Monday, April 21, 2008

The New Right, "national anarchism", and A White Australia

Recently, a minor debate concerning the political perspectives of the New Right has taken place within the local fascist milieu, especially in relation to the hot-button topics of the nation, the state, the nation-state of Australia, and the preservation of the White race (of which, globally, there are only something like 1 billion members; within Australia, approximately 85% of the population is of European/White [predominantly 'Anglo-Celtic' or 'Anglo-Saxon'] descent). The preservation of the racial (White) and ethnic (Western and Northern European) composition of the Australian population is the key concern of the 'White (Australian) nationalist' milieu, although how to maintain this dominance is the subject of heated discussion. As such, the debate helps to clarify some of the issues surrounding the relationship between the New Right in Australia (and er, New Zealand) and 'national anarchism'; or at least, the manner in which that relationship is understood by members of the New Right and other members of the local fascist milieu, as well as the different approaches the New Right, 'national anarchists', and other fascist groups take towards questions of social change and political strategy.

Defend Australian Nationalism!

To begin with, the debate was sparked by the leader of the Australia First Party (NSW), Dr James Saleam, a veteran fascist and ideologue. In essence, Saleam questioned the political implications of the New Right's apparent embrace of Troy Southgate's peculiar notion of 'anarchism' for the future of White Australia. Saleam's concern is justified, as the implications of Southgate's vision of villages full of Whites living -- perhaps slightly uncomfortably -- among other villages composed of Blacks, Browns, Yellows and (presumably) all the other colours of the Homo Rainbow -- whatever they might be now or in the future -- does indeed spell the potential end of a White Australia.

Saleam's essay is titled, with his usual sense of pomp and circumstance, 'An Error In New Right Australia / New Zealand: Is There An Effective Acceptance Of Multiculturalism And Multiracialism In Australia?'. He writes:

A senior person in New Right Australia / New Zealand [Welf Herfurth] addressed a meeting in Sydney on February 15. Around the same time, he also did an interview for a certain magazine ['Doing the New Right thing by people: An interview with a key organiser for the New Right and National Anarchist movements in Australia', Destiny, No.3, February 2008]. A few important statements of position were made (and some strongly implied in the dialogue) that may not only imperil the acceptance of general New Right ideology within the broad Australian nationalist movement, but which could compromise the position of that group itself inside any front for Australian renewal. This situation arises because New Right ideology in Australia has been combined by the speaker and the group with the political philosophy of 'national anarchism'. And there are some ideological-political concepts in current national anarchism which place it in juxtaposition to long-standing Australian nationalist principle.

Destiny is a local, Melbourne publication, launched late last year, and closely allied with the 'Australian Protectionist Party' (APP). The APP emerged as a result of a split in Saleam's AF; this split, in turn, the apparent result of qualms over Saleam's history as a neo-Nazi and convicted criminal (a stick with which the media continues to beat Saleam about the head with, much to his chagrin), continued, close association with other neo-Nazis such as Ross 'The Skull' May, and his autocratic leadership style. In addition to Destiny, the interview with Herfurth was also published on, a UK-based site which has sought to close down my writings, and for which Herfurth, along with other members of the far right, is a regular contributor. (Among its previous contributors is Bill White of the US-based 'American National Socialist Workers’ Party', aka the 'American Nazi Party'. Bill is currently facing "fines and possible jail time for interfering in a local racial discrimination suit involving black tenants of a Virginia Beach apartment complex" (Roanoke white supremacist faces fines, possible jail time, Tim McGlone, The Virginian-Pilot, April 3, 2008).

In his Destiny/ interview, Herfurth notes his interest in politics, opposition to liberal democracy and globalisation -- especially in terms of their role in the creation of a global 'mono-culture' -- and claims that 'national anarchism' is 'the radical answer to globalisation and the tyranny of liberal democracy'. The New Right and 'national anarchism' are not political parties, he notes, but social movement organisations which serve to facilitate the growth of a broader movement based on their ideas and practices. The failure of One Nation to facilitate this development is instructive, he argues, of the pitfalls of an approach to social change based upon a reliance on parliamentary politics.

(Herfurth was once an official in ONP before being expelled[?]. He was also a member of the Australian Friends of Europe (AFE), formerly Australian Friends of the BNP (British National Party). It sought to foster cooperation between "nationalist" groups against "globalist" socialism. The main AFE activists were Mark Wilson, former BNP organizer in Epping, UK, and Herfurth. The group made contact with, and was invited to address, Saleam's former political party National Action, the Australian League of Rights and branches of the ONP.)

In terms of the distinction between the New Right groupuscule and 'national anarchism', Herfurth believes that the former can act to cohere 'nationalist' ideology, while 'national anarchism' adopts an activist approach: "In my view, the National-Anarchists are the activists of the New Right". An example of this activism is the presence of a group of 'national anarchists' at the APEC summit last year; to date, the first and only public manifestation of 'national anarchism' in Australia of this sort. This kind of activity is intended to "confuse the so-called traditional Left, including the mainstream anarchists... so that they will start to think beyond their dogmas. Ultimately, National-Anarchism aims at an Australia of autonomous communities which are self-sufficient." Herfurth then notes his experiences as a political activist in Germany (Herfurth was a member of the neo-Nazi NPD), and the German far right's willingness to engage in broad, 'cultural' forms of political activism; an approach which he fulsomely endorses.

As for the crux of Herfurth's vision for the land Down Under:

7. What is your vision for the Australian Nation?

What is the Australian Nation and what is the Australian way of life? By law everybody is an Australian if they have an Australian passport [sic]. I disagree with that ‘civic nationalist’ view, of course.

Ideally, what I would like to see is an Australia which is a country with many autonomous communities that control their own local affairs. That means no state government, but one needs a federal body that controls foreign affairs. I want a country of free people who can determine their own destiny and future.

Realistically – that is, for the time being – I want to see a society that rejects liberal democracy. We should form our own groups of friends and associates, and interact with them, and exchange labour and goods within those groups. By doing that, we will form a parallel society. That is, we have a National-Anarchist system within a system.

In response to this proposal -- and Herfurth's reported remarks at the February 15 meeting -- Saleam concludes that Herfurth advocates a possible Australia of the future consisting of "a patchwork of quasi independent communities, living in loose association"; "What does this all mean ideologically and politically?" asks Herr Doktor.

The Australian nationalist position has always been that the country is one country, neither for division nor for colonisation into spheres of influence, nor to be the subject of Euro-genocide by resettlement. It has been argued that a single Australian European identity animates the "whole white people of this continent" (William Lane). The Australian nationalists have demanded a new White Australia Policy, organised humanely and logically to secure this continent for a 'race' and for a 'nationality'...

National anarchism runs the risk of creating goals which would disintegrate the nationalist vision into a compromise with the undesirable. There is little sense saying that we aim to salvage something from the disasters of non European immigration and multiculturalism and will take refuge in "our communities". The sad fact is that "their communities" will become the springboard of imperialism and recolonisation...

Saleam then proceeds to trace the evolution of 'national anarchism' within the English far right, and argues that it has lead, perhaps inevitably, to a form of political compromise, and a loss of a properly national perspective; that is, a concession to the existence of "an apartheid patchwork of communities (sic) on the soil of the British Isles". Any such concessions should be viewed, in his opinion, as a strictly temporary measure, one which does not imply "that we should surrender our right to our homeland to any group whatsoever, or compromise our 'integrity' as a people". Rather, relationships with non-White communities form "part of any counter-power strategy... a strategic operation that permits us to husband resources for the long struggle for state power... any other policy that operates to undermine our purpose would ultimately be anathema to the maintenance of the Australian identity, a denial of the vision splendid of Australian independence and the potential of Australian freedom."

Nevertheless, Saleam recognises the value of the New Right as a whole, if not its apparent embrace of 'national anarchism', a doctrine which might be interpreted by their 'White nationalist' comrades as implying "that it stands for a multicultural / multiracial Australia". As such, the New Right should "commit formally without hesitation or equivocation - to the White Australia Policy and to the Australian Identity over all". Finally, Saleam reiterates his own belief that, contrary to the wishes of the "traitor class" that currently rules Australia, "there must be a vanguard organization of nationalism to create a new protective Australian state": for race, and for nation.

In response to Saleam's criticisms, the 'New Right Australia New Zealand Committee' issued a statement on national anarchism and Australian nationalism (March 25, 2008). The author -- one suspects Herfurth of being responsible -- points out that: the New Right "is comprised of many people of many different views"; it does not have or claim to possess a political line shared by all of its members; "Australian identity is gradually being eroded" (because of immigration, and because of American and globalist pop culture); and finally that the New Right is a relatively new grouping, still groping its way forward.

Which does little to answer Saleam's questions.

Examining the doctrines of the New Right in Europe, however, and the ideas of Troy Southgate in particular, provides more substance to their views. In defining the New Right, Herfurth endorses the definition provided by the German Federal Ministry of the Interior in its 2005 Annual Report on the Protection of the Constitution, viz:

The New Right first emerged as a movement among French intellectuals in the 1970s which sought to raise the intellectual standards within the right-wing extremist camp. Among other things it invokes anti-democratic thought propagated by representatives of the “conservative revolution”, a political current in the Weimar Republic. The activists of the New Right want to abolish or at least impair the democratic constitutional state. To this effect, they try to gain influence within the area of cultural politics in order to finally delegitimise the democratic constitutional state and radically change the political system...

The second, crucial element necessary to understand the ideological perspective of the New Right Australia (and er, New Zealand), according to Herfurth ('the Committee') is French thinker Alain De Benoist. In essence, de Benoist argues -- like previous fascist thinkers -- in favour of an 'organic' conception of the nation.

Nationalists are proponents of holism. Nationalists see the individual as a kinsman, sustained by the people and community, which nurtures and protects him, and with which he is proud to identify. The individual's actions represent an act of participation in the life of his people, and freedom of action is very real because, sharing in the values of his associates, the individual will seldom seek to threaten the basic values of the community with which he identifies. Societies which lack this basic sense of national unity are inherently prone to suffer from repeated situations wherein the opposing values of its egotistical members conflict with each other.

Furthermore, proponents of nationhood contend that a society or a people can survive only when: a) they remain aware of their cultural and historical origins; b) when they can assemble around a mediator, be it individual, or symbolic, who is capable of reassembling their energies and catalyzing their will to have a destiny; c) when they can retain the courage to designate their enemy. None of these conditions have been realized in societies that put economic gain above all other values, and which consequently: a) dissolve historical memories; b) extinguish the sublime and eliminate subliminal ideals; c) assume that it is possible not to have enemies.

~ 'Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft: A sociological view of the decay of modern society', based on an original essay by Alain de Benoist, translated and interpreted by Tomislav Sunic, Mankind Quarterly, Vol. 34, No. 3 (Spring 1994)

(Note that Mankind Quarterly is published by Washington-based 'The Council for Social and Economic Studies'; it was first published in 1961 by Edinburgh-based 'International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics'. See: Race Science and the Pioneer Fund, originally published as "The Funding of the Science" in Searchlight, No.277 (July 1998).)

"Where does the New Right Australia/NZ stand in relation to de Benoist? In broad agreement" says Welf.

New Right and 'national anarchism'

According to Herr Herfurth, "National-Anarchism, as conceived by Troy Southgate, believes in what Marx called ‘The withering away of the State’"; he then proceeds to mangle Marx's phantasy concerning this withering (one following upon a successful proletarian revolution, the abolition of capitalism, and the institution of a 'dictatorship of the proletariat') as the outcome of economic or ecological crises (Southgate). According to Troy, "Western nation-states will break up into separate, ethnically homogenous communities, concentrated in the rural and semi-rural areas"; a rural idyll the virtues of which are extolled by fellow Englishman, the eco-fascist Richard Hunt. (Hunt was once editor of Green Anarchist, but was told to piss off in 1991, shortly after publishing an editorial in Green Anarchist in support of the Gulf War. Hunt then launched Alternative Green, which became the mouthpiece for the views of 'national anarchists' gathered around Southgate. Green Anarchist subsequently underwent a split, with "the original unapologetic anarcho-primitivist publication" last publishing an issue online in 2003; the other, under the editorial control of Steve Booth, doesn't appear to be available online. See and Green Anarchy for more on, ah, primitvism. And er, green anarchy.)

In practice, according to Herfurth, this means, among other things, rejecting parliamentary politics. "The best thing a nationalist ['anarchist'] can do is isolate himself and his family from multiculturalism and multiracialism", by also rejecting mass culture and instead embracing homeschooling. Southgate -- and by implication 'national anarchists' -- disavow a 'white revolution' as a lost cause; "The only solution is to create a ‘parallel society’, here and now, that is, work to build an ethnically-homogenous community – or rather, improve relations between the disparate and separate individuals who make up that community, and encourage them to think of themselves as a community, and not individuals – which will exist in total isolation from the State, and from political parties".

"Where does the New Right Australia/New Zealand stand in relation to National-Anarchism?" asks Herfurth.

Firstly, it is not a National-Anarchist group, but some members are National-Anarchists. As for the relation between National-Anarchist theory and New Right ideology, it was stated (erroneously) in the article, “The New Right Manifesto” (published on the Internet in 2007) that the National-Anarchists represent the application of de Benoist’s ideas, that ‘New Right is the theory, National-Anarchism the practice’. This was debatable [as well as being contradicted by Herfurth himself, in his interview with Destiny/ "In my view, the National-Anarchists are the activists of the New Right"], as the reader can see for himself when comparing the two doctrines (Nouvelle Droit and National-Anarchism) as expounded here. Many of the street activists for the New Right are not National-Anarchists (many of them are not Christians, either, or animal liberationists) [which would explain why Darrin 'Damn Muslims!' Hodges -- currently a member of the APP, and formerly a member of both AF and -- was a conspicuous presence at the 'national anarchist' demonstration at APEC].

Herfurth then refers to the fact that Southgate, like Herfurth, is an organiser with the New Right (in the UK), which to the impressionable "may seem to give the impression that National-Anarchism and the New Right (in Britain, or Australia) are the one and the same thing, or at least closely tied together".


"So may the fact that members of the New Right Australia/New Zealand have given lectures on National-Anarchist ideas at nationalist events, or given sympathetic expositions of National-Anarchism to other nationalists in private conversations or in correspondences."


More revealing, perhaps, is to examine exactly what shenanigans the New Right in the UK has been up to in the form of its periodic London meetings. As previously discussed, the featured speakers, with very few exceptions, are all drawn from the far right: the BNP, NF, League of St George, Church of the Creator, Holocaust denialists/revisionists, 'Racial Bolsheviks', racists and fascists of one description or another. Probably the choicest figure to grace the New Right podium in the UK, however, is Lady Susan (Michèle) Mainwairing / Griaznoff / Peacock / Sangster / Renouf, Aussie "bimbo" and champion of free speech (especially for gentlemen such as Robert Faurisson, David Irving, Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zundel and others).

After further equivocation, Herfurth ('the Committee') conclude that "Probably, in organisational terms, it is necessary to split the New Right into two separate departments – a think-tank and a street activist wing"; a formal recognition, I would suggest, of a de facto reality.

In concluding his/their response to Saleam's critique, Herfurth ('the Committee') examine one final question: "the New Right and repatriation".


Get outta our country...

Let into this country, to play with drugs and crime
Hold the hands of them all, they’re never satisfied
People who oppose them, are promptly locked away
And those who thought they had a voice, no longer have a say

Get out! We don’t want you around
Get out! Want the people to shout
Get out! Get outta my sight
Get out! Parasites... Parasites... Parasites...

Legends of Eureka, turn over in their graves
They can see what has happened to the Southern Cross today
Laws made to put us down, laws are made to keep us quiet
Jail all the racists who wanna keep this country white

Reject an alien government, don’t recognise their laws
It’s time to close the floodgates, it’s time to shut the door
Repatriate, ship ’em out, send the bastards back
If they don’t fucking like it, it’ll be in body bags

Get out!

~ 'Parasites', a song by fair dinkum Aussie patriots Fortress. These and other patriotic hymns were last heard live on October 13, 2007 at the Melbourne Croatia Social Club; the gig was held, as it is every year, to commemorate the death of English bonehead Ian Stuart Donaldson in 1993, and organised by local neo-Nazi groups Blood & Honour Australia and the Southern Cross Hammerskins. (Donaldson helped form Blood & Honour in 1987; he also sang in the band Skrewdriver, one of whose members, Murray Holmes, may occasionally be found performing with Perth band The Homicides. The Homicides are also releasing a split EP with Sydney-based T.H.U.G., a partial reincarnation of the earlier, neo-Nazi band White Lightning. T.H.U.G. are scheduled to play the East Brunswick Club Hotel in Melbourne on July 19 with Toe to Toe and a Jimmy Pursey-free Sham 69.) Herfurth attended the 2006 gig held at The Birmingham Hotel in Fitzroy, and is otherwise supportive of the efforts of these upstanding young citizens to uphold traditional values.

"So what is the New Right position on repatriation, and does it believe that repatriation can be achieved through the State, e.g., through a State controlled by a nationalist party?"

In a word: yes.

However, Herfurth notes that there's more than one way to skin a cat, and aliens may be removed from Australia by the use of extra-parliamentary violence. "However, probably the best, most efficient (and most humane) way of achieving the two objectives [that is, halting non-European immigration and sending non-Europeans already residing in Australia 'home'] is politically, through the State. The Australian State can put forward legislation halting non-European immigration immediately, and then use its financial resources to provide the inducement for non-European immigrants to resettle in their homelands."

And who in their Right mind could argue with that?

Nevertheless, actually achieving the best, most efficient, and most humane means of purifying Australia first requires the establishment of a 'Nationalist Gub'mint'. This means either: a) getting a 'Nationalist' Party elected or; b) staging a coup d’état ("or a protracted period of insurgency"). "In Western liberal democracies", notes our anarchist comrade, "such options are not usually considered, and in some Western countries (such as Australia) it is illegal even to contemplate, on paper, such possibilities."

So much for Plan B.

As for Plan A: Q. "Where does New Right stand?" A. "A party with mass-based, popular support, winning power through an election is the best way – and the only legal way"; whatever difficulties such a party may face obtaining its wholesome goal. But of course, that's not the only thing Herfurth ('the Committee') has to say on the subject, and it's at this point that the distinctive contribution of the New Right becomes apparent. Thus:

New Right differs from Australian nationalists insofar as that it makes a thoroughgoing intellectual and sociological analys[i]s of what it is that makes some nationalist parties win and others fail. It has held the NPD up as an example because it believes that the NPD, with its ‘three pillars’ strategy, is going about electioneering the right way. New Right has stated, many times, that the essential thing for a nationalist party to do is to a) build trust and support among the community and b) win over the intellectuals and the students. New Right looks forward to the day when nationalists can use the same tactics, with similar success, as the NPD here in Australia.

New Right believes that power can be won – if it can be won – by a series of sustained ‘shocks’ to the liberal democratic system. In other words, a ‘state of exception’ (to use Carl Schmitt’s phrase) needs to be created in Australia, a disruption of the day to day constitutional functions of the Australian State, when the constitution itself becomes in temporary abeyance... It is only during that disruption – which will break up the normal order of things – that Australian nationalists can go ahead and ‘seize power’.

So how will those ‘shocks’ be brought about? Those shocks need to be induced practically (at the street level); intellectually; and emotionally. At the street level, there needs to be a political confrontation, carried out publicly (and with maximum media publicity) against the Left, who, more than any other group, seek to oppose nationalists’ presence on the street. Intellectually, nationalist intellectuals need to make the case to the public that the liberal democratic system is not working, has not worked, and never will, to make them stop believing in the worthwhileness of the liberal parliamentarian system. Emotionally, nationalist propagandists need to induce a state of permanent emotional agitation in the general public, through media and propaganda organs... Such propaganda aims at keeping the public’s nerves permanently on edge, and directing public animosity against the enemies of nationalism.

These are the same techniques as those used by the German National Socialists and the Italian Fascists in the 1920s and the 1930s, and by the British National Front in the 1970s. It is the New Right’s belief that they can be used, successfully, in Australia. They are means, not ends in themselves, and the end is, in the long-term, the successful ‘seizure of power’.

Not that Herfurth's a neo-Nazi or nothing.

He's an anarchist.

A national anarchist.

Or something.


Welf Herfurth writes a letter to Crikey!, April 22, 2008: Re. "Torch protest: who'll be there, from Amway up" (yesterday, item 10). As a Member of the National Anarchists, and a subscriber to Crikey for many years, I am disappointed that Crikey has not spent more time evaluating their articles by reactionaries like Cam Smith, who was quick to slander the Nationalist Anarchists, whilst at the same time over-looking the Nationalist implications of the Tibetan struggle. One is left with no other conclusion that a double standard exists for those fighting for freedom and self-determination is a struggle that those of European heritage have no right to exercise. The only thing Smith managed to correctly assess in his article about the 'National Anarchists’ is that we are indeed planning on making an appearance at the Torch Relay in Canberra, in support of the Tibetan struggle for independence.

"[The] charter of human rights (guaranteed by international law), says that indigenous populations have the right to resist colonisation and immigration. So the Tibetans are justified – legally – in doing what they do. So are we in the West: after all, we are being colonised: the massive flood of immigration in Europe, North America, Australia, is neo-colonialism." From the New Right Website – Tibet and the Lessons for the West

Every other comment is slanderous deceitful rubbish, used for intellectual repression of ideas that do not support Smith's cultural Marxism. The New Right / National Anarchists are about freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and the right of national, ethnic self-determination for all peoples. I find it paradoxical that someone who preaches tolerance, diversity and racial harmony would use a racial epithet to criticise those he considers Nazis. The Australian people are intelligent enough to recognise Mr Smith's hypocrisy. The National Anarchists are not Nazis, nor do we support Nazism, or supremacy of any race towards another, including Zionism. I cannot stress highly enough; violent racist action is as far from National Anarchist ideology as you could possibly be. For further information regarding the National Anarchists and the New Right, please have a look at our website. I would recommend Smith do so before writing any other articles about the New Right/National Anarchists.

See also : Eric Krebbers (De Fabel van de illegaal/No-one is illegal), Millionaire Goldsmith supports the left and the extreme right, September 1999 | RESISTING THE NPD: Sleepy German Town Awakens to Fight Far Right, David Crossland, Spiegel Online, October 31, 2007:

Colorful Stunts to 'Sweep Out' NPD

"People are sick and tired of them. No one's saying 'Oh just let them get on with it.' All this has had a positive side effect. People are discussing human rights and democracy in the pubs; there's a process of politicization," said the high school teacher.

The forum has come up with a variety of stunts to counter the NPD. During one far-right rally in the carnival season last February, it got 400 people to turn up with brooms and brushes to "sweep" the far right out of town. "Of course it was just a symbolic act, but the way they were standing there, it looked like a peasants' revolt," said Helmbrecht.

Other tactics have included a local firm counting NPD demonstrators and donating €5 per head to an organization that helps people quit the far-right scene. Sausages were sold under the motto "In Franconia, only the sausages are brown," in reference to the so-called "Brownshirts" of Hitler's Nazi party.

"We've also been projecting messages on facades behind NPD speakers as well as photos from Auschwitz," said Helmbrecht. "When they come here and go on about the memory of their grandfathers, we project a photo of granddad shooting a Jewish prisoner in the head."

Another stunt has been to declare a "Traditional Day of Woodcutting" to coincide with one NPD demonstration. A screaming buzz saw was switched on in a shed next to the memorial site to interrupt proceedings.

NB. See also this brilliant documentary (produced and directed by the London Video History Group), on the 43 Group, a band of British ex-Army, ex-Navy and merchant seamen who after WWII, and in response to a re-emergent fascist movement, formed to defend London by physically beating them off the streets.

¡No Pasarán!