, as we all know, the basic principles of this anti-Fascist argument are being adopted by globalist-capitalist public relations officers to further the interests of the international commercial elites.

The basic threads in this neurotic, overly tightly wrapped tapestry of nonsense are that Fascism is everywhere hoovering up doctrine and practical political measures from all tendencies; that even though the Left have all but submitted to the global money power and abandoned radical action the anti-Capitalist efforts of anyone not explicitly identifying himself as an Anti-Fascist must be de-platformed, physically attacked and, if possible, utterly destroyed.

The neo-Fascist elements gravitating toward the Alt-Right are just as much blocking force in the road to radical change

Under Burley’s model it is forbidden to hold views which amount to a Third Position, it is unacceptable for anyone to  carry out activism in the political spaces lately abandoned by the Left; “Fascists” should be prevented at all costs from agitating against capitalism and war, for working-class unity or in solidarity with movements of national liberation in the Third World.

In essence, we have a theory which places the Anti-Fascists in the role of ideological squatters, a loose assemblage of people who occupy political spaces merely so that nobody else may utilise them to radicalise and mobilise the working class and marginalised people.

All that these Anarchists are doing is behaving in a manner identical to their globalist-capitalist sympathisers, this approach is akin to the mentality of the property speculator who buys up cheap apartments and leaves them empty as they appreciate in value; it drains his capital in the short term and denies working people a place to live, creating a social deficit in the hope of future profit.

In essence we have a theory which places the Anti-Fascists in the role of ideological squatters, a loose assemblage of people who occupy political spaces merely so that nobody else may utilise them to radicalise and mobilise the working classes and marginalised people.

The post-modern Left as exemplified by the Black Rose writers are holding political spaces aside for some future, utopian mass movement of a cosmopolitan character, in the process draining the political capital of the radical Left through their violence toward opposing tendencies and their tolerance toward, if not outright collusion with capitalist interests.

It is no wonder that Civic Patriot groups are intruding upon the politically vacant, yet energetically policed spaces notionally held by Anti-Fascists; for all Shane’s blather about entryism and co-option of Left tactics it is plain to see that the Civics are moving in upon a political vacuum, effectively a clean slate upon which to write their own dogma once the rabble squatting there has been run off.

Team Idiot, the Civic Patriots, will take any opportunity afforded them, to muddy the waters and dilute the core nationalist message of White survival

There is a danger here too that other tendencies, with whom the Nationalists have much in common, in their efforts to take the reactionary anti-Fascists head on and break their hold on these spaces would similarly occupy them only to leave them ideologically vacant.

We refer here to the issue of subcultures and the club mentality, as opposed to radicalised cadres prepared to settle into the unflattering roles of, say, anti-war protestors, city councillors or grassroots advocates for the White ethnic group.

There is simply no time left for playing the Antifa at their own games, we cannot afford another fifteen year cycle of clubs and gangs, of edgy internet banter, ironic Roman salutes and any of the other artefacts of the great meme wars of the early 21st century, or the brothers wars of the 20th.

Anti-Fascists such as Burley rely heavily on strawman arguments, misinformation, fiction and the creation of satirical dramatis personae for publicly identifiable dissidents; the Fascists to which he refers are largely caricatures invented by the left for their own ends.

In reality we cannot fight fire with fire, we cannot adopt the same tactics used by the Anti-Fascists lest they produce identical outcomes; bear in mind always that the reason they adopt this hysterical, authoritarian position is that they are, in principle, totally against the idea of any form of politics at all.

We could point out here that the Australian pioneer ethos, that wellspring of the Australian Nationalist movements is fundamentally a form of Anarcho-Syndicalism and that, contrary to their utterances, the Anti-Fascists oppose any and all manifestations of that primal national character, that they are anti-political to the core and as such cannot ever fully occupy the political landscape and develop a coherent, much less a democratic movement.

It falls upon Nationalist dissidents and their allies to not only challenge these ideological squatters and enablers of the money power, to fight them for the power vacuums in post-modern politics, but it is incumbent upon us to radicalise and motivate our people to hold them and establish concrete political principles and a framework for collective action with which to fill the void.

There is simply no time left for playing the Antifa at their own games; we cannot afford another fifteen-year cycle of clubs and gangs, of edgy internet banter, ironic Roman salutes and any of the other artefacts of the great meme wars of the early 21st century, or the brothers’ wars of the 20th.

The time to move is now, the real Left is in retreat and the field of struggle is being squatted by ragpickers, retards and Bourgeois dilettantes, meanwhile immigrants flood in, the suburbs degenerate into something reminiscent of A Clockwork Orange and the globalist money men consolidate their power as they count their loot.

Anti-Fascists refuse to confront the real problem because the solutions are incongruous with the arcane codes of conduct underpinning their fantasy world



By Reverend Cailen Cambeul

Church Administrator
Church of Creativity

Years ago some Leftard mob – probably SPLC or ADL or connected to them – did a chart from Extreme Left to Extreme Right. If I still had it, I’d show you, but I don’t, so my memory will just have to suffice.

Anyway, this Leftard chart was done like a Family Tree of Left and Right in the US; with basically the bad-guys – people like us – to the Right and what (((they))) consider to be the good guys to the Left. Anything to the Left of the Central Divide was considered (as you can expect) Progressive and the rest of us are considered Nazis. However, we are not Leftards – we are White Racial Loyalists (WRL’s) and so we would consider the chart (from the centre at least) to be a description of the most benign re the status quo, to the biggest threat to the status quo.

For example, National Socialist Movement (NSM) and KKK were not on the same branch of this family tree/chart, as they are different types of organisations with different origins and different goals. Although they were at approximately the same level in the Left to Right spectrum due to the fact that they are both American White Nationalist groups.


Rev Cailen felt so strongly about this message he painted it on his own wall. Not really, but it looks it

And at the Extreme Right, beyond the NSM and the KKK, there were only two organisations. The first was the late Dr Pierce’ (now Reverend Will Williams’) National Alliance; beyond the National Alliance, there was only Ben Klassen’s Creativity. The difference being – we assume – that although Creativity and the NA are very similar in nature, the NA is purely American oriented, while Creativity is globally oriented … making Creators the Worst-of-the-Worst or Best-of-the-Best depending on your perspective.

We Creators and the NA had ourselves a good laugh and took it as indicating that we were so Extreme Right, that we were touching the Extreme Left. If that was indeed what the author intended, then he/she/it was correct.

NSM may be National Socialist, but they are merely neo-Nazis by today’s Leftard standards. (Not my choice, blame the Leftards for that one.) Another way to put it is that by Leftard standards, NSM falls into the American National-Capitalist neo-Nazi world. NA and Creators are Racial Socialist – NA by description (but never by name) and the Church of Creativity by deliberate choice. Both of our groups openly disagree with a number of policies advanced by the original German National Socialists – or Nazis – under Uncle Adolph.

We Creators and the NA had ourselves a good laugh and took it as indicating that we were so Extreme Right, that we were touching the Extreme Left. If that was indeed what the author intended, then he/she/it was correct.

However, like the original German National Socialists, both the NA and Creators are revolutionary in nature. We both take a lot from Orthodox National Socialism, just as we take a lot from Mosley’s Fascism and Mussolini’s Fascism. Creativity, in particular, takes a lot from Friedrich Nietzsche, to name one of many … and yet, neither Creators nor the NA uses the terms Nazi or Fascist for ourselves.

We do recognise that White Racial Socialism is good for the Nation State/White Racial State … along with small government, restrained capitalism for big-business, the right to work to build a home and keep what you earn, and naturally, a totally restructured tax system.

images (8)
There is no need to wear a mask! Unless you have one of these beauties

Some would be saying that it makes us Nazis because Hitler said this and Fascists because Mosley said that. We don’t consider ourselves Nazis and Fascists for the same reason we do not consider ourselves to be Liberal, Tory, Labour or Labor, Democrat, Republican, Marxist or of a Reddish-Green hue: We are simply not Nazis or Fascists, and nor do we ask you to be.

Creativity was designed for White people the world over, including awakened Whites in Europe. Unfortunately, there are very few fully awakened White people in Europe as the majority seem to want to be Tribal Nationalists still dithering about artificially imposed borders. Meanwhile, us Colonialist Whites who are no longer Scots, English, German, French, Italian or Spaniard, have moved on: We are European by blood and origin, but we have developed our own culture devoid of the petty bickering of old Europa. We are White Australians, we are White Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders and South Africans. We are White Racial Loyalists.

Each of our one-time Colonial White Nations has our own unique culture. If you know your history, it should be no surprise that the cultures of our independent nations are more alike – we can relate more to each other than we can anywhere in Europe.

We do recognise that White Racial Socialism is good for the Nation State/White Racial State … along with small government, restrained capitalism for big-business, the right to work to build a home and keep what you earn, and naturally, a totally restructured tax system.

And yet, for some strange reason, the majority of Australians and Americans – by far the two largest and closest groups – tend to ignore all that is great in their own cultures and dwell on rehashing the Fascism and National Socialism of a hundred years ago. And seriously … what the hell for?

For a few, I admit, it’s a genuine admiration – and here I’m talking about the genuine activists. For that few, it’s their way of life. Whether or not they are genuinely Fascists or National Socialists, only those few can really say. Regardless of their chosen label, what I do know is that they are genuine White Racial Activists whose only care is the here and now, and what is coming tomorrow.


As for the remainder … they’re nothing but larping hobbyists who wouldn’t know the RaHoWa if a nigger bit them on the arse.

We are not retrograde Nazis or Fascists. Nor do we ask you to become retro Nazis of Fascists. The times have moved on. We have moved on. We are modern White Revolutionaries. In the words, Ben Klassen, “We neither want to impress you nor entertain you. We want to inspire you to become a Militant Activist.”

Recognise, understand and accept your own culture. There is absolutely no shame in being Australian or American. It is who we are. Learn from the mistakes of others. Don’t rehash the past, seize today. Australians, wake up and become Militant White Australian Activists. Americans, New Zealanders, South Africans, Wake Up … and while old Europa continues to haggle over treaties and borders, together we can win this Racial War.


download (8)
Forget Yockey, Australia had its own genius Fascist Philosopher





I read with interest the United Nationalists Australia article on fascism, published just a few days ago. I understand it caused various commentary.

It is fair to say, with the recent Alt-Right appearance in Australia, the development of new youth organisations and with other factors in play, many younger people are pondering over fascism. Does it offer anything?

Dr. Jim Saleam

Of course, we live in a time when just about everything has been lied about by the ruling establishment, so why not fascism too? What if it was some sort of ‘answer’? Sometimes today by this new upsurge, things about fascism are said humorously, or to provoke, all of which have no real significance. However, things put forward often enough can take on a life of their own. I have come to the conclusion the matter of fascism should be broadly discussed.

The United Nationalists’ writer was quick enough to warn that the adoption of foreign ideologies in Australia can be part of a cultural cringe. Yes. And that any foreign ideology has messages that just do fit Australian realities. I could not agree more. However, if the United Nationalists article went on to make any errors in the facts, or in the interpretation of facts, it may fail to signal those warnings. I did detect a little of that, but generally, I won’t go over the ground.

Mussolini believed that rice was a better diet than pasta

I do have a bias in this discussion: my political experience has recorded many persons, claiming to act as types of Australian nationalist and who have misunderstood fascism – have gone on to personal calamities, often pulling others and groups into disaster. I have asked whether their ill fortunes were related to this initial ideological error? To say that is not unfair or unreasonable.

Over the Christmas break, I am intending a series of articles – ‘My Fascist Questions’. I hope to show how difficult the area is to traverse. I intend to relate the whole question to Australia. However, in this short entrance into the debate about fascism, I would give two examples of how fraught with problems this affair truly is.

Take One:

It has been said by some persons that historical fascism (I am referring to the period of the movements and regimes 1919 – 1945) and in particular the German version (National Socialism), was a type of pioneer ‘white nationalism” – and consequently it is relevant in some way or another to an Australian nationalist movement in the present. I would offer two quotes.

Benito Mussolini said:

“ When dealing with such a race as Slavic – inferior and barbarian – we must not pursue the carrot, but the stick, policy. We should not be afraid of new victims. The Italian border should run across the Brenner Pass, Monte Nevoso and the Dinaric Alps. I would say we can easily sacrifice 500,000 barbaric Slavs for 50,000 Italians.”

Adolf Hitler was very detailed (I have edited the section from his Mein Kampf to be consistent with the current subject):

“….we National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre-War period. …. we break off the colonial and commercial policy of the pre-War period and shift to the soil policy of the future.

If we speak of soil in Europe today, we can primarily have in mind only Russia and her vassal border states.

Here Fate itself seems desirous of giving us a sign. By handing Russia to Bolshevism, it robbed the Russian nation of that intelligentsia which previously brought about and guaranteed its existence as a state. For the organisation of a Russian state formation was not the result of the political abilities of the Slavs in Russia, but only a wonderful example of the state-forming efficacity of the German element in an inferior race. ….. Lower nations led by Germanic organisers and overlords have more than once grown to be mighty state formations and have endured as long as the racial nucleus of the creative state race maintained itself.

Impossible as it is for the Russian by himself to shake off the yoke of the Jew by his own resources, it is equally impossible for the Jew to maintain the mighty empire forever. He himself is no element of an organisation, but a ferment of decomposition. The Persian empire in the east is ripe for collapse. And the end of Jewish rule in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a state. ……”

If Hitler was alive today he would be head of the UN Human Rights Commission

The problem with these assessments is that the Italian and German leaders were asserting that the Slavic third of the white race was “inferior” to their peoples. How are we to deal with that? I would doubt that any Australian nationalist or patriot could draw any sustenance from such a position. How would it be relevant to Australia? If we stripped all the European history out of it, we are still left with the single core idea that one-third of the white race is “inferior” to the remainder. Can that really mean that historical fascism was a ‘white nationalism’?

download (7)
Lída Baarová, the “subhuman” Slavic goddess that Hitler’s propaganda minister drooled over

Of course, we could conclude fascism had ideas around it, which must have arisen from somewhere, that we do not approve of. So, how do we cherry-pick if we were minded to? And once we accept this or reject that, it becomes very messy indeed. What if there is some odd fellow who actually swallows the thing whole and says it might have been a valid notion? And where would that lead him – to an odd history club?

Or might it be that my Take One is evidence to support the notion we act as Australians only, with an Australian cause? Yet, there’s more.

Take Two:

The United Nationalists article gave a bit of stick to Francis Parker Yockey, a post-war writer, sometimes called a neo-fascist. In point, he might have been called in aid of the writer’s argument.

Yockey wrote in his book, Imperium (1948):

“The first concept in order is Race.  The materialistic race-thinking of the 19th century had particularly heavy consequences for Europe when it was coupled with one of the early 20th century movements of Resurgence of  Authority. Any excrescence of theoretical equipment on a political movement is a luxury, and the Europe of 1933–2000 can afford none such. Europe has paid dearly for this Romantic concern with old-fashioned racial theories, and they must be destroyed. “

“The racial snobbery of the 19th century was intellectual, and its adoption in a too-narrow sphere by the Resurgence of Authority in Europe between the first two World Wars was a grotesquerie.

Francis Parker Yockey was that rare thing: a genius

Yockey, who had a lot to do with survivors of the fascist period in Germany, Italy, France and Britain, many of whom changed their minds or developed out their views on these very issues, had his views informed accordingly: they concluded and he followed on, that there was something not quite right with the racial ideologies of the fascist parties and states and in the practice of these states in the invasion of Russia, I would mention to my readers that this history can be found in Kevin Coogan, Dreamer Of The Day: Francis Parker Yockey And The Post War Fascist International. It is a massive subject.

So what do we do now? Is this post-war view of the participants correct? Or is the former view the right one? Is the history already beyond us? How does it all advance an Australian movement?

I should add Yockey’s comment in 1952 on the evolution of Russia away from the nexus between a section of Jewry and communism, the very thing that bedevilled the fascists in the earlier period:

“Russia’s break with Jewry marks the beginning of the end of Bolshevism. It is called forth by the true, religious Russia, which abhors politics and technics, and which has been dominated by Petrinism and Moscovite Bolshevism alike. Of course, this break was only a beginning, but the final, inner collapse of Bolshevism is unavoidable. The possibility-indeed, I must say, the inevitability of the destruction of Bolshevism by the true Russia is posited in Imperium.”

Today’s Conclusion

An Australian nationalist movement can and should base itself upon historical facts and appreciating how the present world came into being is part of that. Consequently, a discussion of fascism is part of our knowledge-seeking. Equally, we live in the age of the population-food crisis, of refugee wanderings, of immigration invasions, of the rise of Chinese imperialism and the crisis of New World Order capitalism. So, where each historical discussion fits with deriving answers to these historical problems, will be the crucial thing.

I would conclude here today with a provocative quote from none other than Sir Oswald Mosley, whose name has come up often in the new fascist debate. Of course, there are two Mosleys – the 1930’s leader of the British Union of Fascists and the leader of Union Movement founded in 1947. He was rather critical of his past and fascism’s past and he said: “fascism is  a corpse regardless of how cleverly it has been embalmed.”

Will that be our finding? Or will it be that some things are in fact cherry-picked, not by men, but by deep historical forces and if anything contains even a scintilla of virtue, it is indeed passed on? Let us begin this dialogue!

The ultimate symbol of Australian Nationalism



If there is one current fad which has us scratching our heads it is the infatuation some so-called Nationalists have developed for the now anachronistic and ideologically compromised political movements of the 20th century.

We have repeatedly pointed out the “cultural cringe” and creeping universalism implied by adherence to this mindset, or sub-culture, if you will.

Let us be clear from the beginning: Fascism, National Socialism and their variants run in direct opposition to the ideals and goals of contemporary Australian White Nationalism; the NS imperialism, geopolitical ambition and toxic racial doctrine should exclude those schools of thought from serious discussions of Australian identity, independence and freedom.

As we have been at pains to point out, the lot of antipodean White Nationalists in the early 21st century must be that of the anti-colonial partisan; the anti-capitalist worker’s advocate; the community support group of a shamed and demoralised ethnic minority.

Ecce Homo

This conclusion should be obvious to all people sympathetic to the cause of White survival; as recent events have shown, globalist capitalism and corporate cosmopolitanism have captivated an overwhelming majority of our folk, with a sizeable minority also falling into the ideologically impotent and politically useless Conservative category.

The tendency for some Dinky-Di intellectuals to pine for a Europe they never knew, mimic political theories which were never part of our cultural landscape and imagine some primal kinship with the races of the global North risks heaping further insult upon injuries to the national psyche

Let us be clear from the beginning: Fascism, National Socialism and their variants run in direct opposition to the ideals and goals of contemporary Australian White Nationalism; the NS imperialism, geopolitical ambition and toxic racial doctrine should exclude those schools of thought from serious discussions of Australian identity, independence and freedom.

The 1933-45 era was great if you were a German, up to a point, but bad luck if you were a Pole, a Russian or a Frenchman; a Norwegian, a Yugoslav or a Greek.

Given that from the gold rush era onward White Australia has been shaped by the interactions, intermarriage and cross cultural collaborations of it’s blueprint ethnic groups we ought to laugh in the face of Fascist universalism and its risible racial theories.

Low rent boys and their sputtering Hate Bus

That we count as kin the descendants of those regarded as subhumans by the defunct authoritarian regimes of middle Europe should render any discussion of Neo-Fascism as a pathway to national rebirth liable to be, rightly, howled down by true patriots.

The very idea of modern Australian Nationalism is to get away from the morass of the past and to forge a unique, vibrant and progressive White culture free from the hereditary privilege, political instability and tedious ethnic squabbles of central Europe.

Let us make the Nationalist position even clearer, nobody out there in the East-Coast urban jungles, which hold 75% of our population, even knows, much less cares about Evola, or Rosenberg, Hitler, Yockey, Rockwell nor any of the long dead legends of the authoritarian, northern hemisphere’s past.

The 1933-45 era was great if you were a German, up to a point, but bad luck if you were a Pole, a Russian or a Frenchman; a Norwegian, a Yugoslav or a Greek.

In the era of trash culture and the consensual hallucination of cyberspace it is enough of a struggle to gain recognition among White Australians of our own pantheon of intellectual and political legends of the 20th century; who were, after all, our own people working in the interests of our own nation.

Alfred Rosenberg: blame him for the self-conscious, Hamster wheel futility of modern neo-Fascism

Neo-Nazism, if true to its roots, logically has no room for national identity outside some universal, global village of suitably Nordic Europids; we in the diaspora might just as well adopt Islam or become part of the European Union, they being the path of least resistance to the same overall outcome of a homogenized “Ummah” living in the new age of semi-divine authority imagined by these intellectuals.

Grow up, take some ownership of YOUR past while casting an eye to YOUR future; Neo-Fascism and idolatry of it’s founding prophets is not only a cultural cringe, it is morbid, especially in light of the fact that the heroes of White Australia largely succeeded in achieving their goals, in-extremis might we add; meanwhile the leading Fascists were dancing the “Tyburn Jig” in the rubble of their own creations.




For reasons that make no sense to us, the entire text for this entry has vanished off WordPress. The Ed-in-chief assumes it is a vagary with a tablet app connected to WordPress which is an awful bastard of a thing. However, the text can be read at the Australia First Party website by clicking THIS link.