With recent events involving the provocative National Socialist Network, we’ve noticed that the enablers of this anti-Nationalist movement have taken to applying a generality. To whit, they keep referring to ‘Nationalists’ when discussing neo-Nazis and ‘others’. They do it deliberately. Why bother, it’s just a term?
But that’s not the case, a Nationalist is distinctive and has a determined set of qualities.
The worst of these is the fake political site XYZ. Their idea of a Nationalist is anything from a National Socialist to a Christian Democrat. They’re unwilling to respect territory in this matter, and if that sounds petty, it’s not since Nationalists have long struggled for a precise definition of who we are and what we’re about. Nathan Sykes, a longterm Australian Nationalist and NAB contributor was so irritated by this he wrote a book defining Australian Nationalism. They won’t read it. They wouldn’t understand it. They would consider it irrelevant since it cancels them out as having any right to characterise themselves as Nationalists.
XYZ does not appear anywhere in acknowledged Nationalists circles. It is neither read (rather surveilled) by us, and it does not represent us, understand us, or in any way attempt to include us. Yet, it happily applies the word Nationalist to any group that has an interest in a pro-White position. It can only be doing this to appropriate the word to misconstrue what it represents. They are defiling it.
An Australian Nationalist is first-and-foremost Australian. An Australian is White, that much is true. From there, everything else follows. This means that we do not accept any foreign influence, we do not advocate for foreign persuasions, and we celebrate an identity that is distinctively Australian. We have a history and we’re proud of it. That forms the basis of our heritage and future direction, not the Third Reich.
Contrarily, these guys don’t discriminate. They will accept those who promote the idea that Australia is somehow British, that Lauren Southern speaks for Australians, that neo-Nazis fundamentally share the same principles with us. Their web crawler of issues includes any sort of conspiracy theory, any conservative prejudice, and without any discernment or effort made to ensure that views expressed accord with the Nationalist philosophy, which has a long heritage in this country.
We regard XYZ as the enemy for good reasons. Not too far back in our memory, one of their contributors referred to “nativist savages.” Seriously. That’s like a socialist writer arguing that socialists are all ‘Marxist scum.’ That’s the unbelievability of it.
When the news broke about Thomas Sewell and his alleged assault on a black security guard, they chose to go down the path of unconditional support, regardless of the damage that he has done all of us via both his youth group and his actions. He has a long history of queering the Nationalist brand.
They have, since 2019 (that we’ve been able to trace) given a platform to this renegade. Or state-shill, we can’t make up our minds which he is.
Now, they’re arguing his ‘innocence’ despite the fact of his footage of the event making that implausible. He is not potentially guilty, as far as a magistrate or jury will be concerned, but SO guilty. Not only did he do this stupid thing, but he then gave an interview to ACA which, again, he uploaded to his Telegram account, ranting and carrying on about how the NSN had been misrepresented as terrorists.
And, naturally, he began foaming at the mouth about the “Jew media”, which is the best way possible to negate your credibility. Newsflash, Thomas, the media has always been scum. Always been a tool for the elites and the forces hostile to Nationalism. Long before any Jewish influence was brought to sway in this country. It suffices to say “Media scum” and leave it that.
We like to keep a sense of objectivity to what we do, as much as we can be being, as we are, partisan. Nevertheless. If he was innocent, we’d say so, even though we are hypercritical of the path he’s taken, and dragged others along on. But they never actually called them terrorists, even though Monday’s report was misleading. However, it was misleading in other ways. It’s pretty hard to misrepresent the NSN when they’re chanting “KU KLUX KLAN” and “HEIL HITLER” and burning a cross in a supposedly “pagan” ritual.
None of the above has anything whatsoever to do with Australian Nationalism, Australian culture or Australian identity. None. Moreover, even if does view NSN as some kind of ‘youth wing’, then it is out there operating without the guidance of a parent political organisation.
The NSN members’ material is very loose on policy and solely preoccupied with activist advice, guides on propaganda, but nothing that offers anything but the most cliched White Nationalist kind of rhetoric, which fails any test of substance.
Yet, XYZ would rather champion this destructive force, uncritically, and with a dangerous toadying that almost supports the theory that they are a state operation.
Tom Sewell has never uttered the name of a single Australian Nationalist hero. Just Adolf-bloody-Hitler. Fuck Adolf Hitler, he was a Kraut, not an Aussie. He was pretty damned far from being a great man in any other sense than his genius at marketing himself to the German people. His actions caused the downfall of European civilisation. His preoccupation was not ‘the White race’ as has been misrepresented so often, but the German people. He killed Whites for crying out loud. And again, he had nothing whatsoever to do with Australia. He was happy to toss us to the Japanese.
There was a time when XYZ would never have published anything so unabashedly pro-White. They started as typical conservatives. Then, lo-and-behold, they grew ‘edgier’ as if trying to appeal rather than communicate. It’s always suspect when either a group or organisation does that.
The most frustrating thing about these galahs is that they’ll do everything but become Nationalists. They’d rather steal the name than submit themselves to its rules.
So, a challenge has been issued to Tom Sewell to debate Australia First President Jim Saleam. No reply. We expected none. He’d be out of his league. But so, now, we extend one to XYZ. If they wish to persist in misusing the word Nationalism, then let’s have a live-streamed discussion about the word’s meaning. Let’s rumble. Let’s go to the mat.
What do you say, Hiscox? Or won’t your handlers let you? Inbox us at Newaustralianbulletin@protonmail.com and we’ll tee it up. Let’s rock.
Click Link to purchase. And LEARN
Why should Hitler support Australia against Japan ? It was Australia that declared war on Germany not the other way around. In 1939 Poland was invaded by 2 other countries – Germany and the Soviet Union. Poland was partitioned according to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Why did Australia go to war against Hitler but not Stalin even though he did the same thing ? In May 1941 Hitler offered to withdraw all German troops from France, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Greece and Yugoslavia in return for peace with the British Empire. He also offered a ceasefire in North Africa. Britain would suffer no territorial loss or occupation. Hitler wanted to concentrate on fighting Stalin and Soviet communism. So the British Empire including Australia could have withdrawn from the war and let the 2 dictators battle it out. But Churchill rejected this peace offer. So Australia had to keep fighting Germany and Italy even though they had no designs on this country. Then in November 1941 the HMAS Sydney was sunk with all hands. The following month Australia was at war with Japan a nation that did have designs on this country. Yet Australia’s best battleship was on the bottom of the ocean because the glorified drunk Churchill refused to make a negotiated peace. And he ended up stabbing the Poles in the back by agreeing to Stalin taking over all of Poland in 1945. So the claimed reason for going to war – maintaining Polish independence – was a lie. World War 2 isn’t as black and white as you make it out to be.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?t=10192
Hitler made an agreement with Chamberlain not to make any further demands on Europe after being granted the Sudetenland. Then he invaded Poland. You get a pretty good idea of how serious he was about honouring agreements at that point. Chamberlain gave him concessions and Hitler laughed in his face. One only has to read Mein Kampf to have understood Hitler’s intentions, he laid it all out. It’s astonishing that Stalin hadn’t figured it out, but he too would be duped. There is NO WAY Hitler would’ve withdrawn from anywhere and your understanding of Hitler is tarnished.
The question of Britain’s involvement was paramount. This was the last gasp of empires and Churchill could read the writing on the wall where the appeasers couldn’t. Would Hitler have stood for a contract of peace with Churchill if the situation were reversed under the same conditions — if given his track record of promises he wasn’t likely to be confident about ‘promises’ — or would he have seen what that ‘settlement’ amounted to? What if Hitler had died and his successor had very different ideas about England? You were expecting the one man who felt the burden of defending his glorious empire resting on his shoulder to hand that empire away? Making ANY negotiation with Hitler would have amounted to a surrender of status. Would you have wished him to put his nation and its territorial assets at the whim of Hitler whose whims were capricious and subject to the volatility of his personality? Put aside your prejudices on the matter and place yourself in his shoes, not your shoes looking back, and the answer given his nature, given the pride of the English people, and he would not do so.
Menzies brought Australia into the war, the nationalist prime minister who followed him, John Curtin, had been a long advocate of non-involvement. However, it wasn’t as simple as that for Curtin either since Australia’s geographical protection was at that point reliant on the British empire.
Churchill held a powerful guilt about Poland but his hands were tied. With the ‘big three’, himself, Stalin and Roosevelt, requiring Russia’s involvement in war, and Russia fighting the lion’s share at the point, he was hardly in a position to start a feud over Poland.
You call Churchill a drunk and overlook the quantity of drugs that Hitler was ingesting [Read Blitzed by Norman Ohler]. So much so, he wouldn’t leave the Wolf’s Lair or after that the Bunker. Churchill, for all his drunkenness, as you say, his age, his heart condition, and the dangers he was in flew across skies held by the Luftwaffe, and sailed across the Atlantic. He did all these things. Much more heroic than what Hitler did.
Having said, we’re AUSTRALIAN Nationalists and we wouldn’t have come in on the side of England or anyone else. You have failed to grasp that Hitler considered Australia of no consequence, hence his remarks about Japan and Asians overwhelming us. We would not be very happy to be speaking Japanese right now.
History is more complex than you’re trying to reduce it to just to cling to a myth about Hitler you’ve bought into knowing no better. I don’t say that with any patronising intent, either. And do forgive subsequent edits because I have rotten eyesight and I can barely read this text window to make changes.