Site hosted by Build your free website today!

The Coming Struggle: Tasks for Australian Nationalists


Questions and answers

Many questions are often posed by new nationalists. Some of the most frequently asked questions are cited below, and "answers" given.

Question: Is our political enemy the Establishment
or the Communist "Left"?

Our enemy is the Establishment, the rich cosmopolitan-internationalist traitors who are making a colony of our nation, who have betrayed us to the United Nations, the United States, Asia, and anyone else out to rob Australia.

Of course, we oppose the Communist ideology. It works in the foreign interest; it contains numerous opinions we reject. Australian communist groups, since the collapse of the international communist movement since 1989, are of little account and generally can be ignored. It should be realised that, although some residual communist groups will always oppose our party because they particularly oppose the idea of a White Australia, they are insignificant both in numbers and importance and are simply a distraction, and we must be careful not to be side-tracked into a private battle with them. That would NOT serve the cause - it would waste our limited resources (time, money, and energy), which would be far better used on the primary task of recruiting Australians to the Nationalist Cause.

Question: Action or knowledge?

Without a Nationalist ideology there will be no Nationalist movement. For us, action and knowledge are inseparable. That does not mean all who "act" will be intellectuals, or that intellectuals won't act. It means that, as much as possible, Australian Nationalists should be informed and intellectually able to express our "faith".

Modern Australian Nationalists have been credited by commentators from the "Right", "Left", and elsewhere with being far more intellectually credible than any other similar "patriotic" group. It is also true that, given that we will be recruiting youth and students in some numbers, our party will appear more "intelligent" - and "dynamic"!

Question: How should we push the idea of ideological struggle
while maintaining friendly relations with "similar" groups?

The answer here is very simple. Agreements can be established with any "patriotic" or "anti-immigration" group. The fact that we insist on our own principles, and try to convert people to them, should not preclude good relations. Of course, we should avoid needless public criticism of others. In general, "criticism" should be reserved for private discussions.

Question: How do Nationalists view the emergence
of Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI)?

One of the most significant events of the 1990s has been the emergence of AAFI as an electoral party with a growing membership. In some elections AAFI has made a credible stand (gaining 13.5% of the primary vote in one by-election); their normal by-election vote usually ranging from 4% to 8%, with an average of 7%; their normal general election vote usually ranging from 1% to 5%, averaging 3%; with their membership numbering around 3000 (all these figures are approximate). AAFI appeals to a cross section of voters, and a "respectable" middle class membership appears to have been produced. AAFI's environmentalism, "reasonable" politics, and its avowedly non-racial basis have ensured that it has developed largely free of the "racist" tag.

AAFI is a broadly patriotic, somewhat conservative group (though certainly not a traditional conservative group, such as has been referred to elsewhere in this document) - IT SHOULD BE RECOGNISED THAT THEY ARE NOT ACTUALLY A NATIONALIST ORGANISATION (which can been seen from a perusal of their literature and manifesto). However, we should welcome aspects of this phenomenon - without acceding to its methods or its narrow ideology - as any force which operates to reawaken popular opposition to mass immigration is a positive development.

It would be our view that events may later effect a radicalisation of AAFI; it can neither overcome the State Power nor achieve political power without an ideology of a comprehensive source. It will inevitably be forced to confront such questions.

It would be true to say that at a stage of internal CRISIS, that AAFI would become of enormous interest to a revolutionary nationalist party. The fact that we share concerns over some areas of general interest could be of importance to us, in that a large section of AAFI's membership might easily embrace Nationalist politics.

We shall keep our minds open to this possibility.

Question: Will a Conservative backlash save Australia?

In 1996, a new political party - Australia First - was formed by Graeme Campbell, the maverick Member of Parliament who was expelled from the Australian Labor Party for openly opposing mass immigration and multiculturalism.

Many patriots have looked to Australia First as the answer to our nation's problems. However, Australia First will not stop the destruction of Australia - it will only slow it down. The Asianisation of Australia is like gangrene killing the body of the nation: Australia First, if it is eventually successful, may slow down the pace of Asian immigration (it is very doubtful that it would actually stop it - as it is a conservative organisation, and therefore would not make any moves that would threaten its "respectability" or apparent "reasonableness"; and, in fact, any slowing of the pace of Asian immigration is only likely to be carried out in a manner by which they could deny racial bias). Also, they would do nothing about the Asian population already here (a demographic Fifth Column), which has a faster growth rate that the ethnically British-European Australian population. It should be realised that the Asian population here is already 8.8% (up from 0.4% in 1966), and is estimated to rise to 26.7% by the year 2020. Like as is happening in the USA, the native-born White population in Australia will be "outbred", and its fate will thus be consigned to the rubbish bin of history.

Like similar organisations (whether in the past or in the future), Australia First is like a doctor who slows up the gangrene taking over the patient's body, but who refuses to actually treat the cause. Australia doesn't need a doctor who guarantees a slow death instead of a quick death - the gangrene will kill our nation either way - we need a doctor who will cure our country completely.

Australia has a cancer, one which is threatening to spread throughout its entire body. We need to cut it out - not dab ointment on it!

Another "hope" for a Conservative backlash is the Liberal Party. In 1996, the new Liberal Government (elected March 1996) announced policies to stop new immigrants getting the dole for their first 2 years here; and for the slashing of family reunion immigration. Both of these measures will cause a drop in Asian immigration - and, no doubt, these policies have been deliberately designed to pick up the anti-immigration vote. By introducing these policies, Prime Minister John Howard has carried out a tactical manoeuvre to bolster the Liberal Party's vote, at the same time attempting to destroy much of the base of support for AAFI and Australia First, without actually solving the immigration-Asianisation problem.

In doing so, Howard copied what Margaret Thatcher did in Britain to draw in the anti-immigration vote, at the same time destroying the National Front's increasing voter base. Howard's Liberal Government may slow down (not stop) Asian immigration, but it will not stop the Asianisation of Australia.

We must face reality: Neither the Liberal Party nor the Australia First Party will solve the problem of Australia's Asianisation - such conservatives will not rescue us from a national death.

Only a radical Party - with the strength and determination to cancel all immigration; repatriate most or all Asians, etc.; and protect Australia's national identity, and culture - will save our nation from destruction.

We need to build a mass Nationalist movement - with a dedicated core of members - that is capable of achieving government.

Question: How long will it take to achieve our aims?

This is an important question; even though we are not in the game of crystal-ball gazing, it puts our work in perspective. The fact is: It isn't likely that our success will come quickly (some have said that power must be achieved by 2020 - or by 2050 if it's still possible - or not all). The deterioration of our country is a long process. Some people may like a shorter course to power but there isn't one. We cannot really speculate on this question, and we will not.

Question: Will we succeed "before it's too late"?

This is a common question. It is usually asked by people who see our national crisis as one only of immigration, and ponder how large numbers of aliens can be removed from a society (but they should also realise that there are other questions - like war, or social "war", for which we may be unprepared). Removing aliens is a relatively easy physical task (with a Nationalist government determined to carry it out), and politically possible with an energetic Foreign Affairs ministry. For examples (though these may not necessarily be similar to our situation), we could look at Indonesia's expulsion of 125,000 Chinese in 1959-1960, Burma's expulsion of 300,000 Indians in 1962, Ghana's expulsion of 200,000 various foreigners (including many Nigerians) in 1969, Uganda's expulsion of 75,000 Indians and Pakistanis in 1972, Vietnam's expulsion of about 500,000 Chinese in 1979, and Nigeria's expulsion of approximately 2,000,000 foreigners (mostly Ghanians, Togolese, and Cameroonians) in 1983; not to mention Australia's expulsion of its Japanese population following World War Two.

All that notwithstanding, it is a very pertinent question. The process of the Asianisation of Australia is steadily being carried out by the Establishment. It is estimated that by 2020, 26.7% of Australia's population will be Asian or part-Asian; it has also been projected that Australia will be a Eurasian country by 2050, then becoming an Asian country by the 2090s. The situation is deadly serious: It is quite possible that we may lose. We certainly won't win while the bulk of "patriotic" Australians are content to sit in their comfortable armchairs and simply talk about how "concerned" or "angry" they are about the problem.

Our primary task must be recruiting, recruiting, and more recruiting!!! It is only by developing such recruits into a mass movement with thousands of dedicated Australian Nationalists, led by a solid core of committed Cadre-Members, that we can hope to wrest control of our country from the anti-Australian traitors who comprise the current Establishment and its institutions.

If time is not on our side (bearing in mind that some say that we have only 20 to 50 years to win power), then we must act accordingly: No longer can we be "part-time revolutionaries" - we must be prepared to spend much of our personal time and our personal resources (yes, that does include money) on the fight for our Nation. We could look at the Jehovah's Witnesses or the Mormons and see people dedicated enough to specifically take on flexible jobs or part-time employment to give them enough time to work for their faith - our "faith" and dedication must be as strong as theirs, indeed stronger, if we are to win.

We say this: It is possible to succeed with a large militant organisation, given the process of national disintegration and disorder, if we have the willpower and dedication to succeed.

The Coming Struggle: Tasks for Australian Nationalists

Australian Nationalism Information Database -