Two important articles show why Nationalism is not Conservatism

by Dr. Jim Saleam

I strongly recommend two articles which go some way towards showing why Australian nationalism cannot be confused with conservatism. This is important because of the current conservative mobilisation which has invaded a part of our ‘political space’. It is important to show that the conservatives are essentially free marketeers; and, while there is a sure place for ‘a’ free market inside the Australian national economy, our economic order must not degenerate into ‘the’ free market.

I reproduce the item from United Nationalists Australia in the body of the text and the item from Nationalist Alternative (Australia First Party’s partner in the Australian Coalition of Nationalists) as a link.

WHERE WE STAND (United Nationalists Australia)

Nationalist radicals are, once again, going on the front foot against civic patriots, Hansonites and other “conservative” impostors.
It is our long held conviction that conservative activism exists only to betray the working classes of Australia by, in the most dishonest fashion, directing votes, along with the scarce free time and material resources of workers, back toward the liberal centre ground.

Make no mistake comrades, it is this globalist-liberal status quo, the bloc of Liberal, National, Labor and Greens parties which present the greatest obstacle to the realisation of Australia as a real workers paradise.

Thus any formation of the “right” which, either openly, or by subterfuge directs support to the globalist bloc must be resisted tooth and nail by Nationalists.

One Nation, in particular, have shown themselves to be openly hostile toward workers and marginalised people; their voting record in the senate over the last months of 2016 revealed the true face of the Hanson revival.

We must judge them by the company they keep, the unraveling string of prospective One Nation candidates reveals a plethora of perverts, weirdos, conspiracy nuts and shysters.

We are tempted into optimism here, simply because the One Nation brand is so rotten from an ideological standpoint that we assume the workers and marginalised people smell the stench a mile off and refuse to have anything to do with the party.

The only people putting their hands up for One Nation pre-selection are from the very bottom of the barrel, the dregs of the suburban and rural middle classes who are too dissolute or just plain barmy to fit into the mainstream parties.

On the other hand it would also make our lives easier if the Left were still able to do some of the heavy lifting in the generations long class war; as it stands though they are mired in the failed identity politics of the liberal status quo.

The medium term goal of our brand of Nationalism is the development and solidification of a viable third position with which to win over the White workers, the marginalised people and so many of the middle class as have ears to hear the message.

Genuine leftists must surely see now that there is no future in simple, superficial variations of globalist-liberal doctrine; that splitting hairs with liberals over things like same-sex activity in order to create the illusion of a radical difference of opinion really won’t wash.

The “loony” left merely perform the same function, albeit in mirror image, that One Nation and the civic patriots do on the right: they direct votes to the globalist parties in the lazy belief that “near enough is good enough”.

The goal from both sides should be to put the squeeze on the liberal-globalist centre in order to create the new paradigm, the new order for the world after liberalism; the contemporary left, however, continues in a state of confused inertia while Nationalists take baby steps forward.

In the end, though, we don’t care too much about the Left since they contribute absolutely nothing to the debate over where our nation is headed and what type of society our children will be living in if globalist-liberalism is not reversed.

A strong alternative vision from the Left would at least give us an opportunity to form counter arguments and set ourselves to the task of political struggle, assuming of course that those ideas were wholly objectionable or flawed.

You see, comrade, Nationalists are not stupid people and we are not averse to appropriating, or supporting good ideas which would enhance the prospects of White Australians; should a restructured Left, in the future, come up with proposals which would benefit our people we would not necessarily oppose them.

This is pure speculation though, the Left are presently in such a poor state that we cannot envisage the rise of a viable “Alt-Left” with whom we could engage; the only possibility is that we could absorb some of their currently disillusioned young activists into third position Nationalism, a tactic which is bearing fruit at this writing.

Nationalists are presently embroiled in a two front war against the dead ends of the political spectrum in the hope of cutting the supply lines of support to the globalist-liberal status quo.

One side, the Left, suffering from shell shock have shot themselves in the foot and are immobilised until their wounds heal.

The other side, the Civic patriots, have raced ahead of the front and are a rabble without orders, living off the land and upsetting all the civilians with their noise and bravado.

Anarcho-Capitalism and Nationalism – Nationalist Alternative

by Ken Chatfield


Economically ‘right wing’ positions such as Anarcho-Capitalism and Laissez Faire Free Markets are often adopted by those on the right-wing fringe of politics such as the Alt-Right and Nationalists and patriots. These economic positions are seen as better alternatives to “Socialism”, “Communism” and “Big Government” (which to many people are the one and the same) and supposedly are economic systems which champion individual rights and liberty. They are however, when taken to their logical conclusion incompatible with Nationalism, and probably won’t result in emancipation and individual liberty for many. Modern Libertarians also take similar economic positions to varying degrees.

One of the weaknesses with the Alt-Right movement is the adoption of an economic philosophy which has led to the current problem it is trying to face in the first place. That is the risk of a reactionary movement, that the movement will react against all that is perceived as part of the system,and in doing so throw the baby out with the bath water. After all, if the problem in the modern world is Cultural Leftists or Marxists, then surely we should move towards contrary economic principles? If Socialism is the cause of our economic and social problems, then we should move away from Socialism, or anything which is construed as Socialism? Capitalism should rule, correct? Even if they use their capital to champion mass immigration and social progressivism.

The problem is that people who push these positions assume thorough knowledge of cause and effect relationships between political and economic activity and its outcome in our nations. Because their model of how society functions economically is based on the assumption that their ideological model is correct and accurately predicts human behaviour, this leads to people to the conclusion that deviations from this model are a result of some imposing force which seeks to disrupt the natural order of things. This leads to the often deadly conclusion that the political system is only failing because reactionary and hostile forces are disrupting it. Multiculturalism doesn’t work because “racists” ruin it. Communism doesn’t work because greed and desire for private property ruins it. Deregulated Capitalism doesn’t work because government ruin it and people rig markets.

Anarcho-Capitalism and similar economic ideologies which promote unfettered Capitalism, deregulated free markets and all-round market rule put the rights of capital above the welfare of the nation. If what is right and wrong is determined by the market, and the market is just a means for individuals to seek profit, then society loses its power to exert its moral will over itself. If the ‘market’ results in a small number of landlords owning residential property, and most people being renters who can’t afford the exorbitant real estate prices to secure their own roof, then a Free Marketeer has to accept this outcome as the market as determined it and is therefore correct. Any attempt to change the imbalance would be seen as a moral perversion, an unwarranted intrusion into a perfect system. If the ‘market’ results in widespread environmental degradation, then people have to accept this result as the market has determined that this the outcome people want. If Free Markets produce an objectionable or undesirable outcome, then in an AnCap or Libertarian society, there is little recourse to argue against this outcome, as the outcome was the result of the market, that mechanism of supposedly free and rational trade, and therefore what was SUPPOSED to happen.

Therein lies the major problem with ideologies based on economic principles, or perhaps any axiomatic or principle based ideologies. As morality has been predetermined, then the actual outcome of that system has to be accepted as just and right, because it was the outcome of moral principles. We see this mistake with multiculturalism. If multiculturalism leads to alienation, dispossession and conflict, then multicultural ideologues will argue that these negative outcomes are just growing pains, challenges to overcome. In some cases, cultural Leftists argue that this is still nevertheless preferable to stable, ‘boring’, homogeneous societies. People have to suspend their own judgement, their own moral evaluation, their own will, and adapt themselves to the ideology. Ideology rules, even when you don’t really want the outcome.

This is why Nationalists should avoid adopting economic ideologies. In doing so, one has to surrender their will to the ideology. If the market results in one living a life subject to the will of their employer, landlord and the owners of all the spaces in their community, then they have to nevertheless state that they are “free”, because this was the result of a free market. The ‘market’, not the nation rule.

Not to mention the issue that AnCaps and Libertarians tend to be for open borders.

The growing Nationalist movement is a movement AGAINST social organisation for economic means. The EU was primarily an economic arrangement, and Britons have voted to leave. They want sovereignty and autonomy, not to live for economic purposes. A society which is structured around markets is not a society at all, and not a nation. A nation state is an organisation that exists for the prosperity of a people. Nationalism puts that nation of people as the reason for the state, for anything at all, for existing. If the system is not for a people, then it is nothing. Without a target beneficiary, which includes oneself, there is no point at all in supporting any ideology or system. Supporting and sacrificing for a system, even if that system nominally involves some form of freedom, is still slavery. What value is there in supporting individual rights, where you may not in practice end up being able to exercise any rights? Why should people support the right of capital, if they don’t have capital themselves? Why should people support and fight for property rights, if they don’t have property themselves? If all the wealth is going towards the top economic strata of society, what kind of person fights for the right of this top strata to do as they wish, and be free of taxation, even when that top strata is hostile to their interests?

This is the kind of thinking which led towards the West becoming cucked in the first place. Despite the fact that pointing out the cuckoldry of the West is the Alt-Rights favourite pastime, we still have to drop economic cuckoldry where we suspend our direct economic welfare to champion more abstract ideologies which we may not benefit from, but are ‘right’. We’ve done this will multiculturalism. Westerners support it and despite the fact many admit it comes at a cost, its still nevertheless considered the right to do because the moral principles are supposedly right. Diversity is good, therefore the results are good, even if the results are undesirable. Unfettered markets are good, therefore the results are good, even if the results are undesirable.

That is not to say that we reject markets, but the operation of the market, of any economic or political system must be subject to our will, and our will and desires may have to, from time to time, override principles.