Our responsibilities and duties as Australian nationalists

Darrin Hodges discusses the tasks, problems, and future of Nationalism in Australia, and how this current generation have a responsibility as to what sort of inheritance they would leave to their grand-children and our nation’s future generations.

I do not think there is any real nationalist movement in Australia, it’s more like a loose collection of grouplets with their own “take” on nationalism, some of it is derived from various foreign ideologies. These grouplets exist in a constant state of political struggle, each seeking to impose their version of nationalism over the rest.

So before we can move into the public arena, we must develop a unified nationalist agenda with a uniquely Australian perspective, free from overt foreign influences. In doing so, we must be mindful of the problems and pitfalls of such movements in the past. I can think of several good examples.

Misdirected failures

In the 1930s a movement known as the “New Guard” [1] was formed. It was started by World War One veterans who perceived that the then Lang Labor government was treasonous and was working to introduce Communism into Australia. At their peak, they had a membership of up to 50,000 people in NSW alone. They had planned to storm parliament house and evict the Lang government by force, however the Lang government was dismissed by the Governor before they could complete their mission.

In the aftermath, a conservative government was duly elected and the New Guard’s membership vanished virtually overnight, because people believed that their work was done. The reason I believe was that they made the error of merely opposing one side of politics and, given their devotion to the Crown and Empire, they by nature lacked an Australian nationalist perspective and therefore failed to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives of the time.

We must be wary of Conservatives who are always pushing the barrow of ‘Civic Patriotism’. Civic Patriotism’ is the Conservative codeword for multiracialism – in that anybody with a piece of paper that says “Australian Citizen” is considered a part of the Australian people.

The dismal failure of the Front National should be a lesson to all nationalist groups. The Front National failed to differentiate themselves from the French Conservative party, even running a poster campaign featuring a woman of Moroccan appearance! On the campaign trail Le-Pen (Leader of the Front National) chose to emulate the Conservatives rather than sticking to his guns in a belated attempt to appear ‘mainstream’. In the end the Conservatives simply stole the Front National’s ideas and collapsed their vote from seventeen percent to eleven percent. The Howard government in Australia did similar things with One Nation. They simply stole the One Nation policies that had electoral appeal and simply “took over” the ideological space occupied by One Nation. In fact, with the recent policy “window dressing” of tests for immigrants and the like, the Howard government is actually starting to encroach on our own nationalist ideological space.

It is important therefore to create an Australian Nationalist ideological “space” that looks to Australia, rather than overseas, for its inspiration. Ample base material can be found in the many writings that came out of Australia’s pre and post federation period. Writers and thinkers such as Sir Henry Parkes and Alfred Deakin among others have left us with a rich legacy to delve into. They helped to develop the constitution, federation, and its keystone, the white Australia policy, out of their great wisdom and love of their country and the understanding that it was incumbent upon them to provide an important framework on which we can base our culture, heritage and most importantly, our identity.

Putting Australia first!

On the issue of identity, it is important that we develop an Australian movement based on our own history and politics, rather than those of early twentieth century Europe. There is an unfortunate undercurrent in nationalist politics to ‘celebrate’, for want of a better word, Hitler and his regime. However, in my view, nobody has done more harm to European racial sovereignty than Adolf Hitler; we are in the mess we are today because of him.

Writings from early Australian nationalists describe just how advanced Australia was in regards to racial consciousness, in fact I can quote from some correspondence to the British Secretary of State for the colonies in regards to Chinese immigration into Australia, where the Attorney-General of Tasmania said:

[it] would create a combined political and industrial division of society upon the basis of a racial distinction. This would inevitably produce in the majority of the remainder of the population a degraded estimate of manual labour similar to that which has always existed in those communities where African slavery has been permitted, and thereby call into existence a class similar in habit and character to the “mean whites” of the Southern States of the American Union before the Civil War. Societies so divided produce particular vices in exaggerated proportions, and are doomed to certain deterioration. [2]

That exchange took place in January 1888, when Hitler wasn’t even a glint in his father’s eye. The Australian desire for a homogeneous population, free to survive and prosper without being overrun or swamped by the coloured races, emerged decades before the Nazis, had nothing to do with the Nazis, and – unlike the Nazis – wholeheartedly supported democracy and freedom of speech. It was a pro-white ideology that was home-grown, born of Australian circumstances, and that established an Australian racial consciousness and understanding.

Australian nationalist traditions

In 1900, the Bulletin published an article entitled the ‘Federated Chinaman’. In the article the Bulletin presented reasons why Australia should not accept non-white immigration, saying that non-whites should be kept out by force, including non-white British subjects; it ended the article with this proposal:

That under Federal law it shall be absolutely illegal for any black, brown, or yellow man to settle in this country, whether he is a British subject or not. All such individuals at present in the country to be registered and have licenses issued to them. Any such individual found thereafter without a license to be required to prove that he was a resident prior to Federation, or be fined heavily and shipped back to his native land. Transfer or forgery of licenses to be heavily punishable. Kanakas here under contract to be compulsorily shipped back to their islands when their time expires. Miscellaneous coloured settlers to be offered free passages home by the Federal Government, provided their departure is permanent. [3]

In other words, it was an all or nothing proposition. If Australia wanted to stay a white country, all non-white immigration must be stopped. This became a reality with the passing of the 1901 Immigration Restriction bill, which formed the basis of what became commonly known as the ‘White Australia Policy’. The intention of this piece of legislation has always been misunderstood. It is usually described as a racist hangover from an earlier age, but such criticism is shallow. The policy had several intentions:

1) to restrict non-white immigration to ensure racial homogeneity.
2) to protect the fledgling Australian society.
3) to protect Australian labour.
4) to prevent the creation of an underclass.

The last two points are significant. Our forefathers saw what happened in the United States, the use of slave labour resulted in a costly civil war and had created ‘mean whites’, whites who didn’t own their own slaves and who could not find employment because plantation owners for example, preferred the use of cheaper non-white labour, a sign that capitalism had extended too far. The Australian colonies did not want to repeat the same mistakes, even going as far as saying that we should have been paying more for sugar to pay for white labour, rather than having cheap sugar from the use of cheap non-white labour on Australia’s sugar plantations. Even further back in time, the use of a slave underclass in Sparta proved ultimately to be its demise.

Even though we ultimately legislated against non-white immigration, we as a country still needed immigration to fill this great land and make it thrive. In 1854 and again in 1881 Sir Henry Parkes made speeches in favour of a more liberal immigration scheme, in part he said:

I want men and women — free men and women — of our own stock to assist us in laying the broad foundations of an Empire. [4]

Sir Edmund Barton, our first Prime Minister, was also acutely racially conscious, according to Brian Carroll’s Australia’s Prime Ministers:

In moving the second reading of the Immigration Restriction Act, Barton was emphatic about its importance. He was pleased, he said, to turn from ‘mere machinery bills’ to a measure of definite and high policy. Although he quoted copiously from Pearon’s “National Life and Character” as to the terrible results of racial contamination, Barton knew that Australia would be in trouble with Britain if it based its immigration polices on race alone. Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain had told him that disqualification on the grounds of race and colour was not only offensive to a friendly power, but contrary to the general conceptions of equality which have ever been the guiding principle of British rule throughout the Empire. [5]

Well, the cows really came home to roost on that ‘guiding principle’ for the British hasn’t it? Racial consciousness of our own forefathers was very strong, they were wide awake and they foresaw the consequences of multiculturalism and multiracialism, knowing that allowing non-white immigration would leave Australia as a nation of half castes that would become ungovernable, and democracy would not thrive in such circumstances. They did not say these things out of hatred, but out of wisdom and love of their country and their people.

The Nazi problem

Some would argue the same thing about Adolf Hitler; however, he was happy to leave Australia to the tender mercies of the Japanese Imperial Army. Australia at that time was a white country. Hitler almost led his own people to extinction and left a divided country and his people living under the boot of foreigners.

Yet, despite our own rich history of racial awareness, there is still a minority in the Australian Nationalist scene who have the belief and the desire to follow Adolf Hitler and the Nazi ideology. It’s not always because of the ideology itself; Nick Griffin, in a article written for the British National Party, suggested that it is partly the result of the multicultural indoctrination in the education system:

Their grasp of modern history was almost non-existent. They knew next-to-nothing about the causes or the course of the Second World War. They knew even less about the National Socialist German Workers Party or its political programme. Yet these [two] youngsters – who have lived their entire lives under a ceaseless barrage of multiracist propaganda, on TV, in the music they like, and in school – were sure of one thing: They were ‘Nazis’.

He goes on to ask this vital question of why:

So how on earth had they made that connection? Well, in a way, they hadn’t. The connection between fear and hatred of their Asian classmates on one side, and Hitler and the swastika on the other, had been made by their teachers, textbooks and the national curriculum – with the message reinforced time and time again at home on television.

“Hitler thought the white race was superior, and hated non-whites,” These kids are taught. “Hitler was a racist who hated other races and wanted to kill them. If you say or even think bad things about immigrants, that makes you a Nazi too.” [6]

I realise that this doesn’t necessarily apply to all Nationalists, nor am I suggesting that those who have an interest in National Socialism are mindless simpletons, but the fact remains that there is a significant minority of nationalists, in virtually every country, who affiliate their ideology with Nazism as well as have the belief that we only have to wait for the “great white messiah” to fly down out of the sky, smite our enemies with the breath of his nostril, and save our sorry white arses.

I have been to meetings where this expectation of the great social collapse was actively discussed and how they would just stroll in and take over in such an event. Those of you who have tried organising a StormFront-based event will understand that they won’t even attend a bbq, let alone organise to take over and run the country; it’s laughable. In fact, one of the common refrains is that they don’t want their pictures taken or to be anything but anonymous. I wonder if these same people would have had the same attitude in the early years of the National Socialist party? Would they have had the spine to publicly join such a party or would they have stayed at home in safe anonymity?

I once came across a well-known Australian Nazi, who told me he hadn’t read Mein Kampf in its entirety, because it was all ‘too hard’; but I’m afraid it’s a book espousing a political philosophy, not a “Womans Day” expose on Paris Hilton, yet he insisted he wasn’t a “dress-up Nazi”.

The other great obsession is with the Jews. “The Jews ate my homework”, “the Jews made my cat pregnant”, “my car broke down – it was the Jews”, “Jews hiding under the bed”, “the Jews, the Jews, the Jews”. But it wasn’t the Jews running down the Kingsway in Cronulla bashing and raping everything in their path (it was thugs from the Lebanese Muslim community). Zionism, on the other hand, is different.

I think the American section of StormFront has had a lot of undue influence on some in the “StormFront DownUnder” section. The Americans may have a case for their stance, as the pro-Israel lobby is particularly strong in the US, but their world view is not our world view, their issues with Zionist influence are different from ours.

In Australia I believe we should treat Zionism much like most other ‘isms’ – socialism, communism, Islamism – in that such ideologies are internationalist by nature and do not have the best interests of the Australian people at heart.

It’s ironic that those who are the most anti-Zionist are in reality doing the bidding of those they would oppose. By adhering to an outdated and reactionary ideology such as Nazism they are doing more to keep nationalism from progressing than anybody. Surely, even by their own standards, the so-called “ZOG” (Zionist Occupied Government) would be pleased with them!

Connecting to ordinary Australians

I live in the Sutherland shire, an area that is usually described as an “Anglo enclave” or an “Anglo ghetto”. Even a visit to the local Woolworths is a walk in a whiter world. There is a young woman who works on the checkout there, she has bright blue eyes and fiery red hair; clearly of good European stock and she is stunningly beautiful, not in a degraded sensual sense, but as a representation of white feminine beauty. I look at her and I think, “What a shame, what a great tragedy that such beauty would be extinguished from the world because of our negligence!”

And what is our negligence? It is our failure to connect to ordinary people in any meaningful way. It is our failure to produce a genuine Australian Nationalist ideology. It is our failure to produce a practical and attractive nationalist based movement. It is our failure to deal with issues such as outlined above that will enable us as nationalists to put ourselves into a position of real political power that would allow us to guide our people away from the racial disaster they are currently heading into.

That racial disaster is the danger that our grandchildren will end up as a tiny white minority living in some ethnic cesspit. The only jobs they will have will probably be selling whale sushi to Japanese tourists as wage slaves in the hospitality industry, about the only jobs they can’t send to Asia or Africa.

Our people have been subjected to at least thirty years of multicultural indoctrination. Their natural instincts have been overridden and, in the words of Jesus, “they know not what they do” in regards to intimate relations to persons outside of our race. Multiculturalism is white genocide. The influx of non-whites into this country is about the desire to exterminate white people, by destroying our race though miscegenation.

Every time I see a non-white female walking down the street, I only see 1,000 unborn white babies. Every time I see one of our women with a non-white partner, I see 10,000 unborn white babies. It’s not about race hate. I don’t hate people because they are black or Asian, I hate the fact that our nation is
being destroyed by multiculturalism and Third World immigration. Our predicament is dire and should not be underestimated, this is a battle for the very existence of our race.

I’m not saying that we are building the ‘master race’ or starting an Aryan breeding program. Imagine, if you will, if the Nazis had the DNA technology that we have today, Pauline Hanson [7] would probably have been considered a non-Aryan or untermensch (sub-human). While we should not be obsessed with ‘racial purity’ as such, we do want to preserve our race.

So we must be sensible in how we approach the people. Angry hard-core nationalists should not go out there “hammer and tongs” to denounce “race traitors” and promise to ship all the “coloureds” out. Our people will react poorly to such actions, it is a response they have been educated with and despite their response, it will be important not to see our people as the enemy. They have been indoctrinated to believe they are tolerant, colour blind, deracinated cosmopolitans. The real enemy is in the parliament, the media, and amongst the hard-core multiculturalists.

As for approaching our people in regards to racial awareness, those of you who have had babies will know that you do not feed a small baby a steak, you feed it milk. As the baby grows, you progressively give it larger portions of solid food. This is how we need to approach the issue of racial consciousness with our own people.

For now though, I think we should pick up where One Nation left off. I think the One Nation level of ideology is about as hard as most people can accept. That doesn’t mean that we become like One Nation, but around 1 million people voted for them at their peak and those people are still out there looking for somebody to vote for. I often hear comments from people on how they used to vote for One Nation, the Liberals or Labor, but have come to realise that Liberal and Labor in particular are just two sides of the same coin. They feel frustrated that there is no real alternative.

The Australian Protectionist Party can become that viable alternative, but we must learn to connect with issues that affect people in their everyday lives: poor medical services, poor public transport, water shortages, the rental crises, housing shortages. Point out how immigration affects these areas, for example how an influx of third world labourers will depress wages and put Australians out of jobs. Unless we make their issues our issues, unless we discuss things that are of interest to the people, rather then things that are of interest to us, we will continue to fail.

It will not be easy; we saw how the Establishment had Pauline Hanson thrown into gaol. Ordinary people saw that and thought they had better keep their mouths shut and their heads down if they wanted to avoid the same fate. Pauline Hanson and her supporters were pilloried relentlessly in the media and by the multiculturalists. The AEC even redraw the electoral boundaries of her seat in a bid to disenfranchise her support base, the Establishment will stop at nothing to prevent good patriots from having any political power.

Yet still it is our responsibility and our duty to guide our people back to the right path of racial awareness. We have the odds stacked against us; entire generations of Australians have been immersed in this multicultural acid trip that is their reality now. We, however, are obligated to pass onto our children the same legacy that was passed on to us, the legacy that an entire generation of young Australians went to war for – a free and white Australia. We cannot claim to suffer the way they did, but the battle remains the same.

We also should be patient. I think that some people have a rather compressed view of history; they do not realize, for example, that it has taken the BNP twenty-five years to get to where it is today, and it still has some way to go. I may not live to see the fruits of our labour, younger people moving into Nationalism may not see it either, but we are not doing it for our own benefit.

It should be the goal of every nationalist to ensure that he or she passes on to their children a heritage, a culture, a country, and an identity that they can be proud of. To that end, we need to work to build up the movement of Australian Nationalism, so that our children can be born into a country that is stronger and whiter then when we were born into it.

Finally, I’d like to recall a toast given by Sir Henry Parkes at a Federalist convention, 1891 [8]:

I ask you then, with unreserved feeling, with true hearts, earnestly engaged in this great work to drink this toast:
One people. One destiny.


1. The New Guard, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Guard
2. Attorney-General of Tasmania Andrew Englis Clark, replying to an inquiry by British Secretary of State for the Colonies about legislation affecting Chinese immigration, January 1888.
3. “The Federated Chinaman”, The Bulletin, 27 October 1900.
4. Sir Henry Parkes’ speech on the importance of immigration, 10 March 1881.
5. “Edmund Barton: The Torchbearer”, Australia’s Prime Ministers, From Barton to Howard, by Brian Carroll, p.32.
6. “Why the swastika appeals to many young Britons”, by Nick Griffin, British National Party, 2005, http://www.bnp.org.uk/articles/appeal_swastika.htm
7. “DNA test shows Hanson’s Middle Eastern heritage”, News.com.au, 11 February 2007, http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,21206707-2,00.html
8. “The banquet”, The Observer, www.slsa.sa.gov.au/federation/sa_observer90.htm (p.34, col.D, www.slsa.sa.gov.au/federation/images/observer/O23_March1891Banquet.htm) 7 March 1891.

Speak Your Mind