W.G. Spence, the grandfather of the Australian union movement — in the days when the union was still an honourable fraternity of righteous working men united to uphold the dignity of the productive classes — contended that “…Where all Unions are associated together as in a Labor Federation, they become a community within society doing good unseen all the time.”
He said this in his 1909 history of the Australian worker’s movement, Australia’s Awakening. In a sense, he was speaking about a similar sort of concept to those poor fools who misread ‘fascism’ in the symbol of its bundled sticks. For, in the latter, the State commands the sticks, in the union bundle, the sticks took care of each other. And that is worth considering in the struggle against Brussels-Zionist demagoguery wreaking misery on White Australians from Canberra.
By the time that Spence came to reflect on the collective achievement of the trade union, he cited how, with each worker in his industry collectivising, they attained a power through their union body. Whereas once the capitalist set the policeman upon the unionist with his truncheon and contrived a litany of crimes to lock him away lest his rhetoric strike a chord with the unrepresented mass of labour, the trade union now held power. And, as an analogy, he alluded, “Man crushes an ant under his heel, but gets out of the way of a bull.”
They had gained political representation through the formation of the Labor Party and forced the ‘employer’ to negotiate.
Then came legislation and an acceptance of union wisdom regarding workers’ happiness, productivity, and dare we say it, greater profit for the shareholder. The vision went far beyond the idea of a sustainable living wage, to a uniquely Australian variety of socialism that foresaw a better, harmonious society — as the Union sought where pertinent to the industry a national standard of an eight-hour working day. While two unnecessary wars intervened to impede that beatific, the concept remains. For regarding the spoils of solidarity, he supplied anecdotes about his time as secretary of the A.M.A. when he learned of workers, non-union men unaware of such things, accepting pay below the union rate.
He fired a letter off to each worker with instructions to take it with them to their paymaster on payday. Upon the said personage reading the note, the workers’ rate was immediately raised to the union standard. Moreover, no retribution was taken upon those men, and no discussion entered throughout this display of deference. Why? Because, as Spence explained, “The Trade Union is a lawmaker, as it sets up a new custom, and the parties concerned are driven to approximate observance of the new law. The law of custom always precedes Statute law.”
As such, “The A.M.A. was like the blue coat of the police constable — the wrongdoer is not afraid of the man in the coat, but of the power behind the uniform.”
In short, the paymaster and his bosses understood that complying with the union rate was easier than battling the powerful entity, in which case, they would certainly have lost. No good could have come of it.
Spence observed, “The union gives courage to its members. It opens a door for the ventilation of each member’s grievance. It provides a Court to which the individual can appeal. He is heard with sympathy, and, if he suffers injustice, his feelings of indignation spread to others who feel his cause to be theirs, and steps are taken to seek a remedy.”
Thereafter he addressed the question of ‘coercion’ by the Union of non-members and opined, “It is too late in the day to object to the principle of coercion. Every municipality enforces payment of rates and taxes. The State does the same, and they justify so doing by the fact that the monies thus collected are utilised for the common good.”
Moreover, where the Union was concerned, that “good” was done “…Without parade, and as [is] prompted by the feeling that all are one family and mutual help should be their guiding principle.”
If those words of yore have resonance, then it is particularly today! If ever the White Australian needs that sense of family and mutual help, that day is now!
But, as with the Union, Spence observed that — although the Union helped to shape the character of each member — that “those outside of Unions are of different classes.”
Now, let us transfer this framework to today’s nationalist struggle. For those of us with vintage, our battle has traversed the trammels of every type of obstacle that those of “…a very low class,” as Spence labelled “the creature who hires himself out to take the place of unionists,” have thrown out, be it due to their ulterior motives, their shadowy alignments or just lack of moral fibre.
A splendid cause lies injured and profaned by a cast of characters and their groups either in league with the eternal Zionist, motivated by a generational desire to be the ‘leader,’ or simply ill-equipped through incurable ignorance. We aren’t interested in naming names, as any experienced nationalist knows of whom we speak. But what if … what if there was an organisation for nationalists that operated on the same basis as the successful trade union of Spence’s day? What if it held the same belief, desires and ambitions, only relevant to our current circumstances and dire age that calls him to action?
Imagine a Union of Australian Nationalists, financed by dues-paying members, policed by the members themselves, all educated and agreed upon its goals, rules, codes and disciplines and thus able to weed out undesirables by the simple unity of agreement on principles?
What if, once established and nurtured, this Union set itself to purpose?
What if?