52 min 4 mths

The minute you stand up and say ‘What that group is doing is wrong,’ a great deal of criticism is thrown at you. It’s very hard, especially for young people, to stand up against that. When you’ve reached a certain age, you’ve got a thick enough skin and you’ve been attacked and demonised so many times, you say, ‘I don’t care anymore, I will simply tell the truth and I don’t care if it annoys people or not.’ The truth is there and people deserve a chance to listen to it.

Nick Griffin

The media are trying to alienate us Nazis from the general public.

Jim Roberts (NSN), Telegram

Boomers tell me all the time to “be careful, all it takes is one lunatic to do something stupid and you will be locked up forever.”

Thomas Sewell, NSN leader

Browsing the National Socialist Network’s web of Telegram channels begs equanimity. You’ll not be enlightened by their politics because they have none; at least none that is theirs: it’s all someone else’s. Indeed, perusing their propaganda enlightens you more about them. It’s littered with memes and semi-literate editorials from the Iron March School of “It’s The Jews, Stupid.”

          The foremost refrain is themselves—how they are the courageous, strong “Nazi” warriors struggling against ‘the system’—the corrupt “Jew” out to destroy the White race—and stressing solidarity in the ‘resistance.’ The agitprop is augmented by the news of the day—trans perversion, immigration, non-White crime, anti-White bias and social injustices—along with offerings from ‘identities’ affiliated with their group.

Attention is paid to monitoring how the government frames them, and the political actors they fixate on. Their shares on that subject are the most interesting, however, they still amount to self-absorption. Moreover, their fixation on “Jew media bias” fails to register how they go out of their way to not just court the profiling, but transactionally adopt the image. Oh, and they unironically call themselves “Nazis” or perhaps they’re just aping George Lincoln Rockwell (again). Regardless.

All of this reminds the disciple of the gravity of their mission. Idealising the physical, they reject thinkers as weak and a burden on their heroic and masculine vision of a brave new social order. Except, their vision is a self-parody. It is one-dimensional chauvinism in the custom of so much that came before. Members receive their leader’s philosophical shares with obligatory panegyrics as if the Fuhrer himself were speaking. The phatic functions of their content are quasi-religious. Stripped of bravado, the cumulative semiotics is deistic. The overall coding is millenarian: The addressee of their messages is brought down, driven to anger, but evangelically uplifted with the promise of the Nazis’ divine intervention.

In this ASIO-monitored academy for indoctrinating disenfranchised young White lads, sophistication warrants suspicion. These are not political protagonists but a subculture unified over mainstays of meat-and-potato White Nationalism (Only Leftist commentators like Jeff Sparrow have a vested interest in allowing them the dignity of designating them as serious fascists). It’s an adamantine formula—not axiomatically—but because it ropes in the less acculturated traveller. Recruits become a caricature, not an individual. Don’t think, just do. The fraternity is ritualistic. Bear in mind, successive generations keep falling for it, but where failure is a foregone conclusion, someone always benefits from dispatching recruits on an abject mission. Thus, the cycle of this cultish pathology repeats without a single deontological action.

And so, with the luminaries of the NSN, we encounter the well-worn rhetoric about the overrepresentation of Jews in the propagation of anti-White social engineering (if not the American government, corporations, and NGOs). Indeed, there are lots. Jewish gold has glinted under an aeon of treacherous moons and this revelation excites many. Jews boast of being chief among the abolitionists of European Civilization as advocates of racial replacement. Whenever a theory is proposed convicting the White race of existential abomination, inevitably they are Jewish.

It’s far from the entire picture, but a wider thesis too vast to be resolved simplistically other than by those who gain an advantage from limiting the enquiries of its adherents. This essay is not concerned with expatiating on that theme suffice to say that the trajectory of Christendom and liberalism resulted in a dialectic that equally accounts for the post-modern crash of Western society.

The more you pay for a fake artwork the less you are likely to doubt its authenticity.

The Penguin


The NSN’s myriad of Telegram channels indoctrinates the susceptible young inductee into the Hitler cult by regurgitating myths celebrating the magnificence of the Third Reich. It places him on the highest altar of White salvation. Only educated Nationalists recognise the tiresome fiction that conflates White identity entirely with Adolf Hitler.

Alternatively, the conscript learns that Bolshevism and communism were the revolutionary progeny of Jews and that Adolf Hitler’s struggle against the Jews and Communism earns him messianic reverence among the ‘awakened’ White folk of today. Except, it’s incorrect: Hitler never advocated for pan-universal Whiteness any more than the Soviet Union was a haven for plotting Jews. Communism was the Frankenstein creation that destroyed Jewry in Soviet Russia. This is a chapter of history not many learn.

As virulently an ‘anti-Semite’ as Adolf Hitler, when Iosif Vissarionovich Djugashvili eliminated the “cosmopolitans”, he did do so cunningly while appearing to embrace them. The terror surged throughout the communist nirvana. Being “Jewish” incited suspicion. After all, a Jew might be loyal to the counter-revolutionary ideal of “Jewish nationalism” ahead of the state. Stalin executed well over a million and approved the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee in which important Jews were duped or coerced into betraying other Jews (including JAC chiefs) regardless of guilt or innocence (always the latter).

Being a devout ‘Soviet’ didn’t save you either. The JAC leadership was liquidated after serving its purpose while the JAC had been dissolved in 1948. Stalin wasn’t exterminating British or American “spies” he was eradicating Jews from Soviet life. He died after concocting one of the most notable purges of Jews in living memory.

Stalin prevented Trotsky from filling the politburo exclusively with Jews. His pogrom against the detested Jewry culminated in the ‘Doctor’s Plot’ trials and continued until the day he died. Despite communist rhetoric about crushing the very idea of nationhood in favour of a worker’s state, Stalin’s—and for that matter, all—permutations of communism were fundamentally nationalistic in practice. The NSN might just as well call themselves communists if their one goal is to combat Jewry. And their emphasis on “the virtues of labour” and how it brings about superior physicality fits nicely with the communist myth. “Intellectualism” in the USSR was exclusively at the service of the party.

Inconvenient lessons about the history they’ve selected to exemplify their pneuma are either unexplored or ignored. For instance, National Socialist theorist Alfred Rosenberg discredited the idea that National Socialism is universally adaptable when he counselled other countries to adopt measures “compatible with the national character and traditions of such a country,” basically telling them to buzz off.

He refuted that National Socialism could translate to the people of any nation but Germany. Rosenberg insisted that to attempt to copy Germany would be “futile” and “improper” and hammered the point, adding, “National Socialism is wholly and entirely German.”

As for the dream that if Hitler were resurrected, he would levitate above the NSN and bless them for their fealty to his legacy—that’s highly unlikely. The Fuhrer’s attitude to Australia was concerned exclusively with the fate of the approximately 60,000 Germans facing the indignity of “being under the control of a yellow race,” as Japan advanced southward toward us. Ideas were tabled, like those in the Kloss Report, circulated among relevant ministries during 1943-44, which recommended resettling the German population in a “depopulated” Tasmania. He meant the depopulation of Australians.

Worth heeding also is a report by Sydney’s German Consul Dr Rudolf Asmis drafted in 1935 but quoted only later in the Kloss Report in 1942 titled Australian Aboriginal Policy, in which he sneered, “If ever the day comes when Australia has to open its doors to mass immigration of the yellow peoples, whether by peaceful negotiation, or as a consequence of a military attack, then this will be the retribution for the unscrupulous extermination of the population of a continent, undertaken intentionally or tolerated, by the English, and the Australians, since they began their occupation.”

That sentiment sounds familiar although we tend to attribute it elsewhere.

Furthermore, a quote in the admittedly apocryphal Testament. While it’s widely believed to be either a forgery or simply doctored, it’s also said to accurately represent Hitler’s attitude to us: “The descendants of the convicts in Australia should inspire in us nothing but a feeling of supreme indifference.”

With friends like that who needs enemies? After all, Hitler slaughtered Slavs much to the disgust of his generals on the scandalous pretext of them being “subhuman.” These are fellow Whites. This is not a creed any proud Australian Nationalist would worship.


Given how we Australian Nationalists and those Nazi admirers are at such variances it is offensive and infuriating to learn the latter have appropriated the title “Nationalist.”

They do so, in part, because they are provocateurs. We don’t mean political agitators but sectaries stirring the social pot—not as bona fide revolutionaries—but to increase their public profile. If victory were achieved from surprising quarters, they’d not be pleased. What motivates them is being celebrated as champions of an epic campaign. They covet martyrdom and glory, in a fight where, despite the warning of all the foul fate befalling them, none is on offer. If they don’t win the hypothetical victory, it’s not worth celebrating.

A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. One could argue this caveat applies to them. Yet, the White Nationalist struggle has changed strategies only to end up back where it started. It has taken the mainstream road of appealing to respectability, but any ground gained was quickly lost. Nothing they propose, do or brainstorm is or will be original. They are treading over the same old ground while scoffing at any admonitions offered by those whom they deem to be has-beens and failures. By doing so, they are being guided by the “invisible hand” that seeks to divide them into a parallel stream against us.

Our enemies have had too long to develop strategies for thwarting dissidence, and if only the NSN’s cadre understood they are unwitting pawns in that tried and tested strategy the shock of irony would be overwhelming.

But that concussion would not be deeply felt because they are too insulated in their cult for reality to stun them. Their “leader” has an answer for any misfortune or defeat, and it entails proclaiming the former as success and the latter as a victory. But we live in a world where delusion and denial are the norms.

Consequently, the NSN’s dirty tricks department attempts to insinuate their group into organisations such as The Australian Natives Association with aggressive self-serving interpretations of the original Australian Nationalist movement, in which they wield their conclusions to try and invalidate nativism to assimilate it into NSN leader Thomas Sewell’s fantasy of his procrustean rule.

They cite quotations and accounts of historical Australian figures that one of them has dug up like Charlie waving his gold ticket to the chocolate factory—insisting their findings amount to incontrovertible proof that those revered men of the Australia First Movement were in actuality loyal to their conception of National Socialism.

This is their strategy for justifying an intrusion into groups that have—and want—no part of their toxicity. It is how they spuriously lay claim to our heritage and appropriate it as if to say: since your ‘Nationalist’ heroes were National Socialists then, ipso facto, we are the real nationalists. According to them, nearly 50 years of activism with its attendant studies, interviews with those men, and exhaustive research are false. All of the theorizing by better minds than theirs is flawed because of their precocious ego combined with unearthing a particular page from a history book. Maybe they just read a quote shared on social media.

Bear in mind, Sewell and his NSN are the first to cry foul when they’re called out or analysed, but they go about haunting other groups—embedding themselves on their social media assets and disrupting their business whenever the opportunity offers itself.


We must disabuse the initiate of the notion that Australian Nationalist heroes were ‘National Socialists’ in the vogue of pre-WWII Germany. Those we honour may have flirted with their impressions of what the NSDAP represented. So had those who intersect with Australian Nationalists but weren’t themselves such a species.

Eric Campbell, the reactionary leader of the New Guard, sought a ‘racial fascism.’ In the end, he established working ties with the “kosher fascists” of Oswald Moseley’s British Union of Fascists. Upon his return from touring Europe, he introduced a loosely ‘fascist’ uniform to the rank and file and adopted the ‘Roman’ salute. Yet, this didn’t sit well with his followers and before long he was banished to obscurity.

          Archconservative Robert Menzies paid lip service to revitalised Germany but characterized Hitler as a “dreamer” and couldn’t decide whether he was a “real German patriot” or a “mad swashbuckler.” Although, he predicted the German leader would become “one of the great men of the century,” he changed his tune after Chamberlain declared war. Nonetheless, he was branded a Nazi sympathiser.

          While they are not revered by the Australian Nationalist movement newcomers are in the habit of assuming them so.

Campbell and his New Guard stood against NSW Labor Premier Jack Lang who we do regard so. Lang planned to default on the interest payments to Britain for war loans believing the money was better spent rescuing our people from the ravages of the Great Depression. NSW came within a weasel’s whisker of civil war, with the New Guard preparing to charge into battle against Lang’s “socialists” in the name of the Crown. Menzies, for his part, was also askance. He said, “Australians would be better off starving than abandoning cherished principles.”

Both sided with the Imperial Crown against a nationalist government over a debt that—like other Commonwealth countries—should’ve been waived given we were fighting England’s war, not ours. That Campbell and Menzies held so firmly to the side of the Crown over Australians immediately disqualified them from being Nationalists.

Others, like Alexander Rudd Mills, were involved with the Australia First Movement. Mills was a queer fish, so to speak.; a few French Fries short of a Happy Meal. He showed little interest in Australia and while he is associated with National Socialism, he wasn’t especially anti-Semitic. His bag was Odinism and, while he often wrote for The Publicist, he exemplified the quirky traveller that gravitated to its owner and editor, W.J. Miles and Percy Stephensen. Everyone recognises his sort and if you engage in Nationalist politics, you will meet them. They may even serve the organisation. But their presence, even contribution, don’t, by default, make them a Nationalist.

To properly understand our most celebrated—Percy Stephensen—one must think analytically as we have with Mills. Germany’s National Socialism was unfolding before him and, being a revolutionary, at first it appeared to echo the ambitions held by those who, like him, were working to define the movement. It is the difference between standing directly in front of an object and appraising it from a distance. In those passages they’ve found, they must appreciate ‘Inky’ hadn’t the benefit of hindsight, to identify the areas of incompatibility, until much later.

Overtures in The Publicist were more about thumbing their nose at Imperial Britain than supporting the Third Reich. Percy placed his Australianness ahead of any unlikely conversion to how they interpret National Socialism.  Those who invoke Stephensen as evidence of Australian ‘Nazism’ equating to Nationalism fail to research further, or else they will find Stephensen made his position clear:

“The tradition of the A.I.F. will almost certainly, I believe, defend us against the extremes of fascism should the nasty little plotters ever screw up their courage to the point of putting matters to the test. The Heil Hitler buncombe which goes with fascism will be treated in Australia with the contempt such preposterous saluting and goose-stepping deserves. The only danger is that the nation might slip into loss of individual liberty by slow degrees, or be flummoxed into it at some false crisis (such as when Premier Lang had to close the bank). It is the duty of those who can think nationally to define now clearly what is meant by Australian liberty and democracy and Australian tradition, to keep watch upon the sneaking little Fascists and bureaucrats, and keep the nation warned against them, and against all who would fetter or restrict ideas, or the flow of ideas, in the Commonwealth.”

P.R. Stephensen

In terms of numbers, those with their names on a list, and who support a cause practically, morally and financially, Australian nationalists by far surpass neo-Nazis. But it doesn’t make us “big.”

Compared to other organisations of ‘grown-ups’ banished to the system’s fringes we are outnumbered and it’s sad because our policies which separate us from, say, One Nation—are the key to a homogenous Australian nation of one people, with a set of collective values, who cooperate for a national ambition, while sharing a firm sense of our identity as Australians. But it’s defining that “identity” that sends so many into paroxysms of doubt and confusion. You can’t have two-bob each way; either you’re with the people, or you support capital. Your choice determines your identity, as evidenced by the bifurcated character of our representative parties that could only reflect authentic social reality by risking true democracy.

          Australian Nationalism is neither left nor right, and only those uninformed of what delineates the “right,” classify us as “far-right.” We’re not. Our third position is unique and hails from the Australian Laborist tradition that spawned the White Australia Policy and envisaged Australia as a European society unencumbered by the class prejudice that mired Europe and divided its nations and peoples for so long. However, having sprung “fully formed,” culturally from European Civilization, the new project of Australianness was native to the soil.

          On the other hand, those whom today we’d call “conservative,” are located centre-right. Their ideological forebears were “tory” and occupied the right-sided extremity of a scale with no precedent for their position. Their British counterparts were more liberal. They expressed zero interest in Australia outside of its resources and how it might enrich them. They viewed the “people” only in terms of how they could be exploited for their profit-generating labour. Our finest plantation region was a tropical feature of North Queensland with its sugar and tobacco trade. The owners held White workers were unsuited to the conditions. They figured the black man would make a far better worker. By hiring “blackbirders” they set about kidnapping the ‘kanakas’—Islanders from the neighbouring South Pacific—onto ships and forcing them to toil here. That company is still with us, CSR.

Plantation owners also touted bringing in massive Indian labour, which would’ve amounted to a significant Indian population settling the top end but never succeeded—until now.

          The Nationalists of the Labor Movement ended indentured labour, a testament to the fact that (outside of the heathen Chinaman), what motivated the WAP was not “hate”. They could no more bear to witness the black man’s appalling conditions than they would tolerate themselves. Although they were mindful too that the practice undermined the project of collective bargaining. Here, the “racists” of the NSN reveal their ignorance.

Perhaps the Australian Nationalist ethos is best summed up in the foreword for the third title in the John Curtin series Curtin’s Call—White Australia and European Civilization. In this collection of writings by Australia’s greatest Prime Minister, the authors state that the unashamed nationalist was, “…committed to Australia’s Immigration Restriction Act, known unofficially as the White Australia Policy. But he firmly believed in peaceful co-existence between the different races of the world. He regarded these two principles as fundamental to developing a peaceful world.”

We resent Thomas Sewell believing that year after year he can pluck away at our fibres. He is not a credible character to us; we know him too well.  We have encountered his sort before. He makes us suspicious and leads us to wonder—given his success at creating a vehicle so useful to counter-terrorism—whether his ‘project’ is being manipulated against us. We can confidently name one individual in his orbit that we’re convinced is rotten—Stefanos Eracleous, or “Medi.”

Medi is short for the handle he used over the years in his aping of Australian nationalism, Australian Meditations. Only now he’s added a “51” to connote the number of Moslems killed by rogue gunman Brenton Tarrant in Christchurch. Those numerals behave as a symbol bound to attract the wrong sort of attention but that appears to be the point. Australian Nationalism doesn’t support the actions of Brenton Tarrant. For one thing— and playing the devil’s advocate—he chose the wrong targets. If he had to martyr himself there were so many more useful ways to go about it. But then ‘Medi’ is a provocateur, like the group that he buzzes around.

Long ago he pilfered the Eureka flag, which traces directly back to the prototype-nationalist Eureka Students League in 1974-76 and was thereafter taken up by National Resistance, then finding its home with National Action. The crossover from NA to the Australia First Party means that its partisan use as a symbol of rebellion against the globalist occupation of our country spiritually remains (outside the militant unions) the property of Australian Nationalists. Given so, Medi is guilty of flagrant defilement in our eyes, using it as he does to augment a delinquent gang.

But outside random encounters, he never approached the established Australian Nationalist community except to load up on our literature. Like all millennials (and now Generation Z) he went out on his own. However, he kept the flag. Styling himself as a nativist, Medi concurrently carried on as a patriot of his native Cyprus, donning his national costume and participating in events with his community. No Nationalist splits his loyalties like that, it stands to reason. Either he’s an Australian Nationalist or he’s a patriotic Greek Cypriot. You can, of course, hold dual sympathies but Medi collects specious allegiances like a boy scout gathering badges.  

Medi conducts himself like his mentor, the fink Neil Erikson. Most tellingly, Stefanos became Erikson’s protégé. Eracleous has twice been convicted for misusing a carriage service to harass someone. This carries a potential seven-year sentence although that is the maximum. We wouldn’t have expected him to go to jail the first time, but to be convicted once again and walk? That raises flags.

That’s just how Erikson’s finking became apparent: he kept getting away with it against all odds. There is no doubt about Erikson’s informer status. But he ran out of luck when they handed him a short prison stint after faking his imprisonment and placing him in a “remand” cell beside Tom Sewell. That doesn’t happen unless he was being used to mine information from the ‘mate’ he burned numerously before, but whom he and Blair Cottrell forgave, demonstrating their gullibility.

Eracleous was given a second chance, which is always unlikely on the battlefield of far-right activism, but especially when you’ve breached the law so overtly.

Just like Erikson, Eracleous pesters Nationalists with his drip feed of disparate Nativist memorabilia, snippets of history, and memes appealing to the dinky-di spirit. Yet, it’s all random; he has no curriculum. At the same time, he’ll excrete on his Telegram channel all manner of material on behalf of the NSN, which is not just incongruous but is an outright provocation.


The NSN’s understanding of National Socialism, as it’s changed via the telephone game of revivalism, is as limited as their grasp of nationalist precepts. Instead of comparing ideologies, they contrast the advocates in a medieval contest. Their process of selection is biased. What do we mean?

Let’s say John X publishes an erudite and informed essay that discounts theories that they might swallow as inalienable truths. Despite John X’s experience, and his unarguable intellect, they don’t like John X because he’s older and critical of their activities. His message, thus, is invalidated while John X is shut down through a combination of generational conflict and their sensitivity to their intellectual vulnerability. The group cannot understand what John X is saying. Instead, they turn to Joel Z who is inexperienced with a pedestrian mind but whose rhetoric gratifies their limited terms of reference. In spite of this selective choice of messengers, Joel Z remains mistaken while fact, truth and reality are all unmoved. Nevertheless, the ‘group’ chooses Joel Z because he’s a contemporary of theirs. John X trips their sense of inadequacy so they combat that imbalance by elevating their peer, Joel Z, to the role of wise counsel. This is a trajectory that the “movement” (sic) has been on since 2015, which accounts, at least in part, for its disarray. The group is an echo chamber where ignorance is in constant circulation.

Therefore, we have not been drawn into a competition for ideas, per se, since the others don’t have any—theirs are all borrowed—it’s a rivalry of egos and personalities in a generational battle. This accounts for the digital age and all the unfortunate behaviours it fosters. Generations prior, the disrespectful character displayed by the crop of young influencers admired by what they’re calling the “dissident right” were unheard of. Their attitude is counter-intuitive.

Generational competition is a fact of life, and the young want what the old have. But in dissident politics, it makes no sense. Moreover, they are not political actors but rebellious youth inhabiting a subculture clad in the rhetoric of a cause. The incongruity of their position is evident with them, on one hand identifying notionally with “traditional” concepts, but on the other, repudiating the caretakers of those traditions.

Having stated we are not National Socialists (them), and they are not Nationalists (us), we must qualify our commentary on the basis that the former isn’t confined to its ideological barracks but inhabits a milieu that spills out into the broad church of the “dissident right.”

This term which has cropped up encapsulates the very essence of what we’re talking about and is elusive in its innocuousness. By appearance, it is a useful term to describe incongruent elements that agree only on certain positions but are otherwise alien to each other—being understood to be essentially unified. It is a species of language in which the “right” is united by suggestion. But the right is the reactionary end of the spectrum meaning that all who identify with it are in danger of being manipulated into the “traditionalist” camp. And the term ‘traditionalist’ has so much that needs unpacking to reveal its true connotations, but stripped bare, ultimately connotes “conservatism.”. Whereas the actual National Socialism of the NSDAP—which itself evolved, is not ‘of the right’—the style emulated by the NSN is very much so, despite any mystical allusions otherwise. Allowing this, more easily explains why they occupy space with those that, strictly speaking, are anathema to them.

Another explanation is that the newcomers to this overwhelming firmament cannot differentiate up from down. They’re unsure of themselves and reluctant to speak, partly out of fear of ostracization, but mainly because they lack understanding and therefore confidence in expressing their beliefs.

A neophyte posts something like, “I pretty much knew nothing about this subject so it’s a lot to take in.” At least they’re honest.  They are constrained by perceptions of what opinions they are supposed to hold and beholden to inverse political correctness for the far-right.

A weak position exposes a newbie to a host of ideologies being less than skilfully expressed by young adherents. If they aren’t sure what they think they’ll entertain conflicting messages. Their “space” becomes a frat house in which disparate groups cross-fertilise fostering ‘right-wing miscegenation’ where the offspring is an ideological mulatto.

We wrote about how the NSN would degenerate into street theatre a while back, as their raison d’être dictates. To them, the ultimate reward is a confrontation with anti-fascists and airtime on the evening news. They will declare any chaotic junket as a “victory” because they’re insensible to the ulterior effect of their hijinks. To them, this is “doing” as opposed to being paralysed with “ideas.” Since they’re only after publicity, it’s all a victory, given their parameters of political understanding are so limited. Exposure amounts to growth, and ASIO would agree.

          Let’s consider for a moment: Do you cease an activity just because ASIO will involve itself? No, but you don’t make it easy for them to trip you up. To date, the NSN has marketed itself as the quintessential up-and-coming extremist group to shadow. There is no more guaranteed way to do that than go “Nazi.” As we tirelessly argue, Australian Nationalism doesn’t need this Hollywood show, since we had the White Australia Policy. Our very existence as a people and nation was founded on Whiteness.

By saying that NSN is a honeytrap, we don’t mean they work for the state but rather that counter-terrorism and ASIO make splendid use of them. They are a tailor-made ‘right-wing extremist menace.’ We don’t believe Tom Sewell is a “fed” in the sense of him being their agent—just that he’s a gift to them. Putting aside his foolishness, naivete and arrogance, he is trapped in a role that demands he constantly services that part of the state tasked with the manufacture and distribution of folk devils and moral panics.

The laxness of their security, the high value they represent to cranks and misfits, along with their conforming to every imaginable cliché makes them a honeypot trap. The group dynamic ensures it since they’re dutybound

The NSN doesn’t do activism it has antics. . . During March, the NSN crashed a women’s event where they hijacked the limelight and the camera turned on them. They offered up stiff-arm salutes and paraded around like peacocks in their black uniform of adolescent shorts and bucket hats. What had tongues wagging was how the Victoria Police appeared to provide an escort service for them in and away from the protest site. Meanwhile, a gnashing rabble of pro-transgender fanatics reared behind a police barricade shouting and chanting their choruses of woke indoctrination.

          The presence of the neo-Nazis would be exploited to further political agendas on both the left and right. Conflating the presence of invited speaker Moira Deeming, a Victorian Liberal MP and the trans-critical attendees with the ‘Nazis,’ at the Let Women Speak (LWS) event that hosted pro-woman activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (Posie Parker) at Parliament House steps served both sides. The trans lobby was keen to smear Keen-Minshull as a “fascist” while the Victorian Liberal Party was itching to ditch Deeming over her anti-trans views.

          Given the ‘useful idiots’ invaded the pitch solely to glom off the issue to publicise their little group it’s little wonder that the cynical powers thought it a smashing idea to show them the “favouritism” of escorting them to the event so that they’d overshadow any meaningful conversation. And it worked—not for the NSN—but for the powers that be.

          True to form, the NSN acted like the neo-Nazi caricatures they are: Sieg Heiling as they marched in formation in their ‘little boy’ uniforms.

          Deeming was later expelled from the Victorian Liberals after the media and their leader John Pesutto all seized the opportunity to defame her as a ‘Nazi sympathiser.’ Because of the sensationalism generated, Keen-Minshull was attacked at the New Zealand leg of her tour by a vicious throng of violent pro-trans zealots. How was that achievement for the neo-Nazis? All they did was gift ‘the state’ and the trans lobby what they wanted. Yet, the NSN is spinning it as a victory since they believe that they “destroyed the Victorian Liberal Party” by “exposing them as pro-trans.” But all they did was drive out the one MP who voiced the issue in Parliament. The Liberals didn’t need abolishing as they’ve been a shambles since the days after Jeff Kennett’s reign as Premier ended. This will hardly nudge them back to the right or uncover their hypocrisy since politics is hypocrisy and the conservatives are so unpopular with the right expressly because they surrender political ground to the left in pursuit of populist appeal.

          Then came their attempt to generate publicity off the back of the immigration avalanche that Labor is tipping on Australia, which will further send the Australian lifestyle into an irrecoverable downward spiral. Here is an issue that, like the draconian lockdown, demanded everyday Australians come out to protest; not a bratty pack of sexually frustrated anti-social deviants frolicking in shorts, shirts and bucket caps. You could almost smell their hormones. Once again, they took to the steps of Victoria Parliament House on May 13, but this time the state powers weren’t so generous. While outnumbered by ‘anti-fascists’ the NSN were corralled by police, pepper-sprayed, and thwarted from their main stunt which was to bench-lift a set of gym weights they’d brought along for a cringeworthy exhibition of their ‘strength.’

          Before being moved on by police, the group occupied the parliament steps with a banner, which read, “STOP IMMIGRATION – LIVING SPACE FOR WHITES.”

          Living space? Putting aside the embarrassing Hitlerian reference to lebensraum, ask why that sign is so bad. Because it reads like a plea for a concession; a signal of surrender. Additionally, the issue is scarcely addressed, and no effort went into the amateurish “rally” in terms of memorable slogans on placards or anything to signify they were genuine. The sign might as well have read, “JOIN THE NSN!” It failed to capitalise on practical reasons why immigration must be stopped, such as the cost-of-living pressures, housing, as well as the cultural and racial disenfranchisement of both Australians and Aborigines. There are innumerable possibilities for an anti-immigration rally, but then, they put brawn ahead of brains and it shows. Furthermore, at the sight of one of their younger members trying to bolt under pressure the ‘brawn’ boast is highly doubtful too. They lost.

          This issue needs the support of mainstream Australians, which Australians Against Further Immigration—a one-issue party—achieved, if only on a minor scale. Yet, neo-Nazis? Living space? Again, they kicked an ‘own goal.’ But then who else would want to stand beside these jokers? They cannot get it through their thick skulls that Australians are not enamoured of ‘Nazis.’ Thereafter, they appear foolish: they want “men of action” not “ideas men,” and that’s the trouble. They have no men, they’ve got boys, and they have no ideas. But all in all, they have no idea. They are the vanity project of one man who has cultivated a silly beard in the style of Che Guevara; perhaps fancying himself as a U-boat captain. He appeals only to gauche young lads. Tom Sewell is a fantasist, not an ideologue. Nevertheless, what he lacks in magnetism, he tries to compensate for with mystique.

Sewell infamously claimed to have encountered Adolf Hitler after being electrocuted at work. The Fuhrer came to him like a vision of Mother Mary following the disorientating jolt. He didn’t visit his beloved Germany, or the descendants of anyone he’d recognise, but took time out from his busy schedule to contact an obscure New Zealander—whom he would’ve considered racially inferior—to bless him. Now, we doubt that even Sewell believes his own story, but that’s what he reckoned would sound good. It also supports our theory about the NSN appealing to ‘spirituality’ ahead of the practical matters facing Australians. Before that, he told The Penguin that his former Fuhrer—far-right social media personality Blair Cottrell—that Blair was “sent by God to save Australia.” He must’ve changed his mind.

Yet, if lacking charisma and faking an air of mystery aren’t bad enough, losing an informal debate with Rebel Media impresario and pro-Zionist Avi Yemini betrayed Sewell’s lack of erudition and revealed he’s not very quick off the draw.

The thing in Avi’s favour is that nobody likes him. That gives him a thick skin and accordingly an “edge,” since he’s hardened by abuse. When he attempted to talk to protesters, he was physically attacked. So, he then wandered over to the NSN to request an interview. Far be it for Sewell to reject an opportunity to get his face on camera. Also, Avi presented him with an opening to test his rhetorical anti-Semitic techniques; his trusty NS homilies. Sadly, they failed to hit their mark. When Sewell accused him of being an agent of the Jews, Yemini made a fair point by saying that he wasn’t popular with Jews either. This would be so.

Sticking to his theme of “the Jews” was Sewell’s undoing since all he had to rely on was learned from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the Czarist forgery. He proposed no serious argument about the reality of high immigration, other than the point about multiculturalism being forced onto Australians. Although, while “Jews” are his one trick pony, he was on the firmer ground highlighting the taboo around questioning the veracity of the so-called Holocaust.

This abeyance marks the difference between David Duke and Tom Sewell: Duke researched the Jews exhaustively putting his bias to one side, but Sewell is content with repeating universal NS cliches. Given how nothing is black or white but a myriad of shades, he showed his Achilles heel’, no matter how he and his followers deny it. We’re by no means giving a pass to the Zionists, we’re just saying that Tom Sewell didn’t do himself justice on the subject. More to the point, Avi Yemini is a weird fish who isn’t what you assume. He’s less about all you imagine and more, like the others, about himself. He is a square peg in a round hole. Nevertheless, given that anti-Semitism is supposedly Sewell’s go-to topic, he failed to make an impression.

Similarly, Yemini was correct in comparing him to the protesters, since we argue as much ourselves. They are two sides of the same coin, which he may indeed have said too. This was due to him saying that even the left is anti-Zionist. Admitting that Yemini wiped the floor with him being objective. We had no horse in that race so we call it as we see it, right down to awarding Yemini marks for mocking their “gay” shorts, which Sewell tried turning against Avi by suggesting his observation was “homo-erotic.” Now, given the self-paradoxical machismo that characterizes the NSN, we fear that’s the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

Avi’s “gotcha” question was about how the NSN has failed to grow since he covered the LWS rally. He said the same faces were present. The left made much of this too, although normally we wouldn’t since we know what it’s like—given Sewell’s aching desire to reign over a million young lads in black shorts and bucket caps—we recognise it’s another weak spot for him.

We pull back from any misinterpreted flattery of Yemini because the Rebel News video taken by Avi discloses the Victoria Police approaching him to disclose what could be construed as a working relationship. Still, his brushes with the law make that questionable. Now, it’s good that they’re chasing up those insane leftists that assaulted him, but such a cosy rapport wouldn’t be extended to us. Is it because he’s a Jew? Sewell would argue yes. Are the Victoria Police indifferent to both the leftist protesters and ‘the Nazis’? Undoubtedly. If nothing else it dispels the notion that VicPol works for anybody but the Vic Government. On that score, Sewell earns credit for being civil to Yemini whereas the leftists were aggressive and hypnotized, accusing him of “dividing the workers” and labelling him a “Nazi.” Those are fine symptoms of cognitive dissonance.

This is the great revelation of the footage, the outright nastiness of Antifa, of whom one tried lecturing Sri Lankan podcaster ‘The Real Rushkan’ both on his occupation as a wedding photographer and his beard. Imagine, on one hand claiming to represent “the workers” and on the other disparaging a man’s work; never mind that they are in no position to hand out tips on personal grooming. The NSN never got so personal. And one Antifa person waved a Palestinian flag, a direct slur on Avi, for there was no other reason to bring it—unless they strayed from the NSN’s camp.

The violence on the day was directed by ‘Antifa’ at Avi Yemini, a Jew, and the NSN, whom they pelted with missiles. None of this was acknowledged in the thrombosis of the leftist media’s coverage of the “Nazis” in Melbourne. Jeff Sparrow never mentioned it, Tom Tanuki wouldn’t dare. That’s the NSN’s win over the left right there and those on Avi’s channel recognised it. But because they have no “intellectuals” the NSN didn’t identify this moral victory or capitalise on it (not that they were ever likely to be able to). Then again, that presupposes they knew about the behaviour across the barricade. But they could’ve found that by chasing it up on Rebel Media.

Again, both groups were operating on a fantasy level, drunk on their historic ideological role models and expressing opinions dictated by their archetypes. This may be why Sewell gave the expected neo-Nazi response when asked about Ukraine and the Azov Battalion. Although Yemini butted in and never allowed him to give full answers, the gist of Sewell’s position is the support of Ukraine, but “no more brothers wars.” Sewell doesn’t grasp NATO’s provocations against Russia or how the ‘Nazi’ Ukrainian nationalists, who’re adrift from reality, sided with the US and its “Jew” puppet Zelensky just to get a shot at their historic enemy. As to “brother wars,” that’s very true, but bear in mind the culture war leading to the Great Replacement involves Whites against Whites.

Returning to his tete-a-tete with Yemini, we revisit the reason we have authored this piece. During their confab, Sewell referred to his group as “Nationalists.” Nationalists have for so long argued the distinction that we see this as a direct provocation in Sewell’s never-ending mission to steal our platform. He cannot succeed. The trouble is, the corruption of the term by the NSN and the anti-Islam kosher “patriots” before them puts in danger all the ideals and heritage encapsulated in the word. It bastardises it into a meaningless expression of jingoism.

Nationalism does not carry the baggage of either of the lunatic camps that were present in Melbourne on May 13. It is not hampered by atavism or delusionary fables. It is wholly Australian and embedded in our historical past. Its dedication was to more than simply race, but higher ideals. Its creed was not “hate” but pragmatism about the project of nationhood: and history, by betraying that project, has proved it right.

The key to understanding the discrepancies between Nationalism and what kids like those in NSN eagerly accept as National Socialism is not via the minutiae of the ideologies but through the people; which is exactly what Alfred Rosenberg said. And the Australian people will never buy into National Socialism.

More relevantly, why look to a foreign ‘God’ for White Salvation when Australia was founded on a policy of Whiteness that came from the very movement which Australian Nationalism carries on with? It is the loyal thing to do. You cannot disingenuously slap a Eureka stamp on a foreign ideology and claim it’s legitimate—that’s treason.

Given that, in the end, the only logical possibility is that Australians of all ages, and classes, are enlightened about who they are and what is becoming of them (and it’s difficult writing that sentence without feeling ridiculous), how are an egocentric young cabal of semi-literate bodybuilders parading around as “Nazis” likely to influence anybody? As ASIO sees it, their danger resides not in the ideas but in how their rhetoric might radicalise other ignorant youth. They are less worried about the perils faced by them lifting the veil of the ‘great Jewish conspiracy’ and more concerned with what a ‘martyr’ might do in the name of lifting it off.

It is mistaken to believe that most Australians are ignorant of Jewish shenanigans. A natural mistrust of Jews is part and parcel of being a non-Jew—or non-anything-else for that matter. America’s complicated ties with Israel through finance and evangelical Christianity created what we call the “Zionist” conspiracy. This is how, post-World War 2, we came to be overwhelmed by Jewish-instigated ‘systems.’ The League of Rights preoccupied itself with conservative ideals and Jewish conspiracy through a prism of religiosity.

The NSN (and others) continually focus on building “a movement,” failing to understand their crossed purposes. For example, Australian Nationalists do not want to be “out front” leading the Australian people—we want the Australian people out front of us. Thinking in terms of a ‘movement’ is a limited preoccupation that involves sectionalising. It is the creation of a parallel reality. ■

About Author