A reader recently linked us to a prosaic article written by a self-identifying ‘National Socialist’ group.
This group is, as we understand from those who’ve been connected to it, comprised of kids, and one elder. These kids are primarily “internet geeks” (actual quote) who “bicker like schoolgirls” (another actual quote).
Thus far, they’ve made all the mistakes of an extreme-right association, and have lately set themselves up as a lovechild of ASIO and Morry Schwartz. By that, we mean they’ve handed the state the NS bogey they would otherwise have had have invented. We can’t be sure they didn’t invent this lot.
With the author’s selectively interpretative history of the Australia First Movement, they have also signalled their intention to take an adversarial position to established nativists and yet subvert that history for their ends.
The fact they feel the need to do so is telling since it spells a crisis within its organisational structure and indeed suggests its very foundation is being questioned by those within the group. Are they seeking now to convert to nativism, and if so, do they hope to ‘take it over’? It will never happen. Are they threatened by us? They are perfectly entitled to do whatever they want so long as they do not stain us.
Firstly, no one in their right mind would have anything to do with these post-teen braggadocios. The time is perfectly wrong to align oneself anything professing to be Hitlerist, and carrying on wilfully oblivious to the danger that the state poses. None has ever been targeted by the state, which suggests they are being allowed the rope they need to hang themselves and everyone else connected to them. They are not political, not even in the ‘publicist’ sense of the original AFP under Miles and Stephensen which they invoke for their specious exegesis.
They have spelt honeytrap from the beginning, and have looked, sounded, and acted as such. Now they’re doing the one thing that nativist history has catalogued diligently, they are attempting to appropriate our history and landscape, all-be-it without appeasing the essential topography of a nativist organisation. Be it Jack Van Tongeren, the Australian Protectionist Party, or Party for Freedom — or the many others who’ve filched from our heritage — time and again we’ve faced down these charlatans and won. It’s something we’re well experienced at.
We have no interest in addressing their screed point by point, we don’t have to, as it’s a subject we at NAB have covered often and our writings can be found in our archives. But in a general statement, we can say that any attempt to suggest that National Socialism had its native protagonists is to misunderstand the history of those nativist heroes, to rely on a limited source of information, and to fail the test of textual analysis. We base that on the necessary definition of National Socialism. What do they mean by it? The question could just as easily be asked reflecting on Percy “Inky” Stephensen — what did he mean by it? More to the point, what would it look like? This last question, we suspect, is the true concern of these kids.
National Socialism was not a McDonald’s franchise, any more than Communism. It didn’t come with regulation burgers, fries and thick shakes, you could find uniformly the world over. And there was only one national example of the cult at play on a historical and state scale — Nazi Germany! That didn’t end well, and really, it never would have since it was a flawed system from the top down.
Inky could not have known this at the time he was admiring it from afar, in an age where information moved at a different pace and in a more primitive medium than nowadays. He was observing what little he could while it was happening, through eyes focused to the light of the times, and with much naivete about what was going on. In many ways, attitudes to Germany were sympathetic back then, as many from the victors’ side were ashamed of the Treaty of Versailles and the unreasonable conditions imposed on Germany, largely due to the French.
Stephensen experimented with communism at one time, and in his nativist journey, harboured esoteric ideas regarding Aborigines, their relevance to a newfound nativist culture, and even anthropological notions. He meant well, but we won’t be reviving them. Yes, he had enthusiasms in spades, that’s for sure! No pun intended.
It was inevitable that he would brook National Socialism at this point in history. After all, the labor movement (sic) that is just as integral to our nativist history embraced socialism. Or, did they. It was never quite correct to say they did. The intellectuals of the Labor party certainly did. But these were educated men removed from the workers who understood socialism mainly in terms of what was right and fair. As much was once observed by a visiting foreign socialist party dignitary.
Tenets of National Socialism are undeniably evident in our platform and they very well know it. But not German National Socialism: not boots and caps and a carefully ordered punitive mechanism. Not the fetishist objects which they attach themselves to, with their salutes, and their ‘leader’ notions, the obligatory symbols et al. The Fifty Points for Australia, P.R. Stephensen’s exposition for a nationalist, post-war Australia has nothing in common with Mein Kampf. This might disappoint those kids, but again, remember we’re talking about lads who, when 9/11 happened, were having their Huggies changed by their well-to-do mummies. They have so much to learn.
Australians do not follow an authoritarian mindset: quite the opposite. More to the point, nor would have Inky, and nor did he for that matter.
Today’s Australia First Party looks to the past with an eye to the future, as do all nativists. This does not imply that nationalists would treat the past so reverentially as to be unable to discern its anachronisms. We are not atavists, but we have a tradition from which to move. It’s only a tradition because we choose to call it such; strictly speaking, it’s a prototype. It was never alive long enough nor did it evolve to be considered in terms of possessing the traits of a tradition.
If these young lads are intending to make an argument out of purist construal of history then they should be mindful of White Australia’s other examples, all of which are encompassed in today’s nativist church. They would do well to understand contradictions, as well. For instance, the author of the article we refer to made no mention of the fact that William Miles, the financier of The Publicist, was a monarchist, aside from being a nationalist; a genuine paradox that he nonetheless reconciled.
And, if the author is who we think he is, then he should be reminded by his failure to heed from nativists. For instance, the head of the Lads Society had been warned about Mark McDonald, a provocateur and agent. Out of spite, he pardoned him (which he was not entitled to do) by making the rat his No.2 in Sydney. And what did McDonald make of it? There was no cohesiveness in the Lads Society at all: it was a polyglot of conservatives, civic patriots, and Hollywood National Socialists, who did not gel. From what we understand, the Sydney boys couldn’t even get it together to sweep the floor of their premises or clean the toilet. Half-chewed kebabs could be found discarded about the ‘clubhouse’, and Mark McDonald jealously guarded the computer against prying eyes. What was he doing on there?
Out of this failure, some of them spring again, anew, into their third guise; others have left behind the Antipodeans. This time, they are hell-bent on owning the National Socialist tag. Let them have it since it’s never done any Australian any good. If they knew the history of its various semblances, they would comprehend that Australian National Socialism under Arthur Smith etc was an anti-communist entity. The showmanship aspect of wearing the Nazi costume was popular at the time, but nobody is wearing it now, and some, like Arthur Smith and George Lincoln Rockwell, tired of its gimmickry. In the latter case, it cost him his life.
Attempting to be clever by trying to split historical hairs has, in this case, led merely to a disingenuous argument. We can wed the words ‘national’ and ‘socialism’ together and in a sociological sense argue that nationalism is that thing under that very name. But that’s not what this is about.
This is about justifying the pursuit of a foreign cult with the persuasion of sophistry.
We know our history, and we grasp it gratefully. We have had Inky and others to pave a path for us, but it was not the final path, merely the first block. We take from him and we learn.
Our nationalism is about the Australian people, our independence, our freedom from debt, our right to self-determination as unique people of the white race. We cannot fight for American whites or European whites, but we can ready ourselves for our struggle. We have yet to establish what our culture is in a holistic sense, but as Inky wrote in his Fifty Points for Australia, “for Australian culture; against imitativeness”, implies an obligation upon all Australian individuals, whether as private citizens or as components of the Government, to foster the growth of a distinctive National Australian culture in Australia as a means of preventing intellectual and biological decline; for a nation without pride in its traditions could not endure, and it is the distinctiveness of culture and custom which differentiates one nation from another, and thus creates National Unity, National consciousness, the prerequisite of National Survival.”
Hear hear! Aside from German National Socialism of the last century, that also means not touching Abo culture with a tentpole, which was something in Percy’s early years he had considered. For to do so would be in contradiction to everything he said, since Aboriginals are not our people, they were merely the pedestrians present when Europeans arrived.
In summing up, when our interlocular opened up his argument on the premise that ‘national socialism’ is indeed native, he did so, tellingly, to preserve the very foreign brand he went on to argue — via historical snippets — is valid. This is because those kids we mentioned want to keep, as their generation terms it, larping.
Far from bearing any resemblance to the Australia First Party Inky had started, these lads belong more to a twisted Dead Poets Society. They’re kids from middle-class backgrounds in a strict fraternity that is preserved via its youthful prejudices. One of those is an opposition to the wisdom of elders, which they despise; an expression of their belated teenage rebellion. Therefore, it is remarkable that they reference Inky. Our nationalism is for ALL Australians who can learn it, it is not age-exclusive nor elitist, or class conscious. Most certainly it is not a subculture such as theirs.
Yet, who knows what theirs is since they haven’t even a written platform. They’ve cobbled together a blog with particular points they’ve lifted from various sources, but nothing to answer a nation; their rhetoric exists just to unify a small clique of snarky white boys who have convinced themselves they’re a cut above the rest.
They should be more worried about the history concerning groups like theirs, who controls them, and whereabouts they end up. For, as we’ve said previously if their model is to count for anything then they must move outside the law and gain some credibility by attacking the system. We’ve noted they fancy that their selfies of themselves with their derivative flag, and posting up stickers around town constitutes a commitment to the cause the rest of us are too callow to demonstrate. The level of denial in that belief is proof enough of their triviality, but until they step outside of their chat groups and picnics in the woods to do what they say they will diminish by the hour.
In short, they are damned if they do and destined for obscurity if they don’t. So, pardon us if we take their latest shot with a level of amusement. We’ve seen it all before, and from sturdier foes than them. They would be more advised to learn from nativists than in trying to overtake us, which they will never achieve. After all, we’re not the enemy, unless we are, in which case that says even more about them.