“Asylum Seekers, Refugees and Boat People are used as a way to release pressure from the real immigration debate”.

It seems that recently Australia has  rediscovered its obsession with asylum seekers.  News stories now abound of how more boats are on the way, of how asylum seekers (always by boat, not by plane) are given first class treatment, shacked up in luxury accommodation while “working families” struggle to pay the mortgage.  One only has to load up the website of Victoria’s most popular rag, the Herald Sun, and sure enough the issue is mentioned, as it is pretty much every day in the more neo-conservative publications.  “Now I’ll fix the boats: Gillard “1 says the headline.  Since when has Labor taken a strong stance against boat people?  Since it’s been a popular vote grab.  The “Tampa” election showed that its a hot button issue, even bigger than environmental degradation through salinity, emissions, the housing affordability crisis and unsustainable population growth.  

When Howard was elected in 1996 he cut the planned immigrant intake to 68,000, but by last financial year he’d more than doubled it. His planned intake for next financial year is almost 153,000 – plus 13,000 under the humanitarian program. To that you can add about 24,000 New Zealanders – who don’t need visas and will be arriving to join the 470,000 of their fellow country-persons who are here.  Last calendar year was the eighth straight year of net immigration (that is, net of permanent departures) in excess of 100,000.The media slyly links ,not explicitly, but implicitly, illegal refugees with a sense of being inundated with hordes of people.  From the opinion of many of the Australian public, that seems to be working.  Many Australians seem to believe that the country will be flooded by boat people alone, and make statements about how our infrastructure is already at capacity.  Nothing clears up the air like a bit of perspective, and nothing better brings about a sense of perspective than factual data.

In 2009, 5,000 asylum claims were lodged in Australia 2.  USA & Canada have over 80,000 claims and Europe close to 300,000.  That figure of 5,000 might seem high, but in reality, it is not.  Legal immigration exceeds this every fortnight.  This is half the number of assisted immigrants than arrived at the start of the 20th century, when Australia had a much smaller population.  According to Wikipedia, “Net overseas migration increased from 30,042 in 1992-93 to 177,600 in 2006-07. This is the highest level on record.”  In two decades, that’s a 500% increase, one largely brought about by the ‘conservative’ Howard government. Howard was an expert at making his Battlers believe he shares their dislike and distrust of foreign dominance, via sole opposition to boat people. Yet in the background on behalf of big business he ran the biggest immigration program Australia had ever seen including one where the proportion coming from non European sources is now greater than 50%.

Asylum claims therefore account for less than 3% of our immigration intake, a fairly unremarkable proportion.  Yet if you were to follow the popular press, this tiny percentage is going to inundate the country, that we don’t have room for that few percent, that if the government would just crack down and secure our borders against this few percent, we’d be a lot better.  It seems a silly position, one bereft of logic and proportion, but why are Australians so worked up about boat people?  Why did Tampa demand so much attention for the handful of people on it, when the population was increasing by thousands each week from planes flying overhead?  Why is it OK to suggest that refugees be blasted out of the water, with even the opposition minister Tony Abbott stating he’ll do “whatever it takes”.  “Whatever it takes” does not exclude some form of violent action. And why is there a strange paradox in the media, where it is permissible for paid commentators like Andrew Bolt to make all sorts of grandiose statements against them, when even suggesting that legal immigration be scaled back gets one branded a racist?

How is it that Nationalist Alternative is lambasted simply for advocating a political policy where the government would assist a greatly reduced level of international students and economic refugees (i.e. The huge ‘skilled intake’), a policy which hardly is inhumane, but the same media silently and selectively allows far more vigorous comments by neo-conservatives levelled against the small intake stream comprising boat people/asylum seekers/refugees.

You will note that none of these neo-conservative commentators speaks of removing Australia from the overarching United Nations dictates (1951 Refugee Convention) that impairs national sovereignty in the first place? They simply are not serious and only wish to defer public sentiment away from the real issues.

Surely comments about blasting women and children out of the water, who many consider could quite well be in ‘desperate need of refuge’ are indicate of a less ‘humane attitude’ by liberal standards, than comments about taking in less people to study and live here from overseas, people who are generally quite well off anyway (they have money) and are coming from countries which have a reasonable to high standard of living.

This state of affairs most likely exists because of one simple factor. Money.  Economic immigrants are skilled (at least some) and have money, or the capacity to earn money.  They will buy consumer goods.  They will put deposits on houses with over inflated prices to fund the baby boomer’s retirement and therefore keep that asset bubble inflated.  They provide labour to big business, and quite often, cheaper, that is, more ‘cost effective’ labour, as an increase in the supply of labour will drive down its cost, as there are more competitors in the race to the bottom.  Make no mistake about it, big business, the Real Estate industry and even smaller business love immigration.  The ‘ruling class’ in modern western society isn’t aristocrats, dictators, feudal lords, emperors, kings or seeming not even a democratically elected government.  It is big business, the corporations.  Anyone who’s been following the events regarding the Resource Super Profits Tax would only be too keenly aware of the clout that big business and corporations have in modern society.

The Institute for Public Affairs have states that Western Australia needs more people to prosper.  A sentiment echoed by the mining industry. They IPA states  ?We are now in the largest boom in the State’s history. The challenge for the State is to make the most of the boom and getting more people to the State is the key to doing so.?  What can be gleaned from this, isn’t that population levels are crippling the state, but there is the potential for greater growth and greater economic gain (presumably only for those who are already well off), but that there simply is the opportunity for greater profits, if there were more people.

The IPA is a centre right think tank which advocates free market politics, trade liberalisation, climate change scepticism and limited government.  The attitude isn’t one of bringing in more people to fill a need, but a lamentation that there are potential further profits which could be gained if it weren’t for Australia’s restrictive immigration policy.  It is an attitude which suggests a lack of any form of restraint.  The last sentence states ?While more people will bring challenges, such as ensuring that there is adequate land for housing, schools, hospital beds and roads, it is the key to our future prosperity.?.  All that is written about how hundreds of thousands of Australians are going to cope with real and pressing issues they face each day, is mentioned in a throw away line at the end.  It’s pretty obvious that many who are calling for an increase in the intake of people, consider the trouble it causes for many Australia a negligible externalities.  Other companies benefit from skilled immigration.  Wages can be depressed by increased competition for jobs and bottom lines can be increased through finding cheaper sources of labour, and by lowering working standards and conditions.

What does this have to do with refugees?  Probably due to the fact that asylum seekers generally don’t have skills and don’t have as much money by the time they arrive onto the taxpayer’s payroll after sometimes exhausting thousands of dollars on people smugglers. An Afghan refugee isn’t soon going to be in a position to put a deposit on a house, or apply for a position in the IT industry.  In other words, they are less useful to big business.  Another big business, the media, relies on selling a product just like any other business.  The product that news media sells is not just news stories and information, but a guiding hand, a sense of representation for the average person.

It is no secret that most Australians think immigration rates are too high.  Many are concerned about how sustainable intake levels of 200,000 per annum are, how we can do this while water is becoming more scarce, infrastructure such as transport and health are bursting at the seams and competition for housing is high, with astronomical prices denying hard working young Australians the opportunity to own even a modest home

to raise a small family in.  Sentiment against misguided government policy, largely fuelled by a religious belief in ?growth? and rapacious and insatiable business who seems to resent any restraint is high.  This spills out into resentment against the immigrants themselves, though for the rates and social issues that have arisen as a result, Australians with their generous natures have been very accommodating and tolerant.  The sentiment is still there, and the media knows this and knows that it is a marketable product.  This leaves the media with a paradox.  They cannot steer Australians towards wanting lower levels of legal immigration because the media is itself big business.  Rupert Murdoch is not likely to kill off the inflow of people which is the golden goose for other plutocrats.  The Australian and the Herald Sun are not going to turn against the Real Estate industry and the mining industry, who buy valuable advertising space and milk Australia’s frustration at the unsustainable and rapid growth and change occurring.  How to use this sentiment, while at the same time maintaining the status quo?  The answer is simple.  Redirect the sentiment, which appears at face value to be exactly what the popular mainstream media has been doing.  With Australians concerned about growth, about the future of the nation and bewildered at the government constantly increasing the rate of population growth when most people believe the opposite is necessary based on their personal experiences, they want a media outlet which shares their concern.

The mainstream media has been doing this, by directing the ire, the resentment and frustration towards the most helpless and economically least advantageous immigrants.  Asylum seekers, refugees and boat people.  It’s always boat people too, as it conjures up images of dishevelled, dodgy looking opportunists scrambling ashore.   Asylum seekers who arrive by plane don’t look like they are doing anything illegal or dodgy, nor is there a stand off in mid air, so they are rarely if ever mentioned.  The spectacle with them just isn’t there.  With the mainstream media turning a blind eye to anti-refugee sentiment and never bothering to call the so called ‘racist’ dog whistle, they kill two birds with one stone.

Firstly, the papers sell.  Hyperbolic headlines with barely a scratch of truth about how refugees are arriving in vast numbers of boats and given luxury accommodation fuel the sentiment, and direct attention.  The attention is taken away from the vast number of people who use student visas as a back door, away from the large number of ‘economic’ migrants, and towards a relatively small, insignificant numbers of refugees.  The claims about luxury treatment, about harbouring terroristsand disease only serve to inflame passions, sell papers and sway government policy.  The government then sees asylum seekers as THE pressing immigration issue, and will act on that, rather than on population growth in general.  The other outcome is that the discussion moves towards the few percent of arrivals only, and not the bigger picture in general. The flow of labour and capital which serves big industry is no longer considered as part of the equation, and therefore is no longer threatened by discussion about immigration.  The immigration debate then is purely about stopping boats.  It has been effectively neutered.  The papers sell.  The Australian population think their concerns about growth are being attended to.  Growth continues unabated.

Australians deserve honest debate on pressing issues such as the environment, population growth through government policy, industrial relations and social programs.  But this debate is degraded and dragged into the gutter as a small proportion of the population twist the debate, and mislead the population, leading them to incorrect  conclusions and given them skewed perspectives.  Young Australians who may have only had one opportunity to vote in a federal election, or no opportunity deserve a better quality of discussion from the general public and the media.  This can only be done holding an accurate perspective, being honest about what is happening and not being led by hysteria.

In short, Australia cannot have any meaningful public debate about how immigration policy will shape the future of our nation if there is stage managed ‘contained hysteria’ about boat people. The media, which usually is so quick to hyperbole about parties who call for lowered immigration, turns a blind eye to anti-refugee sentiment , while grilling those who suggest that local students should be considered over cashed up foreign students or that the ‘legal’ migrant intake is way too high.  This is an absurd situation and one that Australia currently finds itself in.

There are of course legitimate questions and issues concerning asylum seekers, issues about processing, about controlling borders and how to differentiate between legitimate refugees (on Australia’s definition not the UNs..) from opportunists, but the hysteria is out of proportion to the problem.  If it is held to be humane to give refuge to someone fleeing persecution and possible death then it is by no means inhumane not to offer someone who has an education and a job, the opportunity to study here as a hair stylist to gain permanent residency so as to bring the rest of the family, simply because there is more space here, or more money to be made.

Australians deserve a better quality of discourse on this issue, especially younger Australians who will MOST be affected by these policies.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/triguboff-lets-trade-trees-for-homes/2006/10/10/1160246131958.html

1 http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/new-pm-julia-gillard-vows-to-address-issue-of-asylum-seekers/story-e6frf7jo-1225887320708

In this broadcast David Ellerton speaks about what has been happening in Britain, and how Britain, which has close cultural ties with Australia, serves as a warning to Australia as to where left wing politics will lead. David Ellerton will explain how New Marxism (Neo Communism) and political correctness has been destroying  British culture, way of life and society. Australia needs to heed this warning from Britain. Otherwise, Australia will have the same terrible things happen here. Stay tuned for more episodes of Nat-Alt Radio coming out soon!

To listen to the audio, click here.

Video: Part 1

Video: Part 2

This is the second episode of Nat-Alt Radio which is done by a new speaker named David Ellerton. In this particular speech he will discuss; immigration, the break down of the family unit and green taxes. There will be a number of other interesting speeches on a broad range of topics in the future from Nationalist Alternative so stay tuned!

To download the audio file, click here.

Parts one and two of Episode 2 of Nat-Alt Radio can also be viewed below:

In a new addition to Nationalist Alternative we will now have an audio-broadcast program called ‘Nat-Alt Radio’ here is Episode 1 by Victor Simpson which will introduce the fundamental aspects and beliefs behind Nationalist Alternative. This will become a regular feature with Nationalist Alternative with a variety of different speakers. Stay tuned for many more episodes of ‘Nat-Alt Radio’ in the future.

To download the audio file, click here

Parts one, two and three of Episode 1 of Nat-Alt Radio can also be viewed below:

Nationalist Alternative @ the Internet Censorship Rally, Perth, WA

By James Smith

Members and supporters of Nationalist Alternative WA attended the stopthefilter.org, internet censorship protest held in Perth at Forrest Place on Saturday the 6^th of March 2010.

The rally was a public relations disaster for the assorted communist groups who were attempting to hijack a public censorship rally for themselves whilst censoring others.

This activist report also details the unsuccessful attempt by ‘Resistance’ and the Socialist Alliance to force opposing viewpoints from a rally held to represent all of our concerns. Our banner which was just one element of our attendance was displayed prominently for a decent period of time and new contacts were made whilst leafleting, gaining signatures and promoting the spirit of the rally.

Why did Nationalist Alternative attend? We like the majority of Australians do not wish for a nanny state to dictate what we can and can not view, read or experience online. Nor do we buy Kevin Rudd’s “thin edge of the wedge” excuses for why.

Nationalist Alternative attended the rally in good faith simply as one group opposed to censorship of the internet, we had our censorship article uploaded on our site, signed petitions, walked petition boards around the crowd to obtain signatures and handed them back to the organisers. If a rally is the sum of its disparate parts we like the individual members of the public and other groups with or without a political basis such as “Anonymous” or the Socialist Alliance were simply another participant.

We embrace true free speech which is the entire spectrum including those views we at Nationalist Alternative may vehemently disagree with. If a viewpoint or concept or vision is flawed then through debate and open discussion it will become obvious.

Those that seek to: outlaw, make illegal, introduce oppressive legislation with jail terms in the hope that they can scare their populace into restricting their thoughts, provide no platform, physically harass, alter history books and curriculum’s and censor the ideas of others onlydisplay their own intolerance. Ultimately it is a personal fear that their own agenda and beliefs are flawed and the public will realise so when presented with articulate opposing views.

One of the most hypocritical streams of pseudo ‘alternative’ opposition in Australia is the tired and bedraggled assortment of Trotskyist, anarchist and communist groups who are not ‘left’ at all but proponents of a future totalitarian system like George Orwell’s 1984 nightmare. Say goodbye to individual and national rights, environmental concerns, diversity, a balance of private enterprise and state ownership, private property rights etc. Their opposition to the current liberal democratic censorship courtesy of labour and liberal governments is purely selfish and deceptive so they themselves can gain ‘the upper hand’ and imprison Australia with their own nanny state and iron control.

Fortunately their delusions are limited to 1^st year arts students and a small bitter rump of older members too proud or dogmatic to admit they are wrong. Their complete failure in Australia over the decades to ever gain a significant foothold leads many to believe the state today continues to allow them to run a muck publicly as ‘useful fools’ which explains the low levels of arrest or police attention these often violent thugs and their organisations receive.

Why ‘useful fools” ? what better way to ensure the continuity of the corrupt liberal democratic internationalist system then to present to the public a delusional bunch of fellow internationalists the communist clowns, as their only opposition? Of course people will be happy to stick with what they consider the ‘lesser of two evils” – hence change never comes and the oppression continues.

With most public issues, socialists around Australia attempt to hijack and control them all and force people to view it through their sole prism of understanding. The socialist attempt to monopolise political speech and action, so as to be seen as the only alternative to the status quo. Whether it is gay rights, or the rights of indigenours peoples elsewhere, the socialists oppose and attach any other political stream which speaks up on these issues, even if they are in agreeance.

Evidence of the apathy these fools cause on the general public is illustrated below. What follows are a few quotes from members of the public commenting on forums after attending the rally.

“What a disappointing rally.

The majority of speakers talked more about socialist talking points than the internet filter. We were filmed at all times by a spook from resistance.org, and the organisers were the worst hypocrits ever.”

“I’ve seen large amounts of socialist propaganda everywhere lately, why don’t these people go and live in a socialist country to see what it’s like before trying to enforce this crap on us.”

“Those Socialist Alternative guys are really annoying. They are like the westboro baptist church of Australian politics. Whenever people try to organise to protest a genuine issue these idiots turn up and try to brand it as a “socialist” demonstration.

They are the worst at Uni.

Pro-tip for SA: If I actually wanted to talk to you I wouldn’t look the other way and avoid eye contact at all costs.”

What you see in the below video is these “useful fools”, in action. After obtaining signatures for the petition, listening to various speeches we decided to unfurl our own banner to add to the diversity of outlooks present at the rally. No different to the ‘Resistance’ group which had a huge red banner beside the stage proclaiming their name and slogans related to their own beliefs without any direct connection to the actual rally.

Within about 10 minutes a few rabid socialists ran up to the second level to DEMAND we withdraw our banner and presence from this public rally. Grabbing the fabric banner and trying to rip it unsuccessfully they resorted to holding on as tightly as possible in order to cause an assault charge by the waiting police on our members if we were to pry and twist their little fingers and arms from the fabric.

Readers will be amused by the deranged women in red whose foul language and death threats “kill these 3 kunts” is obvious. Note also the attempted headbutt of a NatAlt camera man which only left her forehead imprinted with a lens cover. Contrast this to the calm, stoic and non violent behaviour typical of NaAlt supporters who simply endured this all too common scenario whilst not falling into the violence trap.

The state was of course happy to allow this violence to occur, due to the already mentioned “useful idiots” concept. It is often the case the police intervene only when nationalists rightfully defend themselves. Such is the straitjacked situation of the average decent policeman who more often than not, privately acknowledge their support for uThe police or at least their political masters are clearly more interested in ‘defending the peace’, rather than ‘defending free speech’ and take the easy option of taking action against the few victims, rather than against the more numerous (for now) violent perpertrators.

Embarrassingly for the Socialist Alliance, during this banner scuffle the speaker on the stage looked up and noted

“it looks like there is some censorship occurring right before our eyes”

Nationalist Alternative Attendance at the Perth “Stop Internet Censorship Rally”

After their unsuccessful attempt, despite our members being outnumbered at forcing us from the rally we continued down to the groundlevel handing out our “political correctness is ruining Australia” leaflets and conversing with the public. Many individuals in the crowd were disgusted at the attempt by the ’socialists’ at censoring another group at a censorship rally of all things.

One of the excuses obtained by a roving citizen journalist after the banner incident from the lady in red was that

1. Our banner was unrelated to the protest.
2. Discussions on immigration and its effects on water, congestion, the environment and our culture was not something to be discussed anywhere.
3. They decide the spectrum of allowed free speech

To which we answer the following

1. What could be more in the spirit of a NO to censorship rally than the presence of various groups and individuals with different viewpoints who whilst united in opposition to censorship also present their various concerns!!  It is exactly ‘freedom of speech” in action at a rally calling for the same thing.
2. Why then did she not pull down the huge red ‘Resistance banner” next to the speakers stage you see above which also had zero direct connection to the stop-the-filter rally. This banner simply proclaimed their name and slogans related to their own beliefs.
3. Is it not a fact that Socialist Alliance members canvassed in large numbers the entire public attempting to sell their magazine, hand out their leaflets up and down the 100m line of people queuing up to sign the petition ??
4. Our good faith attendance is proven by the following
   1. Researching and uploading an article on internet censorship on our website and also advertising the rally
   2. Signing petitions and walking petition boards around the crowd for the organisers obtaining further petitions.
   3. Handing out our “Political correctness is ruining Australia” leaflets which directly relate to censorship given that PC is the academic concept used by the government to justify many of their laws and proposals.
   4. Standing quietly and calmly not interjecting speakers nor accosting any other attendees at the event.

Editors Note

This is not the first time that the far left have hijacked an internet censorship rally to try and kickstart their own socialist revolution.  An internet censorship rally in Melbourne in 2008 saw other groups whose members were sporting nothing more than apparel with their logo being ejected simply for joining the rally.  Members from the Electronic Frontiers Foundation Australia had little choice to to accept this gross violation due to collaboration with the bullyboy Socialist groups.  Unfortunately, computer user groups and other digital rights groups are not aware as to how their cause is hijacked and manipulated for socialist ideals.

In another incident a group of ‘young liberals’ people Nationalist Alternative have core idealogical disagreements with, neo-conservatism being the first, setup a table at Latrobe University during the orientation week. Given it is a public asset this is an opportunity for ALL beliefs to represent their views in calm conversation and debate. The Socialist Alliance tore down on their table, spitting in females faces, pushing the table and leaflets over and physically hounding them off the campus.  If their were no Liberals on the day then the Labour table would have been next and if no labour presence then the greens. All people we have fundamental misgivings about but still maintain the right for them to join the public debates, counter protesting is one thing but outright censorship is another.

Nationalist Alternative call on organisations fighting for digital freedom and for free speech to carefully consider any ‘help’ from such groups and consider how events such as the one in the article not only make those who fight for free speech seem hypocritical but how it also hurts the cause.  Bad publicity (such as people being censored at such a rally) will set back the cause and portray important causes such as this in a more negative light.

It is highly likely most communist and socialist groups if in power would follow China in setting up a giant ‘intranet’ across Australia rather then an open internet.

Nationalist Alternative will continue to support freedom of speech both on the internet and in the public domain.

Stop the Filter Rally!

today, Saturday 6th of March, 12pm in Perth, Melbourne and Brisbane.

Nationalist Alternative reviews the Australian Government’s Internet Censorship Proposal.

By Stephen Wilson

After a one year internet “filter” trial, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy announced on December 15, 2009, that

Australian ISP providers must block content which has been refused classification overseas. Legislation will be  introduced into Parliament in 2010 and once passed, the internet “filter” will take 12 months to implement. An  “independent body” will determine a list of Refused Classification (RC) blacklisted sites for Australian internet users.  Senator Conroy has made assurances that the filtering will be transparent, including notifying websites that they have been blocked, as well as measures to appeal blocked websites.

However one of the fundamental tenets of our society and the pillar and supposed cornerstone of Liberal Democracy, is  that of the free and robust exchange of ideas. A “marketplace of ideas” in which debate, free speech and criticism are welcome and tolerated. In fact, in a healthy “marketplace of ideas”, dissent is welcomed and those of different political/religious persuasions are permitted to engage in vigorous discourse.

Now imagine the Orwellian nightmare straight from the mind of the 1984 author George Orwell. Speech is suppressed, dissent is stifled and creativity and individualism are crushed.

In March 2002, Electronic Frontiers Australia undertook extensive research into the status of laws and  Government policy outside Australia. They were unable to find any indication that any other country broadly comparable  to Australia (in terms of democratic political systems and cultures) has introduced, or intends to introduce internet  censorship laws, particularly laws as restrictive as the existing Commonwealth legislation and proposed laws.

The internet has since its inception been utilised by persons of all persuasions for all manner of purposes. From on-line shopping, email, to communication and networking of like minded individuals. t has until recently been mostly self regulating and has on the whole, been of tremendous benefit to commerce, private and public companies and individuals. However the  Australian Governments recent attempts to impose mandatory internet filtering for “objectionable content” severely undermine one of the most fundamental rights of Man. To seek out information that may be unpopular, critical of  institutions or considered challenging. This in and of itself would be an unjust and reprehensible intrusion into a citizens  right to communicate with others and inform and entertain themselves. However given the fact that the Government is  maintaining a database that is inaccessible to outside scrutiny, is not able to be viewed by citizens and is COMPLETELY  SECRET!! The fact that this database is being maintained by the very same Government that refuses to cooperate with  freedom of information requests, harangues civil servants who leak information embarrassing to the Government and  shields itself deep within the cloak of bureaucratic invisibility, should only serve to arouse the deepest suspicions of all  freedom loving people wherever they may reside.

Indeed one would have thought that in conjunction with industry experts, interested parties and ISP’s that a series of concrete criteria and benchmarks would have been established to measure the efficacy of the blocking of “objectionable” material. On the contrary, the Department of Broadband,Communication and the Digital Economy (the department responsible for the administering of the trials) has actually stated that NO criteria were established in order to measure the effectiveness of the censorship trials. The whole process is  being shrouded in great secrecy with no-one permitted to question the motives of the Australian Government no matter how benign they may seem. The pretext that has been given for the internet censorship trials has (ostensibly) been  preventing persons from accessing “illegal” and “refused classification” material (see child pornography).

This argument is  fundamentally flawed on several different levels.

Firstly Child Pornography as reprehensible, disgusting, exploitative and incorrigible, will never be stamped out by the censorship of the internet. The reasons are complex and mostly outside the scope of this article. I n a nutshell however, the VAST majority of internet child pornography is through peer to peer networks. These are basically private file sharing networks that allow users to share content (music, files and more). However these networks are akin to an exclusive club, if you aren’t a member, you can’t gain access. These evil networks are a closed haven for like minded individuals and are generally speaking quite distrusting by nature. If you don’t know where to look, and you’re not a member, the files (pictures of children) are inaccessible. It’s an underground network beneath the internet. Secondly, most aspiring paedophiles are hardly stupid enough to type “Kiddy porn” into a search engine.

So if internet censorship will not have an impact on the very thing it has supposedly been created to  prevent, why on earth would the Australian Government insist upon this course of action? Why is the “blacklist” of  “illegal” sites kept secret? What is on this list and do you trust the Government to determine what YOU as a law abiding Citizen may view? I would suggest that the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. If we look back some 6  months ago, a minor furore erupted when a copy of the blacklist was released on Wikileaks and other areas of the internet (Ironically the internet censorship blacklist was leaked on-the internet). The list of sites that were banned were rather innocuous. A Brisbane dentist was on the list as well as several Adult bookstores, a mechanics webpage and  several fetish sites which are 100% LEGAL to view as an Australian Citizen of the age of maturity. More disturbing is the  fact that because you cannot access the list, you have no way of knowing what is and what isn’t on it.

Given the fact that  only EIGHT small ISP’s and Optus (on a limited basis) agreed to participate in the trials, there can be no statistically  significant data to be gleaned from this totalitarian exercise of thought control and oppression. Not surprising iiNet  (Australia’s third largest ISP) withdrew from the Governments internet censorship trials in early 2009, saying it could not  “reconcile participation in the trial with our corporate social responsibility”. Indeed all available data indicates that the  only effect that censorship will have on the internet is to turn it into an unwieldy (and slow) creature. Speeds will plummet, commerce and trade will suffer and costs will soar in order to pay for the ineffective filtering. Perhaps a more insidious force is at work, one that is attempting to stifle and suppress free speech, dissent and protest. When the Government is able to determine what sites you are able to visit, what you are able to post online and with whom you  associate in the digital realm, this really should ring alarm bells. Are you an anti war protester attempting to find a forum  with like minded individuals? A political activist trying to organise a meeting or simply a father sending an email to a child living overseas? How will you ever know you are restricted from accessing sites if they are simply omitted from your  search results. When “page not found” is displayed on your monitor, has the site been removed or blocked due to Government interference?

The fact that the results of the trial have been delayed and pushed back after repeated calls for  Senator Stephen Conroy to release the censorship trial data seem to be indicative of the difficulties the trial has  encountered. If things have been going swimmingly, why aren’t the results being vaunted and championed to the public  after spending 5 million dollars of taxpayers money?

Nationalist Alternative sincerely hope that the internet censorship plan dies a quiet death and slinks off into the night. A remnant of an era that should have died with the demise of the Soviet  Union and the KGB. If this plan is implemented the impact on the free exchange of ideas, political view and discourse of  all kinds will be severely impeded and crushed. I do not welcome the thought of an Australia where I fear a knock on the  door in the dead of night from the Peoples Secret Police for a blog entry or website search that aroused the suspicions of  those in power.

[Editor’s note:

This article by a guest writer is the first of a ‘foreign’ series that will step outside the Australian nationalist scene to investigate, review, analyse and remark on struggles elsewhere in the world. What those activists in the region the article comments on do with any suggestions or criticisms made is entirely up to themselves in line with the principles of autonomy and independence. It also fits under the ‘commentary’ category which indicates it is firstly the opinion of the individual or group of authors who penned it rather then necessarily the position of Nationalist Alternative. As part of contributing to Australian nationalist thought and free speech this site in part, acts as a think-tank and internet repository for nationalist discussion pieces which may at times provide contrasting views in some sections. The fact that this occurs simply reflects the spectrum between both method and substance in the struggle to ensure the survival of the West, its culture and its creators the white European peoples.

Here in Australia the situation is very different from that described in this article. A Pro-Israeli standpoint could be risky and controversial. Islam, while still an issue in this country, is not the number one priority. If anything, probably the main threat to Australia is still the overwhelming possibility of Asianisation. The fact that the Australia-Israel Review published the names of several hundred One Nation members back in 1998 shows that Jewish groups are hostile against any political group with Nationalistic beliefs. Those that wish to lure Jewish groups into thinking that they are "kosher" will inevitably follow the path of civic patriotism rather than of true Australian Nationalism.]

1 Introduction

This essay was written at the request of a comrade in the British National Party, a member of almost 3 decades. It is written by an Australian with a keen interest in German political affairs and who wants to help German nationalists win elections at the federal level in Germany today, and thereby gain office. Such a goal is possible, in my view, but not if the present course continues to be followed.

German nationalist groups – in terms of numbers, morale and organisation are superior, in my experience, to Australian groups: there is much the Australian nationalist can learn from the German. This essay is not written with the intention, not of belittling the German nationalists, but of giving them the observations of an outsider, who, perhaps, may see the present German political situation with more clarity than a German nationalist living in Germany today. Here I shall be advocating a broad range of strategies denazification, radical right-wing populism, an acceptance of liberal democracy, the use of certain safe national symbols, a new nationalism which are used, with great success, by the British National Party. It should be noted that every nationalist group, in every European and Western country, faces a different set of problems: the situation of the Swedish nationalist is not the same as that of the Spanish, or the Canadian, or the South African. So what works well for the BNP in Britain will not necessarily work in Australia, for example. But the argument of this essay is that the methods of the BNP (and the Danish Peoples Party, the Swiss Peoples Party, the Dutch Freedom Party and other radical right-wing populist European parties of that type) will work in the circumstances of Germany today.

In the following article, I will be presenting a long intellectual justification of the main theses. For the reader who is unwilling to read through what is quite a long piece of writing, I will summarise my main conclusions here:

This article proposes a new German nationalism. The elements of this nationalism are: populism; anti-Islamism and an attack on The Left for letting immigration and totalitarian Islam get out of hand; nostalgia for the good old days of culture, morals and fashions of the 1950s and 1960s, and the German economic miracle; a championing of such past German liberal democratic figures as Stresemann, Adenauer and the men of the Reichsbanner Schwarze-Rot-Geld; and definitely no references, especially visual references, to the Third Reich and German National Socialism. (There are other elements of populist policy which could be included here too perhaps a demand for a flat income tax, or a Swiss-style system of citizen-initiated referenda. German nationalists can look to the Swiss Peoples Party, or the Dutch Freedom Party, for policy ideas. But these policies will be in response to internal German political, economic and social problems and must, in the end, be conceived by German nationalists on the ground).

Following this course of action will, I believe, prove to be spectacularly successful: German nationalists will win seats at the federal level, and win seats in large numbers as many as needed to gain political power.

2 The importance of Schmitt

In Germany today, there are two threats to the national well-being: there is an external threat, presented by Islamic immigration; an internal threat, which is the rule of a particular political and intellectual class. The latter is more dangerous. The German political parties, together with the trade unions, intellectuals, media and the rest, form a class of (primarily) baby-boomers who grew up in the post-war years and were inculcated with a hatred of Germany and German history. This class runs Germany today, and, with the aid of the strict provisions of the German constitution, the Grundgesetz , or Basic Law, they rule with an iron fist. Which is why, in the first part of this essay, I shall be explaining the Basic Law and the peculiarities of Germanys political structure. In order to understand it and the implications for German nationalists we need to use a few concepts from the German jurist, Carl Schmitt. As they are quite complex, I shall explain them first in a broad outline. The first point is that the constitution is a system of laws which keep the country together, and is not necessarily written down on a piece of paper (Britain, for example, has no written constitution). Indeed, the most important parts of a constitution may not even be written down: they may be implied.

Schmitt calls the defining parts of a constitution substantive values; here I shall refer to them as the spirit of a constitution. One of the implications of this is that a supreme court or legislature has some leeway in interpreting what is constitutional, e.g., what is in the spirit of it, and what is not. A political party, such as the NPD, or the German Communist Party, may conform to the law, but may exist in opposition to the spirit of that law. Another important point is that constitutional forms (liberal democracy, monarchy, communism, fascism, military dictatorship) change, and can change quite often, while the people who make up that nation rarely do. Who, then, decides to make, or break, a constitutional form? In the age of democracy, it is the sovereign people. They have the power, what Schmitt calls the constituent power, to unmake constitutional forms. In the 1918 German revolution, for example, the German people made the collective decision to abandon monarchy, and vested their sovereignty in a constitutional committee who drew up what later became the Weimar constitution. The Schmittian scholar, Jan Müller, summarises this in the following paragraph.

Schmitt makes the seminal distinction between [constitution] and [constitutional law]. The former referred to the essence of the constitution, and in particular, in Schmittian parlance, its political form such as a democracy or a monarchy; the latter simply designated particular constitutional provisions. The constituting power [in most democracies, the people], according to Schmitt, had made a fundamental decision in favour of a political form of existence and this form had to be guarded and should be changed by majorities. Constitutional amendments and breaking thoughi.e., destroying] the constitution as such had to be carefully distinguished. [Müller, Jan-Werner, A Dangerous Mind: Carl Schmitt in Post-War European Thought, Yale University Press, 2003, p. 65].

3 Liberal democratic totalitarianism

4 The British Machiavelli

One can see, from all this, the difficulties that the German nationalists labour under. The question is: can the Basic Law, so inimical, so hostile, to German nationalists and to anything extreme, radical, be amended?

The answer is, only with great difficulty. To amend the German constitution, a two-thirds vote is needed in the Bundestag (the lower house) and the Bundesrat (the upper house). The latter has all its delegates appointed by state (Länder) governments, which is the equivalent of having all Australian senators in the Australian Senate being appointed by the parties holding office at the state and territory level e.g., the present NSW Labor state government, the Victorian Labor state government, and so on. So the German nationalists would need attain a two-thirds majority, not only in the federal parliament, but in the Länder as well: a tall order.

Part of the problem is that the German nationalists are so radically opposed to the present constitutional order that, in order for them to gain power, there would have to be a complete break with the constitution a constitutional breaking-through, or verfassungsdurchbruch. Complying with the constitution does not merely mean complying with the letter of the law; complying means adhering to the spirit of the constitution, the liberal democratic ideals and values. The German nationalists comply with the letter, to a certain extent, but certainly not with the spirit.

The central point of this essay is that the German nationalists do not have to abandon their nationalism, their opposition to the Bundesrepublik and the Basic Law; only that they have to adapt themselves halfway to it, or three-quarters of the way. Rather than observing only the letter of the law, they have to attune themselves to the spirit of the Basic Law.

The British National Party, today, has successfully adapted itself to the spirit of the British constitution. It does this mainly through symbolism. The BNP, like the German nationalist groups, is regularly denounced as Nazi, fascist. But the average Briton, understandably enough, connects these two concepts with uniforms, swastikas, runes, armbands, jackboots, posters of heroic-looking men holding banners and the like. So, when he sees the BNPs visual propaganda Union Jack flags, Churchill, RAF Spitfire planes, the Churchillean V for victory sign he becomes, on a subconscious level, confused. He is being told by the BNPs detractors to associate fascism/National Socialism with safe, secure, comfortable, all-British symbols and images (which he has been taught, from childhood, to revere) and that will not do. He concludes, again in his subconscious, that the BNPs detractors do not know what they are talking about: apples are not oranges. He may come across, later, other pieces of information about Nick Griffins past Holocaust denial, or the fact that the BNP was founded by John Tyndall, who used to wear home-made Brownshirt uniforms but these are words, mere words. Already, the battle, on the visual, and subliminal level, has been lost: he cannot understand, on a simple level, why the BNP is called Nazi.

Does this mean, then that the BNP which was founded as a neofascist party has gone liberal democratic? Has it gone over to the enemy? The answer is: no. The British establishment politicians, journalists, academics, intellectuals hate and fear the BNP. The BNP has not given up its racialist and nationalist views, has not broken links with other nationalist groups (including the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands). Indeed the NDP regularly has a stall at the BNPs red, white and blue festival. The enemies of the BNP understand that the use of Churchill imagery, the Zionism, the apparent support for Israel, is a clever trick it is camouflage designed to make the party appeal to British voters, to convey the image of respectability. In other words, the BNP is appropriating the rhetoric and symbolism of the liberal democratic parties in order to make itself look electable: it is using the weapons of the enemy against him. Their stance attempts to make the accusation of anti-Semitism a non-issue, effectively neutralising the damage it does to nationalism in those countries with populations taught from birth that certain ideas/events are absolute and never to be questioned.

5 The German dilemma

Given all this, what of the German nationalist groups? What is their symbolism? What message do they convey through their appearance? Well, for starters, photographs and footage of German nationalists always contain rather frightening-looking skinheads, wearing boots, T-shirts with iron crosses (a symbol which is still legal in Germany, surprisingly enough, and is used as an emblem by the German army, the Bundeswehr). The flags are the tricolour 1871-1918 German flag, the Imperial WWI German flag and the WWI Imperial Jack flag (used by German nationalists to assert a continuity with the German past before the Allied occupation). The German nationalists, also regularly demonstrate for recognition of the Wehrmacht, or against slandering of the Wehrmacht; these posters, fliers, pamphlets, banners use pictures of Wehrmacht soldiers. As well as that, there are marches in recognition of Rudolf Hess attempts to make peace between Germany and Britain, which are attended by prominent German nationalist leaders.

All of this is, for the average German, off-putting. He can only agree when the opponents of German nationalists label them Neo-Nazi. And Neo-Nazism means a number of things: social ostracisation; unemployment; possibly even jail. It also evokes a past which he has been conditioned, since birth, to feel guilty and ashamed about. Again, the perceptions of the average German voter are determined by what goes on at the simple, visual, subliminal level. The average German sees all the Nazi stuff, feels fear and discomfort (and looks over his shoulder he doesnt want the authorities catching him looking at it), and then closes his mind accordingly. On a simple, primeval level, he associates German nationalism, not with pleasure, but with pain.

The German nationalist may go on to make an excellent written or verbal presentation of his case, but to no avail: the decision against the nationalist, a decision which has its basis solely in emotion, has already been made. The German nationalists, though, are completely oblivious to the effect that the deployment of this Nazi, Far Right imagery and symbolism creates. Why? The answer lies in the following analogy. Suppose that a certain person was wrongly accused of being a serial killer or highway bandit or whatever, and that you became convinced, because of evidence in your exclusive possession, that he was not guilty on all charges, and lobbied, along with your friends and family, to get him exonerated. That criminal you are championing is as hated a figure as Fritzl, the Austrian incestuous rapist and murderer. But because you were so used to associating with other activists who feel exactly as you do, and because you are convinced that your views are right, you end up, over time, becoming desensitised to what the public perception of that wronged man is. You are oblivious, then, to the effects of displaying his image on your office desk; or on a poster in your house; or on a bumper sticker. The reaction of other people who do not share your convictions is one of discomfort, and whats more, fear of you and your crank views. This reaction, however, only confirms your view that most people are stupid and ignorant, or just unwilling to face the facts, and that you have to get used to the idea of a long, hard and lonely struggle for justice and truth…

One can see the parallels with the German nationalist.

But let us, for a moment, consider the overall political strategy of the German nationalists. They believe that they will be able to form a mass, street-based movement made up primarily of youth but also Germans from every walk of life like the rioting students in Iran in 2009, the Chinese students in Tiananmen in 1989. After a series of election victories, and political and economic crises which will bring the Bundesrepublik to its knees, they will overthrow the parties who rule the Bundesrepublik and set up a national republic in its place. And that will be the end of Germanys problems.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the German population can look past the National Socialist imagery and rhetoric of the contemporary German nationalists and that it is so discontented with the Bundesrepublik that is willing to rise up against it, like the East Germans did against the DDR in 1989. What of the foreign policy situation? What will it look like once the nationalists take over? It will be almost identical to that of Germany in 1933. Militarily, at present, Germany, France and Britain are weak and unprepared for war; but the Jewish community, the international Left, and Washington and Tel Aviv will urge the liberal democratic governments of France and Britain to prepare for war against the nationalist German state, to restore democracy and teach the Germans another lesson. There will be a build-up of arms on all sides. Eventually, Britain, France and the other democracies will be militarily strong enough to attack…

It goes without saying that they will level enormous trade and diplomatic sanctions against the fledgling nationalist government, in the hope of bringing the German people to their knees. Perhaps Britain, France and NATO will make war early, by bombing Berlin – like Belgrade in 1999. It is possible that the German people will cave in under all this pressure: they are, between ourselves, not as tough as their grandparents, who withstood far worse aerial bombardments than Belgrade in 1999. It is also possible that the German air force may cut the French and British bombers down before they reach Berlin. But who wants to think of these things? Who wants war? Germans do not want war, which is one of the reasons why they do not vote for German nationalists in large numbers – their current policies will entail another fratricidal war between European states their white populations, with Washington and Tel Aviv being the only beneficiaries.

The primary difference between Germany today and in 1933 is in the global attitude towards German nationalism. In 1933, most of the states of Europe were either indifferent, or accepting, of the new German nationalist government. Now, after seventy years of relentless, round-the-clock brainwashing, German nationalism is the most hated doctrine in the world: even Indians, Arabs and Africans are taught to look at it with contempt. The humanist liberals and socialists, who protested against the bombing of Belgrade, and the war against in Iraq in 2003, will welcome a war against a nationalist Germany with a kind of crazy, sadistic enthusiasm. German nationalism is a kind of test, these days, of ones morality: you prove your own worth by denouncing Nazism, Hitler and the rest. So a nationalist Germany will be a punching bag for the whole world.

All of this is obvious, but the German nationalist lives in a world of cognitive dissonance, i.e., an unwillingness to see the facts as they are. Most of the problem lies in the fact that the German nationalist today is unable, or unwilling, to recognize the political realities of the present, and work with them and adapt them to his purpose. Germany after 1949 is still Germany, and the German people remain the same even if their constitution has been imposed on them from without. The constitutional form of Germany has changed a number of times in the past hundred years: it has experienced constitutional monarchy, liberal democracy, fascism, communism, and then liberal democracy again. During that time, there have been plenty of reactionaries who have resisted constitutional change: in the Weimar era, there were nationalists who wanted to turn the clock back to before 1918; in the National Socialist era, there were liberals who wanted to go back to Weimar; and so on. In todays Germany, there are communists who cannot accept that the constitutional order of the GDR has gone, changed irrevocably; likewise, there are nationalists who cannot accept that the constitutional order of National Socialism (with Admiral Doenitz being the last legitimate head of state) has gone. Neither can make their peace with the existing constitutional order.

Which, in turn, raises the question: what came first? The particular constitutional form Communism, National Socialism or the German people? Did German people create the NSDAP and the Wehrmacht, or was it the other way around? The correct answer, for a true nationalist and democrat at least, is that the Wehrmacht, the German Imperial Army, Rudolf Hess, Bismarck, Moltke and the rest were, at the time, the servants of the German people, indeed the creations of the German people. The true German nationalist aims to serve the German people of today and this cannot be achieved by hankering after the sovereign Germany before its occupation and partition in 1945. The past constitutional form cannot be recreated, and, what is more, should not be viewed as an end and not a means. The past constitutional form was a creation of the German people, not its master.

In addition, politics, in any country, is geared towards present-day problems and conflicts not those of the past. Germany’s past is, of course, used by its opponents against it in no other country is the past used, like a hammer, to beat the German people with. This disguises the fact that the concerns of the masses are geared towards the problems of the moment (the problems, as of the time of writing, are the financial crisis, unemployment, immigration, among others). What, then, are we to make of a political movement which constantly dwells on the past specifically, German nationalism, which is preoccupied with the war crimes committed against German civilians and POWs from 1944 to 1949? Undoubtedly, the average German voter ought to know about Allied and Soviet atrocities. But the truth is that he lives in the present, and that what happened to the generation of his grandparents is of little immediate concern to him.

The young Germans I encounter are people who are backpackers, soccer fans, travelling businessmen, university students – do not want to think of such things. Not only do accounts of post-war atrocities by the Allies and the Soviets seem antiquated, they are also, oddly enough, disempowering by constantly being forced to reflect on past atrocities, the young German does not feel like a confident German proud of himself and his country in the present day. (Nothing can be more depressing for the German woman of today, for instance, than hearing about mass rapes of German women and girls by Russians, Poles and Czechs: such stories make her feel weak and powerless, victims which is what the original atrocities were intended to do).

The main priority, for nearly all nationalists in the West is to encourage Third World immigrants to return to their own countries, and to stop potential immigrants from the Third World from entering Western countries. There are a host of other problems to be tackled, of course, but that is the main one. And it is a problem very much of the present. Terrible as it sounds, the massacres of millions of German POWs and civilians in the aftermath of the Second World War has little to no bearing on the German (and European) political problems of the present. Yes, those atrocities should be brought to the public consciousness of Germans, and the entire world; yes, Germans should receive compensation for them. But a modern German government, basing its policies on the ideas of todays German nationalists would be a government legislating for the purpose of redressing the wrongs of the past instead of the present, that is, one not geared to the present-day preoccupations of the German people.

There is, of course, one ethnic group in the world today (which shall not be named here for reasons of political correctness) which revels in stories of its past suffering, and even invents, by the thousand, stories of past atrocities. The more gruesome and fantastic these stories are, the better. But the Germans, as a whole, are a healthy people, and do not like to contemplate their past suffering and tragedies. They get no joy from it.

6 The populist solution

Supposing, then, that German nationalists make the political, economic and social problems of todays Bundesrepublik their number one priority: how do they go about winning federal and state office? The answer is to move a few more steps towards accepting legality, which means accepting the spirit of the present 1949 constitution: that is, being legal, not only in the acceptance of the constitutional law for the formation of political parties, but the acceptance of the underlying doctrines, the spirit, of that constitution (e.g., modern liberal democracy is splendid; so is liberalism; so is the multi-party electoral system; totalitarian political systems, like Communism, fascism and Islam, are bad). That does not mean accepting the modern-day German Parteienstaat entirely. No, it means three-quarters acceptance which is considerably more than that shown by most German nationalists so far. That acceptance of the virtues of liberal democracy also allows German nationalists to make an attack on the liberal democratic system, not from the position of fascism or National Socialism, but from populism.

Likewise, radical Islam which has a vice-like grip on the Muslim immigrant populations in Europe is no friend of the Parteienstaat and liberal democracy. One could speculate that, if the Muslim populations to be in charge of European government, the constitutions of the liberal democratic European states would be changed to resemble those of Iran and Taliban-ruled Afghanistan: the rule of the parties would be replaced by the rule of the Imams. Even without an Islamic theocracy, womens rights, and a host of individual freedoms, could be dramatically curtailed under political pressure from Muslims: as they are even in more liberal democratic Muslim countries such as Malaysia. A populist agitator could easily stir up the passions of the German people by painting a picture of a future Germany where nudism and scanty dress are banned, and beer houses are shut down, for fear of offending Germany’s substantial Islamic population.

7 Westenalgie replaces Ostalgie

Nationalism has to have, of course, a positive component. What should that component be in German nationalism? The answer is: nostalgia for the good old days of the West German Bundesrepublik an equivalent of the nostalgia, called Ost Nostalgie, or Ostalgie, for the Eastern German Democratic Republic, which is so prevalent these days.

One of the components of current Far Right European populist ideology is nostalgia nostalgia for the way things were in Britain/France/Denmark/the Netherlands/[insert Western European country here] in the 1950s and 1960s, before the mass Islamic immigration into Europe began. Not only did the Europeans, in this blessed period, live in an ethnically homogenous, traditional society, they lived at a time of great economic prosperity. Furthermore, the European welfare state functioned at its peak.

By Vivian Roberts

“If you do not act with integrity … you are not likely to enjoy the kind of reputation that will keep good people in your employ, or keep customers coming back for your products or services.” - John Ralph.

There is an often quoted saying used by those in business for immoral and unethical behaviour towards others. Chances are you have had this line used on you before; “it’s nothing personal, it’s just business”. For many, this statement justifies any wrong doing to another because it’s rationalised in the accumulation of wealth. This was exactly the case when Pacific Brands (Bonds/King Gee) CEO Sue Morphet sent the jobs of 300 Illawarra textile workers overseas. It implied that value could only be found in financial wealth, and that there is little or no value in social and ethical responsibility.

Pacific Brands came under intense public pressure with sections of the community vowing in protest to never purchase Pacific Brands products ever again. Like so many other International companies, Pacific Brands was willing to accept the short term losses and wait until public pressure subsides, public apathy kicks in and sales start to increase again. The loss of bonds to the Australian manufacturing industry was another blow in the Australian psyche, and reaffirmation that “Everything is made in China”.

BHP Billiton axed 1,800 jobs when the Ravensthorpe Nickel mine was closed in Western Australia. The impact on the town was devastating, leaving working Australians with mortgages greater than the property value of their homes. This is just another example of how the social impact of International profit mongering is the Pandora’s box of Liberal democracy.

Former Australian Prime Minister Billy Hughes made the following comments after clearly recognising that business and economics are inter-related with the personal and national condition;

“But if it were a question of trade only affecting our pockets, the fiscal question might be fairly left to settle itself. But it reaches down to the very roots of our lives. You cannot proceed upon the assumption that the economic policy of a nation has no relation to its national welfare. The relations between the two are inseparable, intimate and complex. This fact is fundamental; to ignore it, is to not only to invite but to ensure national destruction”.

Australians are exposed to unethical business practices on both the micro and macro level, from the preference of cheap foreign workers over long standing Australian workers; the selling of Australian mines to foreign Governments; pollution cover-ups; insider trading; to the bribing of local Government councillors to approve developments that are not in the interests of the communities they represent. All of these examples have one thing in common; the use of economic rationalism and little consideration for social and cultural impacts as having a societal value.

The Australian Government has legislated business ethics in the framework of preserving the environment and biodiversity after long term lobbying by interested parties. State and local Governments now require land developers to engage in biodiversity impact statements and environmental management plans if their applications are to be successful. However, social and cultural impact statements largely remain the undiscovered country in terms of Australian legislation. No person or business is required to submit a cultural impact statement for the business practises they engage in, nor is alocal council under any obligation to determine if a new Mosque or Hindu temple will have any unfavourable social impacts on the local community.

Nationalist Alternative Ethical Business Guidelines

Strategies and Tactics for Dealing with the Australian Public
By John Harper

Pillar One of Nationalist Alternative – “The struggle for the street”

“Extra parliamentary action, grass-roots community work that engenders a positive image, local issues, working ‘outside’ the liberal democratic state.”– Manifesto 2

We are finding a large interest for real change in this country, beyond what the Liberal Democrats of either the ‘left’ (ALP, Greens) or ‘right’ (Liberal Party – Abbot and his reformed neo-con Howard buddies) variety can ever offer.  The major parties only offer more of the same. Australians are yearning for real action, real change, for a party and/or organisation that actually do represent their interests.

Nationalist Alternative’s “Struggle for the Street” begins with local activism as shown in the below photographs.

Some of our outreach methods (Pillar 1) include;

• Leaflet and sticker drops with location dependant on the particular message/campaign
  • Campaign for student rights
  • The rental crisis major capital cities, particularly Melbourne and Sydney Universities
• Public information tables (containing leaflets, stickers, books, business cards and other future merchandise)
• Face to face discussions with the community
• Guerrilla marketing whether it be temporary banners over major freeways or other items coming up
• Attendance at demonstrations and protests
• Joining and aiding existing community campaigns for real democracy such as the opposition to the Newport mosque development in Melbourne
• Numerous social events amongst the networks we build
• Our emphasis on members/supporters to individually be calm and reasoned advocates of nationalism anywhere possible; workplaces, social events, family home, places of worship, hobby and sporting groups, business and professional conferences.

Leaflet tables are now starting to be a regular part of our activism. Various activists set up basic displays near high traffic areas to interact with the Australian public to discuss issues of national importance. Such topics often do not find a platform anywhere else due to State oppression and media blackouts.

Nationalist Alternative has conducted several ongoing sticker and leaflet campaigns in Sydney, Melbourne, Queensland and Western Australia around issues such as water scarcity and student rights which are two issues highlighted on our sticker range.

Nationalist Alternative is involved in the ongoing struggle for the rights for Australian students wishing to further their education at Uni or TAFE. We recognise the value of a unified student body fighting on issues of a broader national scope as a force for positive change. We are one of the few organisations brave enough to state “Put Local Students First!”.

We do not support the selling out of our teaching standards as an export, nor should citizenship be an export! Where other parties and student bodies are more interested in the welfare of niche groups and internationals, Nationalist Alternative is unequivocal in putting local students first. A sentiment which is strangely lacking elsewhere.

Below are some pictures of activism, highlighting the methods used to place stickers. An extension pole can be used for high placement of material. This makes it harder for our oppressors to remove them.

Student issues Nationalist Alternative is involved with include;

• Increasing HECS bills
• Not enough University / TAFE positions despite Australia facing a so called skill shortage
• The use of universities/TAFE/Private College’s as VISA factories where foreign students select any course to simply build the ‘points’ to then achieve permanent residency
• Overcrowded tutorial and lecture theatres as evidence to the production line mentality of university administrations
• Blurring the line between tertiary institutions as national pillars of free thinking and blue sky learning versus increasing corporate pressure to tailor ‘output’ to a pre-defined set of parameters suitable only for entry level into their organisations
• Gradual decline in universities being truly independent and outstanding centres of higher learning and unfortunate growth in corporations like the NAB and McDonalds developing their own academies complete with co-option of titles like ‘Dean’.
• Lack of affordable inner city housing for students, young apprentices and most of the Australian working and middle classes in almost every Australian capital city.
• Low wages and the high start up expenses for apprentices, the lifeblood of Australian industry
• Marginalisation of young Australians in the struggle for increasingly scarce resources, including accommodation and casual work.
• The need for more vocational pathways for high school students inclined to a non- university option

Pillar 2 of Nationalist Alternative – “The Struggle for the Mind”

Acting as a ‘Think-Tank’: insightful cutting articles, and the dissemination of material in any form that de-institutionalizes and breaks the chains of existing liberal/Marxist/Imperialist/Neocon/universalist beliefs, norms, and values, and establish new forms that spearhead nationalist, particularist and ethnic identity” – Manifesto 2

How do we do it?

Political activism is useful if it serves the greater goal of sparking interest and intellectual curiosity on issues and at some future time, real action to bring results.

Changing mindsets is a long hard struggle and success is not measured in days or months or even years, curiosity sparked by activism of some sort is akin to planting a seed that may bear fruit immediately for some and 2 years later for others.
What it takes to “spark the curiosity” of any given individual widely varies.

Hence the numerous publicity methods outlined in the first section (Pillar 1) above are tools we use to bring immediate attention to viewpoints and truths otherwise obscured, outright suppressed or not given an opportunity to be discussed in any mainstream outlet.

Activism delivers ‘interested parties’ to our website and contact points. From here there are 2 further broad categories which enable exploration of ideas to continue.
Written information, facts and figures and Face to Face: the ability to further converse/engage in and leverage your self up through our personal networks.

Our frequent articles discuss the same issues but in greater depth and persuasion including confronting common liberal criticisms/arguments head-on and exposing the thin ground their principles rest upon.
For instance our “Political Correctness” series of articles expose the hypocrisy and double standards of Political Correctness, and how Nationalist Alternative is committed to challenging this “belief system” which many Australians wish to see gone.

Often after a new article is published many enquiries are made, not all from supporters but interested citizens who are intrigued by something different to what their daily newspaper/tv/magazine/classroom is telling them. There will be a lengthy to and fro by email followed by a meeting in person and a request to add them to future mail-outs.

The second category is our face to face meetings, regular socials, exchanging of work opportunities, business/trade/professional contacts and arranging/supporting platforms for events where nationalist speakers (international/national) can create a powerful network of pro Australian people who are keen to leverage off each others skills, competencies and strengths.

Go here for pdf versions to print at home or take to a commercial printer.