Open Letter to Friends and Comrades on the Struggle against Racism amongst the Class

See also : From Meta-Politics To Mass Murder – A New Right-Wing Extremism,, August 25, 2011.

Open Letter to Friends and Comrades on the Struggle against Racism amongst the Class

After a few years of relative hiatus right-wing populist politics has re-emerged again on the streets of Australian cities. The largest mobilisations of this new born right-wing populism has been seen in protests against the so-called ‘Carbon Tax’ yet there has been considerably smaller but controversy hungry protest calling for a ban on the burqa and expressing a larger opposition to immigration and refugees under the rhetoric of opposition to Islam and Sharia law. The forms that this right-wing populism takes are pretty sloppy and open ended. Unlike the Joh for PM campaign or Pauline Hanson’s One Nation there is no central figure with electoral ambitions that hold them together. In the case of the opposition to the Carbon Tax the Liberal National Coalition has certainly supported to some extent these demonstrations thus perhaps explaining their relative popularity, whilst the opposition to Islam is being organised by much smaller groups and are gathering only handfuls of people. One of the organisations behind these protests the Australian Protectionist Party is a project lead by the old neo-Nazi milieu. The Australian Defence League is a pretty piss poor imitation of the English Defence League; but without similar football casuals in Australia they have not been able to find a similar success. In Brisbane there has been a similar phenomenon in the shape of the Australian Patriots Defence Movement. Unsurprisingly there has been a mobilisation of Left and progressive opposition to these groups and rallies, but are the tactics and the thinking behind them actually usefully to produce a free and just society? What is the nature of this new right-wing populism and what is the best way to oppose it?


The opposition to the ADL and the APDM often sees them as being forms of fascism, comparable to the National Front or National Action. Undoubtedly there are white supremacists and possible ex-members of fascist groups that hang around these milieus (though notable overt neo-Nazis oppose them due to their pro-Israel stance and their use of opposition to anti-Semitism to frame their anti-Islamic politics). The classic strategy used against fascisms is one of direct confrontation. The NF and NA were militant and violent formations and opposition had to confront them on the streets often physically to deny them space to organise. They had clearly fascist and racist politics and were making serious inroads (the NF at least, NA was always a bit shit) in various white working class communities hit by the collapse of social democracy and Fordism. However the Left opposition thought of the fascists of the ’70s (and I heard this analysis during the opposition to Pauline Hanson) as being sociologically similar to the fascism of the ’30s – largely a middle class movement. Caught between big labour and big capital they were supposedly the little shop owner with dreams of being Fuehrer. This had a political effect – as being seen as exterior to the working class there was no point talking to them. They were an enemy to be smashed. However those who spent the most time confronting fascists in England from the ’70s on often argued that fascism was developing a working class base and need to be confronted politically (hence the formation of organisations such as the Independent Working Class Association).

The ADL and the APDM are not fascists and should not be thought of as such. The APDM has not produced much in the way of public statements of their politics beyond this. It is pretty classic right-wing populism with some weirdness about taxation and currency, demands to try “traitors” and an understanding of the separation of powers which actually doesn’t fit well with the Australian version of the Westminster system in which legislative and executive power overlap – as the cabinet is composed of people from parliament. But over half the document is focused on banning the burqa, and this is certainly what is the main point. So what is this all about?

The spokesman of the APDM Darren “Beatle Bailey” Morris is almost a Basil Faulty like character. His speeches and writings are a stream of self-aggrandisement and paranoia. Almost obsessed with talking about gays and lesbian and paedophilia he struggles to stay on script but rather veers off on numerous tangents, makes wild claims as “FACT!”, and veers between claiming he is being silenced and threatening violence through his connections with outlaw bikie gangs and ex-army personnel. His speeches are a stream of right-wing nuttery where he often states that for reasons of tactics the APDM need to shed the racist image and then stating he is happy to be labelled one. But it is not clear that many, if any, of the other APDM leadership nor the handfuls of people they mobilise shares such views. In my conversations with them at the rally and reading what many write on Facebook most have various oppositions to what they perceive as elements of the Islamic faith and various cultural practices. Most perceived themselves as being anti-racists and pro-immigration ‘if they assimilate’ and seem otherwise politically pretty reasonable: they display a mixture of social democratic and liberal ideas that make up the common sense ideology of contemporary Australia. A quick Facebook stalk shows that most have friends and family of many ethnicities and interests in culture and music that would enrage your standard neo-Nazi. Even Scott Neale, one of the other key organisers, was pretty reasonable in person.

Now of course the views expressed by the APDM can be and should be seen as forms of bigotry. They are based on a wild series of claims that essentialise Muslims as some unified global conspiracy theory. It is important to challenge these ideas. But the tactics that the Left used during the counter-demo in Brisbane, tactics of shouty confrontation premised on silencing the APDM (based on seeing them as fascists) were not very effective or productive.


Racism is structural in society and the globe. The history of capitalism has been a history of producing global populations and resistance to this process. This has created complex hierarchies of power amongst the global population and multiple complex lines of identity and belonging. Global capitalism relies on a global workforce and this workforce (and those who were discarded yesterday or might be used tomorrow) is organised through these divisions. Capitalism commonly malfunctions and is riven with crisis. This throws millions of people into movement. Tensions in society around immigration and cultural clashes are often produced by these dynamics and are used by both the system as a whole and by crafty politicians and media personalities to create their careers.

Many people understand the problems of capitalist society as not originating from within it but a problem that comes from without. Thus if you look at the rhetoric that appears on the Facebook pages of those who support this reactionary populism you find an understanding of the collapse of social democracy where immigrants are seen as the cause: there isn’t enough money for hospitals because refugees get all the money etc.

Equally the positive vision of this rhetoric speaks to people’s desire for community – but expressed through a lens of identity. In this sense this reactionary politics shares something with progressive identity politics – a positive vision of community is only imaginable through uniting those who share some common denominator (in this case being “Aussies”) and excluding those who don’t share this denominator to a sufficient degree.

Thus what animates the appeal of at least some of the rhetoric of the ADL/APDM is an understanding that society is deeply unfair and a desire for community. My essential point is to say we should support these intuitions whilst arguing that the forms of their expression and the world view they are crafted in is wrong.

Obviously all this is very complex. I suspect that the APDM expresses a particularly Australian series of paranoias. This is a fear of the world. It is obvious to anyone that things are difficult and challenging in the world we live in. Ten years of a supposed “war on terror”, three years of economic crisis, ecological problems and an impression of general global violence, dislocation and decay. Australia’s social democratic inheritance and the mining boom have shielded the Australian economy somewhat, and the high work, higher credit, high consumption deal capital has offered has allowed a high material standard of living – yet a stressful and insecure seeming life. Immigration and refugees in particular become symbols of the chaos of the rest of the world imposing onto the relative tranquillity in Australia. There is a form of social-psychological transference where worries about the condition of the world, conscious or not, become associated with migration. The mobilisations of the ADL and APDM are a kind of ineffectual acting out of these paranoias. (That said much of the behaviour of the Left is also an ineffectual acting out which compensates for the Left’s actual inability to transform society at the root – 20 APDM protestors become substitutes for an unequal society.)

Winning Arguments

Racisms and bigotries are objectionable on a purely intellectual basis- they stand in contradiction to any concept of human equality. They also work to mystify and obscure an understanding of the actual sources of the problems we face. Racisms and bigotries (as well as a host of other ideologies) displace the blame for the crises and exploitation of capitalism onto others in the social hierarchy who also suffer from it. Thus these ideologies need to be challenged as part of the struggle to transform society.

Revolutionaries want to contribute to the development of a real movement to transform society. This involves challenging the ideas that dominate society and mystify it. We want to do this and do it well. The tactics that the Left displayed in opposing the APDM in Brisbane aren’t helpful. The shouting and confrontational tactics only confirm the Left’s own illusions – it neither unsettles the reactionary ideas nor convinces passers-by.

A far more effective strategy would be an attempt to create debate and spread ideas in a manner that is humourous, good-natured and endearing. Part of this should be aimed at those who have come along for the rally but don’t form the ADL/APDM hard-core. It is important to remember no one has ever had their ideas changed by being yelled at. Rather it is important to be straightforward and fair. Listen to what they are saying, take their ideas seriously, and present yours in an open and calm manner. On the Saturday rally I found that most of the APDM people wanted to talk, wanted to argue about the world. As revolutionaries we should support debate within the class even when the ideas expressed are wrong. Too many people have a life of being told constantly that they are wrong, that they are idiots, to shut up. Part of what revolutionaries should be doing is creating spaces within the class where debates happen, and seriously listen to what people are saying. If we have confidence in our own ideas why should we be afraid of arguing out in the open?

What ideas should we argue, what points should we try to make? Since this right-wing populism is based on strange and weird clichés about Muslims the first response seems to just disprove these claims. That is important work and should be done. I am unsure how effective this argument is. What might be a better strategy is to make an argument – both through conversations, through openly debating their spokespeople, and through leaflets distributed at the rally – that whatever one thinks of any religion the demand to ban the burqa is a demand for the state to have the power to tell people how to dress and thus undermines everyone’s freedom. Many of the people I talked to felt that there was an injustice that hoodies couldn’t be worn in shops in Wynnum so it is unfair that people can wear burqas. The appropriate response seems to be to argue that people should be free to wear whatever they want. A defence of religious freedom and the secular nature of society undercuts much of their argument and seemed to be listened to.

The more serious argument is to say that this is a non-issue and a distraction from the real problems in the world. The insecurity these people feel is real, the causes they attribute it to are wrong. The real problems come from a world organised on the endless accumulation of value. Finding a way to say this in a clear yet thorough way is a necessary challenge.

Ultimately the best way to challenge racism is to build collective struggles that challenge capitalism on the terrain of our daily lives, that build common bonds of solidarity that unite people. Racism will be made irrelevant rather than ‘smashed’. The most effective way to defeat racism is to build a real class movement, to build a common project and an open community as we transform daily conditions. Many people are trying different ways to do this yet none of us can claim to have found ‘the answer’ with any real confidence. However the dominant form of Left intervention – shrill moralism – seems unlikely to be a useful as a way to talk with, to listen to and work together with those around us. I was very lucky to spend many years in Wollongong and witness excellent long term communist militants organise in their communities. What was so remarkable about these comrades was how much they cared for people as real humans. Political debates they had carried weight because they have weight in their communities. The dominant ideas of our society, its ideological common-sense, are some mix of social democracy and liberalism with a heavy nationalist and racialised content. How are we going to argue these ideas with people that we want to work with, that express elements of these views? Will we just yell racist at them? How will we contribute to a mass, popular, social movement to change our society if we can’t win the debate?

At the moment the ADL/APDM remain minuscule manifestations of ideas that are common through the society – and the above strategy is premised on this. If a genuine fascist street movement arose then of course other tactics would be necessary.

This entry was posted in Anti-fascism, State / Politics, That's Capitalism!. Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to Open Letter to Friends and Comrades on the Struggle against Racism amongst the Class

  1. Doug says:

    Good points, I’ve just had “one of those conversations” with a client regarding the London situation.
    Look, I have faith in the basic decency of those of my particular ethnic group, White Australians, but they do get these ideas in their heads and unless they hear alternative points of view the ideas stick.
    The keywords in that assessment are “Hear” and “Alternative”.
    The Man uses ethnic conflict and scarcity to keep his grip on power on the divide and conquer principle, in group/out group, haves/have nots etc.
    Once it’s pointed out to them most Whites file that under “Reasons I hate politicians”.
    There’s nothing inherently “Racist” about my ethnic group, White Australians, we certainly do have reasons to be mad at ourselves, but our “shame” is overblown and used as a screen for the genuine culpability of “higher ups”.
    It’s also hard to orient oneself in a Multiracial society when nobody in authority explicitly told us they were working toward ending “Anglo Saxon Dominance”.
    Bear in mind that there has been next to no effort invested in integrating my ethnic group, White Australians into a multiracial Australia, so far it’s been “like it or lump it”, lumping it usually entailing being branded a “Racist”.

  2. Sophia says:

    Thanks a lot for this. (Grumpy from the previous thread?)… I have to say I agree with pretty much everything here. The thing is, how does it get implemented? How can the above be put into action?

  3. Doug says:

    I’m not religious but…
    “And not equal are the good deed and the bad. Repel evil by that deed which is better; and thereupon the one whom between you and him is enmity will become as though he was a devoted friend.” (Ha Meem Sajda-34)

  4. Aussie says:

    Doug: It almost seems the ancient teachings that we turned into this word called religion were trying to tell us something that might not be so much to do with an old guy with a grey beard sitting on a cloud called god. Something simpler. Jesus said, “forgive them for they know not what they do”. I remember when I was was in grade 9 or 10 and a girl in my class said to the religion teacher “Is it just a coincidence that this world we live in decided god was a boy?” Unforgettable, he was speechless (I was too stupid to see the sense in it back then), but never forgot it.

    It appears human insanity is on the mend, every time bad things happen people realise it and make change for the better. At the same time it also seems the world is getting worse, people are saying this is the pivotal point in time, will we go nuts, or will we continue to realise, become sane? Both are happening at the same time.

    My opinion to Sophia’s comment “how do we put it to action”, is to just understand (thanks to blogs like this) and just simply be the change you want to see, and see how that affects people, no need to be a hero, put out non reactive information maybe (carefully), but whatever you do, make sure you rise above people, try not to get caught up in the madness. If you put a fearful person with a fearful person, you will have a bad outcome. Put a fearful person with a fearless person (more sane/conscious person), you will affect them, depending on who they are of course. It might not be obvious, good is never as obvious as bad, it stands out less, but it’s there and you will affect them. This blog will affect people.

    Anyway, what I intended to say, before I started rambling on, was:

    Best blog I have ever read! Spot on.


  5. Eric says:

    So… Anarchy for the Aussie then? 😉

  6. Aussie says:

    Hmmm, I kinda like not having a concept that gives me a sense of identity. It implies I’m different to everyone else. Thanks for the offer tho’ 😉

  7. Doug says:

    Is this a good time to start a dialogue on Closed vs Open systems/societies?
    I’m kind of time poor at present… places to be, mouths to feed… but can I point out that when we have “problems” like Islam or Refugees in our present closed system and The Man isn’t offering a solution then we have to take these scenarios at face value, they’re roadblocks set up by The Man to block progress toward an open society.
    A problem is countered with a solution at which point it merely becomes an issue, in an open society issues would be overcome by negotiation among the people.
    The “Open Solution” to the “Islamic Problem” is to take The Man out of the equation and deal with the issue person to person.
    The “Problem” with Multiracial but closed societies is that open solutions are blocked at every level by The Man because he can’t exist in an open society, therefore he has to subvert and pervert every effort at mediation to feed back into sustenance of the closed society.
    Remember? The Man thrives on ethnic conflict and scarcity?
    This is why we have oppressive forms of “Political Correctness” and its mirror image in groups like the APDM, it’s all closed system thinking which creates a feedback loop.

  8. Eric says:

    You The Man Doug. The White Australian Man.

  9. Foot Soldier says:

    Sorry, but any thing that has equality has [its] central belief is bullshit. Please show me a society that has been [truly] equal? Equality has never existed and can never exist. If equality is natural, please shoe me a species where animals are equal and no animal tries to dominate another animal?

  10. @ndy says:

    Why you hatin’ on shoes Peter?

  11. Smithy says:

    Racism is relative in this country: it is relative to being white. I have experienced ‘hate’ from a number of elements in this increasingly racial pot-pourri of a society. But that is dismissed. That is not recorded. That does not compute. When things are good in Australia, inclusive language is used, and we’re ‘multicultural’ (as if there is some inherent wisdom and virtue in being so). However, when things go ‘bad’ the country is an exclusively Anglo symbol, with all its attendant signifieds. For instance, Cronulla was a purely Anglo expression of racial hatred and ‘not’ a turf-based protest against an ethnic group well-known in the South for its gang-like incursions. That aspect — the real trigger for the riot — is ideologically airbrushed from the myth. Likewise, when Indian students were being assaulted, it seemed the entire Indian population heard ‘Australia’ and ‘Indians attacked’ and automatically this signifier produced images of White Australians jeeringly preying on their defenceless citizens out of hatred for their brown skin. But where was the proof? There have of course been cases of this, but they are in the minority of those committed by other ‘diverse’ groups here. So, in the pursuit of confronting racism, White Australia becomes automatically stereotyped; indeed in these two cases.

    While ‘Ban the burqa’ groups have been mentioned, let us look at our ‘Middle Eastern’ community. How many rapes have been recorded by White Australians against Muslim women? Now, reverse that scenario and there are many, many, many. I personally knew of a Somali man who in unprovoked and mystifying circumstances threw acid in my mate’s girlfriend’s face. He lived in a flat across from her. She is White, and a nurse. He didn’t even get a conviction recorded. Would this act of his be attributable at its core to a cultural contempt, and indeed, hatred (racism)? Likewise, the Carnita Matthews case demonstrated how willingly certain groups will pull that ‘racist’ string. And, despite initial attempts to bring her to justice for her slander, she walked free.

    What happens through this system of PC codes is that ‘golden-haired minorities’ get a free hand. This has been documented in England, where reluctance to deal with the Asian element created emboldened gangs, particularly in the schools. Over here it spawned an entire ethnic crime group that started flourishing in the 1990s.

    Lebanese Australians have their fingers in just about every branch of organised crime going, and on the East Coast fill the ranks of bikie gangs such as Notorious MC and the Hells Angels. Every other report on incidents of street crime you’ll read in the daily rags mentions of suspects ‘of Middle Eastern appearance’, and so frequently, if you were gambling on the racial description you’d be given it the shortest odds going. Indeed, the Lebanese consul-general himself took flight back to Lebanon this year over bankruptcy charges, and is alleged to have been claiming Centrelink benefits, and rorting staff with cash payments. But this isn’t an academic argument by any means, and I only use the Lebanese as an isolated example.

    All that I’ve mentioned also had a basis as antecedents leading up to Cronulla: a sense that the Lebanese were untouchable. But I do have to side with the WN mantra here: anti-racist is a code for anti-white. In the detention centres where boat arrivals are detained, race has figured heavily in assaults by ‘clients’ housed there: seriously nasty undertones to that. Yet, we are in this place, not because of the ‘minorities’ who are rapidly growing in this land: we are here because – as immigration shows – we the people are irrelevant to governments when it comes to their social engineering. As Doug said, we either like it, or lump it. Our nation is little more than an international marketplace where any one culture or religion doesn’t matter a damn. The only thing with a voice is the dollar. It knows neither right nor wrong, and it doesn’t comprehend compassion. The rest is just a bunch of symbols being constantly manipulated to keep us dumb.

  12. Shockadelic says:

    Wow, an “anti” with a brain! You’ve hit quite a few nails on the head, but you fail to explain just *why* the “positive” desire for “community” among White Australians is “wrong”, you simply state that it is, and until you do explain why it is “wrong” you have no argument.

  13. Doug says:

    Smithy, Shockadelic.

    How did The Man carry out his Genocide of Aborigines?
    Starting from a small base and heavily outnumbered he slowly pressed into, from his perspective, lawless lands, gradually building behind him a largely benign, modern society.
    What stands out is his use of an impoverished and brutalised “underclass” as, basically a biological weapon.
    The transportees were carefully selected from “the worst of the worst”, they were subjected to a horrifying maritime voyage then held in detention centres purpose built to mentally and physically turn them into beasts.
    After a brief period of supervision outside the detention centres they were basically unleashed upon the majority Indigenous population, sent out into the wilds to fend for themselves or perform arduous physical labour for the landed Elite.
    The interactions between the locals and the transportees are now part of our folklore, what we know is that The Man hid these depredations from mainstream society and often deputised these brutes when some particularly nasty “Wet Work” was required.

    What did I say in the other thread? Look for consistency in behaviour, rhetoric and methods among the Elites, “The Man” in other words.
    What we as ethnic White Australians have to take on board is that even though The Man looks like us he has no loyalty to us, we’re not special in his eyes.
    When the Aboriginals said “This is our Land” they were all but obliterated using sheer brute force and genetic warfare.
    When in the late 19th Century my ethnic group, White Australians started to say “This is our land” the baleful eye of the man was turned upon us.
    Yes, The Man went into the brief consolidation mode known as “White Australia” but only because he had to, when you have the likes of Henry Lawson talking about armed insurrection and you’re 12,000 miles from help even the Man becomes rational.
    You get my drift, I don’t need to spell it out because deep down everyone knows what’s going on.
    The Man sees this as HIS country, the soil, the air, the waters and oceans are for HIS exclusive use and anyone who threatens him or declares an independent stake or franchise is going to be taken down.
    The Modus operandi is identical, the program is Genocide, Smithy is pointing out the means, the details of the plan if you will.
    Shockadelic is asking the question “Why?” Because He/She doesn’t understand what’s being done.
    The Man and his Minions explicitly stated their objectives many years ago, Bill Hayden wanted a “Honey Coloured” Australia, John Gorton wanted to change the genetic makeup of Australia “so slowly that nobody would notice”, Don Chipp believed that by the 1980s Whites would be embracing their minority status in a fully Eurasian society.
    When the Minions are using language such as “Inevitable Decline”, “Eurasian society” and “Asianisation”, what are they talking about?
    Genocide, “policies designed to change the Genetic makeup of an ethnic, or National group”.
    Ian Rintoul is just an updated version of Caroline Chisholm, working for the man to put a caring face on the trade in human bio-weapons who are transported disguised as “Poor Unfortunates”.

  14. Doug says:

    I’ve coined a phrase “WE’RE ALL IN THE SAME BOAT PEOPLE”.
    Everybody just keep doing what they’re doing but do it consistently.
    Anarchists: “Down with Capitalism”
    Whites: “White Genocide”
    Aboriginals: “Genocide, Sovereignty, Treaty”
    Muslims: “No Wars for Israel”.
    You can’t simply take an axe to The Man and strike him down, he’s big, we’re small he can withstand anything we can throw at him.
    We have to be swarm of insects, every drop of blood we suck, every sting, every bite weakens him.
    We have to be the mozzie in the room in the dead of night keeping him awake, the ants in his strawberries at his picnic, the termites in the walls of his luxury mansion.

  15. Grumpy Cat says:

    a) because white is a historical concept that obscures the very real divisions that live in the heart of capitalist society (all concepts of race are historical products)
    b) because a real human community can only be formed in the struggle against value and the commodity for and that necessitates struggle across the imposed borders of race and nation
    c) because any notion of community that is bound together on the basis of excluding those who differ from the common denominator of identity always ends up turning that hunt for impurity in on itself
    d) community can hold endless difference when it is bound by a common effort not identity (as was witnessed in the collective work that happened after the Qld floods)

  16. Grumpy Cat says:

    There is something to the notion that when the economy become ‘depoliticised’ all that is left is a scramble between identities for spots on the hierarchy and increased anti-social nihilism. Racism (that is the elevation of difference to identity to the only question) will be most effectively fought through the collective struggle that re-politicises questions of the economy – of course this involves making arguments against the ideologies that make this harder. I think Christos Tsiolkas’s book Dead Europe makes this argument really well – the victory of liberalism unleashes racism.

  17. El Toony says:

    Andy, just a brief aside regarding the comment that Scott Neale seemed reasonable in person…it’s a shame he couldn’t uphold that online.

  18. Doug says:

    One more, I’m going on Holidays this week so I might as well.
    When you start pointing out the facts about “The Man” and Genocide you have him flat footed and dead to rights. No other issue can stop him in his tracks like an accusation of crimes against Humanity.
    Because unlike the other charges commonly laid against Him it has teeth, Genocide is a hanging offence…literally in some circumstances, ask Ol’ Saddam’s daughter if she ever thought her Dad and Brothers would end up the way they did.
    If Indigenous spokespeople had pressed K-Rudd for an admission of culpability in the attempted Genocide of Aboriginals, really ramped up the volume and settled for nothing less they could have really hurt him.
    See when you pull an attempted Genocide and you either don’t have the guts to go all out or someone stops you, well then you’re in a lot of trouble, you’ll most likely find yourself in front of a Tribunal at some point.
    That’s the thing, plenty of people have ATTEMPTED Genocides, no one has fully executed one, there’s always someone left to speak for the dead and in all modern cases except North America and Australia the people in charge of the programs have been jailed or executed.
    The Nazis killed a lot of Jews…but not all of them.
    The B’aathists in Iraq killed a lot of Kurds…but not all of them.
    The Vandiemenslanders killed a lot of Tasmanians…but not all of them.
    When you have people from the target group left alive The Man is always looking over his shoulder, because when circumstances change, as they always do he’s likely to have survivors coming for him.
    Seriously, I’m putting this out as a challenge to all subversives, non conformists and activists, whatever your particular gripe with The Man the issue of Genocide is his Achilles Heel.
    Would you use it to take him down?
    Do you care if the straw that breaks his back is just a simple phrase like “We accuse of the Genocide of (Aboriginals/Whites) and we demand justice”.
    Now as I said before, I’m all for pursuing justice for Indigenous Australians on the matter of the Attempted Genocide of their Nations, but…
    I’m acutely aware of the tactics we can expect from “The Man”, let’s be frank, if we all went in with our Fangs out on Aboriginal Genocide then we’re going to get a reaction and the Shit is going to come down on the weakest link in the chain…defenceless Aborigines.
    Face it, David Horowitz chickened out and ended up rich and famous.
    Huey Newton held his mud and ended up poor and dead.
    I couldn’t live with that.
    So would you guys instead pursue The Man for White Genocide, that is to say use any means under the law, but not breaking the law to kick out the floor of his closed society and transition to an open one?
    I’m pretty sure just with the number of interested parties we have now if we all went onto a consistent message we could pretty much ruin their party without getting our arses too severely kicked.
    You don’t have to give up your other positions, lifestyles or pastimes, just join in the chant, as the volume increases the cracks will start to appear.
    Don’t think for a minute I’m some Nazi pulling a shifty, I’m not, I don’t blame non Whites for the Attempted Genocide of my ethnic group and they need only become involved in a transitional movement, or “People’s Front” of their own free will, my enemy looks like me but has no loyalty to me.
    See I don’t really mind who’s standing next to me as long as we’re on the same side, once we win we can sort out our differences peacefully and by negotiation.
    “We swear by the Southern Cross to stand truly by each other and fight to defend our rights and liberties.”
    What this path would also do is pretty much cut out any Wingnut elements from either side, Nazis, Stalinists and other authoritarians can’t exist in an open system or a transitional movement, they’ll be fish out of water and either adapt or die.
    Anyway I’m leaving on a Jet Plane in a few days, think about it.

  19. Shockadelic says:

    Doug, our “genocide” is the direct result of your “open/transitional” society. No “community” can be open to any, every and all people or it isn’t a community. Community = common.

    Why can Tibetans, Armenians and Bushmen have a “community”, not an “open/transitional” society, based on *shared* culture and biological ancestry (memes *and* genes)?

    Can any, every and all people be “Tibetan”?
    Can Tibetan people, as they are *known* to themselves and and recognised by others, continue to exist, if any, every and all types of people migrate into Tibet?

    No. A “community” of any kind *must* be limited, exclusive, to some degree or it has no real meaning.
    A “community” could be defined in very *broad* terms yes, but not any, every and all terms.
    Community = common.
    We cannot have “commonality” with 6309 different ethnicities! (That’s how many *languages* currently exist. Of course, there are multiple ethnicities that speak the same language.)

  20. Shockadelic says:

    Grumpy Cat, white is not a historical “concept”.

    When I look in the mirror, I see what I am. I don’t see black or brown or yellow.
    My body is not a “concept”. My genes are not a “concept”.
    Our biology is the very basis of our existence!
    It is perhaps the *only* thing that can even be verified as “real”.
    Everything *else* is a “concept”, including your anti-racist ideology.

    Real human communities *want* borders.
    Is everyone your “family”? Or just *some* people?

    However you define your “family” or “community” it cannot and does not include every single person in the world.
    There are always limits on any defined human group.
    The only group we all belong to is the species.
    But humans don’t live as a “species”. If they did, there’d be no “cultural diversity” to discuss.

    “always ends up turning that hunt for impurity in on itself”
    Impurity? Give me a break!

    Definition, definition, definition.
    A definition can be as fuzzy, murky, mongrel as you like it to be.
    You can be a Celto-Turkic Zoroastrian chainsmoking Luddite Glamourpuss. *And* want to live in a community of similar people (not necessarily *all* of those things, just enough to share a sense of commonality).

    Why do people make a “common effort” in the first place?
    Because they’ve already created a communal identity.

  21. Aussie says:

    Shockadelic: Colours are concepts, colours are just words. We believe we know what we see and everything about it because we know what it’s called using language when truth is we don’t know. Our eyes work like a camera does, there isn’t even proof that what we see is real.

    If our biology is real, why do we turn to nothing when we die? Can something real disappear?

    Some people see themselves as life, or “one with everything”, not just “the species”. It is a realisation that has been said can be known by a person but can’t be explained to or believed to be the truth by another, this is why it isn’t preached. It is a realisation that is realised when concepts and desire ceases. Therefore there are people with no “communal identity”. It is possible there is a solution, you just don’t know it yet. You don’t know it, because you can’t know it. Who decided human minds were intelligent enough to know “the truth”? The human mind decided that of course. When I look around, all I see is minds attacking other minds, sometimes feeling justified to even kill others, the closer you look the more you realise, in some ways human minds are smart, in other ways they are the stupidest thing on the planet, even the everyday “normal” person can be a little insane.

    Sorry to interrupt. Not trying to to agree or disagree with anyone. I just liked your comment, and wanted to use it to throw my two bobs’ worth in.

  22. Aussie says:

    What is “common” or what people regard as similar between each other continuously changes, it is everyone’s job to change it.

  23. Anarcho-Syndicalist kid says:

    Yes, I completely agree with what was said in this article. You articulate a big problem with the left in today’s era (where the mass working/middle classes are part of right-wing movements, instead of just business elites). This can be said for the treatment of the Tea Party in the US. Chomsky made a pretty good point about that (google Chomsky on Tea Party).

  24. Doug says:

    You miss my point, we don’t live in an open society, it’s closed.
    Our Genocide is a result of this closed society.
    An obvious example of an open society is the internet.
    The Net is a true open society, it has commerce, exchange of ideas, standards, protocols, understandable languages and dialects, all by consensus among individuals, the only shortcoming is that there’s no direct tactile interaction but notice how the Elites are always trying to shut it down?
    The State acts as a sort of membrane around us, historically it’s filtered the flow of information, people and goods into and out of society.
    What I’m proposing is removing the State by any legal means at our disposal.
    Genocide is an accusation which can hurt them and it can be used fairly and within the current system, their system.
    No serious Activist advocates illegal action, not out of cowardice but simply because it doesn’t work, violence and mayhem creates feedback to the State and reinforces its “moral authority”.
    I’m simply proposing a way of asserting moral authority over the state, a proven case of White Genocide gives us exactly that.

  25. Don Oorst says:

    Whites are not being genocided you spastics.

  26. @ndy says:

    It’s all part of The Gay Agenda that The Pink Mafia at The Gay Bee Cee want to indoctrinate The White Masses with. God created Adam & Eve not Adam & Steve. Two Wongs don’t make a White.


    This is Facebook, right?

  27. Doug says:

    Dear Donny, thank you for your contribution, erudite and thoughtful as always.
    But you would say that because you’re a notorious Anti White, I’m neither an Anarchist or a Nazi but even I’ve heard of you.
    Ever thought of posting under a pen name?
    Moving on…
    Andrew Bolt doesn’t think anyone was “stolen” much less admits that it constituted Genocide.
    I’d say he’s wrong and the U.N convention on Genocide would agree with me.
    I’m just pointing out the obvious.
    People say things like “There’s no such thing as White”… but everyone knows what a White person looks like.
    They say “Race is a social construct”… but under international and local anti discrimination law there are no such thing as social constructs.
    A White man accused of “Curry Bashing” isn’t going to get far in defending himself by stating “M’lud race is just a social construct”.
    In any case we’re not talking about any “White Race”, we’re talking about our group, the Ethnic White Australians.
    The people trying to wipe us off the earth give Ethnic White Australians all sorts of derogatory names, “Anglos”, “Anglo Celts”, “Europeans”, “Caucasians” etc… it all means the same thing, YOU DON’T EXIST.
    But as noted above… here we are!

  28. inglourious_basterd says:

    So Doug all that tells me is that the colour your skin happens to be defines your culture and by some strange process the language you happen to speak. So what if you are not of this amorphous Northern European-descended grouping but a Turk or Iranian?

    Seems to me a lot of your ethnic white whatsis friends have spent a lot of time and energy trying to wipe other ethnic white whatsisnames off the planet. Not to the extent they have done with brown people, but enough to suggest that skin colour is a genetic accident and the real agendas driving men (I use the word men deliberately) are more to do with more concrete concepts like territory and wealth – that’s called imperialism BTW.

  29. Aussie says:

    *Doug takes a deep breath*

    Good thread, but after reading all of that I have decided in my next life I want to be a cow or a fish maybe, they make life look a whole lot less complicated, and I am starting to think they are smarter than humans.

    Next time someone wants to know something and needs it to be the 100% truth, ask a tree.

  30. Doug says:

    I’m not talking about a White Race or an “Amorphous Northern European descended grouping”, I’m talking about my group, ethnic White Australians.
    You know who I’m talking about otherwise you wouldn’t have replied, so don’t be coy.
    You’ve pretty much got it in one, but what I’m saying is that these genocidal maniacs who have been clustered around the top of the country for so long only look like my ethnic group, they have no loyalty to ethnic White Australian children… nor for that matter any other ethnic Australian group, but they especially hate the Aborigines and my ethnic group.
    No healthy ethnic group would want to wipe themselves out, we all want to survive, if someone who looks like me is saying “Nobody is White” then they’re obviously not part of my ethnic group are they?
    Territory and wealth? Nah, power is what they want, total global hegemony.
    Yeah, they’re pretty horrible really, aren’t they?
    Yet you use a symbol of one of their nasty genocidal memes as a username?
    What that film represents is the notion that when it comes to White people it’s OK to say “Two Wrongs Make A Right”, it’s OK to kill White people because of what the Elites do to other races.
    Sick puppies.

  31. Smithy says:

    “So what if you are not of this amorphous Northern European-descended grouping but a Turk or Iranian?”

    Well, clearly Turks and Iranians are beyond reproach. I for one think they deserve MORE rights.

  32. Doug says:

    To paraphrase Muhammad Ali:
    “I ain’t got no problem with Iranians, no Iranian ever called me a Nazi”

    Look at Iraq, nobody is asking “When will Iraq be ready for immigration?”
    Then turn your eyes to other “liberated” territories in Eastern Europe who suffered just as badly under Stalinist dictatorship as the Iraqis did under the Ba’athists.
    All the anti Whites are abuzz about the “opportunities” which will be afforded Poland and Ukraine when they are no longer “monolithic” societies.
    Iran has less internal diversity than Britain did before 1945, yet the Iranian leaders aren’t bringing in millions of outsiders to “assimilate” with their people, they make the Afghan refugees live away from other Iranians and they will NEVER call them “Iranians”.
    Only the leaders of White countries want to “assimilate” White children out of existence, the thought of an African or Asian leader giving an oration in the style of Bill Clinton’s famous speech about the “opportunities” that would arise when Whites were a minority the U.S is laughable.

  33. Shockadelic says:

    @ndy, you posted an article calling for calm and serious debate and all you’ve done is throw in a couple of glib sarcastic irrelevances. How about contributing?

    Aussie, please. We don’t need some pedantic debate about the nature of reality.
    Can we just accept we live in the world, its cultures and peoples, as it is known to exist and work with that, hmm?
    Because politics is about mass population issues and I think most people don’t spend all day contemplating whether the sky really is blue. They just accept that it “is”.

    Words describe the reality we experience. Just because we don’t know what any *absolute* reality might be, doesn’t mean we cannot describe the one we experience.

    “If our biology is real, why do we turn to nothing when we die? Can something real disappear?”

    Part of the reality of biology is death. Can we please keep this discussion sensible?

    “there are people with no “communal identity”.”
    And the other 99.9% of mankind has one or more communal identities.
    Let’s deal with the way people actually are, shall we, not hypothetical idealisations?

    “What is “common” or what people regard as similar between each other continuously changes”

    But that doesn’t deny what is common at any particular time or place. Sheesh!

    Doug says: “we don’t live in an open society, it’s closed.”
    Not closed enough.

    “The Net is a true open society”

    No it is not. It has limits just like any real-world society.
    You can only participate *if* you have access.
    You can buy *if* you have credit cards.
    You can only communicate in the same languages (or online abbreviations thereof) that exist IRL (mostly English).

    “historically [the state] filtered the flow of information, people and goods into and out of society.”
    And you think without a state, there’d be no “filtering”?
    Believe me there’d be filtering and it wouldn’t be pretty.

    The state is a servant that convinced us it’s the master.
    It needs reduction and reform, not obliteration.
    Pre-modern societies always had hierarchies and authorities.
    The modern democratic state was a reaction to the arbitrary power of past rulers. Destroy it and we go back to a time when the “people” had no rights at all.

    inglourious_basterd says: “all that tells me is that the colour your skin happens to be defines your culture and by some strange process the language you happen to speak.”

    My skin “happens” to be what it is because it’s genetically inherited, just like culture is inherited.
    And surprise, surprise, you inherit both genes and memes from the SAME PEOPLE. Got it? It’s not that hard to understand!
    We can, *if we want to*, incorporate the genes and/or (not necessarily both) memes of any people. But we don’t *have to*.

    “So what if you are not of this amorphous Northern European-descended grouping but a Turk or Iranian?”

    Then you’re a Turk or Iranian.
    If you can give yourself another more legitimate label/category, then that’s what you are. You’re not “Australian”.

    “more to do with more concrete concepts like territory and wealth – that’s called imperialism BTW.”

    And territory and wealth are new novel concepts exclusive to Whites and their modern states?

  34. @ndy says:

    @ndy, you posted an article calling for calm and serious debate and all you’ve done is throw in a couple of glib sarcastic irrelevances. How about contributing?

    A worthwhile debate would address the issues raised in the post within the general framework of ‘the struggle against racism within the (working) class’. I haven’t responded to Anonymous’ letter in any great detail because a) I haven’t had the time, energy or inclination and b) I wanted to allow others to respond first. In the meantime, I think Grumpy Cat’s comment regarding economy and identity is reminiscent of Nancy Fraser’s writings on the politics of redistribution and representation. Blah blah blah.

    To sum up: today’s struggles for recognition often assume the guise of identity politics. Aimed at countering demeaning cultural representations of subordinated groups, they abstract misrecognition from its institutional matrix and sever its links with political economy and, insofar as they propound ‘authentic’ collective identities, serve less to foster interaction across differences than to enforce separatism, conformism and intolerance. The results tend to be doubly unfortunate: in many cases, struggles for recognition simultaneously displace struggles for economic justice and promote repressive forms of communitarianism. The solution, however, is not to reject the politics of recognition tout court. That would be to condemn millions of people to suffer grave injustices that can only be redressed through recognition of some kind. What is needed, rather, is an alternative politics of recognition, a non-identitarian politics that can remedy misrecognition without encouraging displacement and reification. The status model, I have argued, provides the basis for this. By understanding recognition as a question of status, and by examining its relation to economic class, one can take steps to mitigate, if not fully solve, the displacement of struggles for redistribution; and by avoiding the identity model, one can begin to diminish, if not fully dispel, the dangerous tendency to reify collective identities.

  35. inglourious_basterd says:

    @El Toony: sooner or later the few women attracted to those crypto-Fascist playgroups are going to wake up and realise that it’s Kinder-Kuche-Kirche once again. That’s what it’s always all about.

    @Shockadelic: I didn’t understand a word of that. Not surprisingly. Don’t you have an anti-racism rally to lurk in the shadows at? Or something?

    @Doug: next week I may well post as Nancy Wake or some other genocidal meme just to stir you up. 🙂

    @Comrade Oorst: Spot on as usual! 🙂

  36. @ndy says:


    Today, I saw a dog,
    Yes, a dog.
    Talking to a pig,
    Yes, a pig.
    They were on the pavement,
    Discussing Trotsky.
    Not brotsky or crotsky or drotsky or frotsky.
    But Trotsky.

    The petty bourgeois is hostile to the idea of development, for development goes immutably against him; progress has brought him nothing except irredeemable debts. National Socialism rejects not only Marxism but Darwinism. The Nazis curse materialism because the victories of technology over nature have signified the triumph of large capital over small. The leaders of the movement are liquidating “intellectualism” because they themselves possess second- and third-rate intellects, and above all because their historic role does not permit them to pursue a single thought to its conclusion. The petty bourgeois needs a higher authority, which stands above matter and above history, and which is safeguarded from competition, inflation, crisis, and the auction block. To evolution, materialist thought, and rationalism – of the twentieth, nineteenth, and eighteenth centuries – is counterposed in his mind national idealism as the source of heroic inspiration. Hitler’s nation is the mythological shadow of the petty bourgeoisie itself, a pathetic delirium of a thousand-year Reich.

    In order to raise it above history, the nation is given the support of the race. History is viewed as the emanation of the race. The qualities of the race are construed without relation to changing social conditions. Rejecting “economic thought” as base, National Socialism descends a stage lower: from economic materialism it appeals to zoologic materialism.

    The theory of race, specially created, it seems, for some pretentious self-educated individual seeking a universal key to all the secrets of life, appears particularly melancholy in the light of the history of ideas. In order to create the religion of pure German blood, Hitler was obliged to borrow at second hand the ideas of racism from a Frenchman, Count Gobineau, a diplomat and a literary dilettante. Hitler found the political methodology ready-made in Italy, where Mussolini had borrowed largely from the Marxist theory of the class struggle. Marxism itself is the fruit of union among German philosophy, French history, and British economics. To investigate retrospectively the genealogy of ideas, even those most reactionary and muddleheaded, is to leave not a trace of racism standing.

    The immense poverty of National Socialist philosophy did not, of course, hinder the academic sciences from entering Hitler’s wake with all sails unfurled, once his victory was sufficiently plain. For the majority of the professorial rabble, the years of the Weimar regime were periods of riot and alarm. Historians, economists, jurists, and philosophers were lost in guesswork as to which of the contending criteria of truth was right that is, which of the camps would turn out in the end the master of the situation. The fascist dictatorship eliminates the doubts of the Fausts and the vacillations of the Hamlets of the university rostrums. Coming out of the twilight of parliamentary relativity, knowledge once again enters into the kingdom of absolutes. Einstein has been obliged to pitch his tent outside the boundaries of Germany.

    On the plane of politics, racism is a vapid and bombastic variety of chauvinism in alliance with phrenology. As the ruined nobility sought solace in the gentility of its blood, so the pauperized petty bourgeoisie befuddles itself with fairy tales concerning the special superiorities of its race. Worthy of attention is the fact that the leaders of National Socialism are not native Germans but interlopers from Austria, like Hitler himself, from the former Baltic provinces of the Czar’s empire, like Rosenberg; and from colonial countries, like Hess, who is Hitler’s present alternate for the party leadership. A barbarous din of nationalisms on the frontiers of civilization was required in order to instill into its “leaders” those ideas which later found response in the hearts of the most barbarous classes in Germany.

    Personality and class – liberalism and Marxism – are evil. The nation – is good. But at the threshold of private property this philosophy is turned inside out. Salvation lies only in personal private property. The idea of national property is the spawn of Bolshevism. Deifying the nation, the petty bourgeois does not want to give it anything. On the contrary, he expects the nation to endow him with property and to safeguard him from the worker and the process-server. Unfortunately, the Third Reich will bestow nothing upon the petty bourgeois except new taxes.

    In the sphere of modern economy, international in its ties and anonymous in its methods, the principle of race seems unearthed from a medieval graveyard. The Nazis set out with concessions beforehand; the purity of race, which must be certified in the kingdom of the spirit by a passport must be demonstrated in the sphere of economy chiefly by efficiency. Under contemporary conditions this means competitive capacity. Through the back door, racism returns to economic liberalism, freed from political liberties.

    Nationalism in economy comes down in practice to impotent though savage outbursts of anti-Semitism. The Nazis abstract the usurious or banking capital from the modern economic system because it is of the spirit of evil; and, as is well known, it is precisely in this sphere that the Jewish bourgeoisie occupies an important position. Bowing down before capitalism as a whole, the petty bourgeois declares war against the evil spirit of gain in the guise of the Polish Jew in a long-skirted caftan and usually without a cent in his pocket. The pogrom becomes the supreme evidence of racial superiority.

    The program with which National Socialism came to power reminds one very much – alas – of a Jewish department store in an obscure province. What won’t you find here – cheap in price and in quality still lower! Recollections of the “happy” days of free competition, and hazy evocations of the stability of class society; hopes for the regeneration of the colonial empire, and dreams of a shut-in economy; phrases about a return from Roman law back to the Germanic, and pleas for an American moratorium; an envious hostility to inequality in the person of a proprietor in an automobile, and animal fear of equality in the person of a worker in a cap and without a collar; the frenzy of nationalism, and the fear of world creditors … all the refuse of international political thought has gone to fill up the spiritual treasury of the new Germanic Messianism.

    Fascism has opened up the depths of society for politics. Today, not only in peasant homes but also in city skyscrapers, there lives alongside of the twentieth century the tenth or the thirteenth. A hundred million people use electricity and still believe in the magic power of signs and exorcisms. The Pope of Rome broadcasts over the radio about the miraculous transformation of water into wine. Movie stars go to mediums. Aviators who pilot miraculous mechanisms created by man’s genius wear amulets on their sweaters. What inexhaustible reserves they possess of darkness, ignorance, and savagery! Despair has raised them to their feet fascism has given them a banner. Everything that should have been eliminated from the national organism in the form of cultural excrement in the course of the normal development of society has now come gushing out from the throat; capitalist society is puking up the undigested barbarism. Such is the physiology of National Socialism.

  37. Doug says:

    Yeah but people 10/10 people who don’t like NS don’t like NS.
    Back to topic.
    We need no further illustration of our perception “problem” within the class than the media coverage of last night’s sickening dog attack in St Albans.
    The victim was a four year old girl of Sudanese parentage, the family having gained humanitarian asylum here in 2004.
    What do the media do?
    “The girl is believed to have arrived from Sudan as a refugee.”
    What so she came here three years before she was born?
    It’s sad what’s happened to her but as an Australian born child she’s really no more deserving of special consideration above and beyond the details of her tragic fate.

    What’s “Joe the Aussie” supposed to make of the constant message from the PC crowd on non White victimhood?
    To a working class White man a victim is someone who has to be cared for, it’s not a subservient position but one of dependence. Charity is extended to those in need but the needy are not equal to their benefactors until the kindness is repaid, or is seen to be repaid in kind.
    Look, during the Black Saturday emergency I saw all sorts of people of non White background (notably Muslims, but there are a lot of them in my suburb) rolling up with bags of goods to be collected for the victims.
    To be concise, the PC media and “Human Rights” fraternity does everyone in the community a disservice by misrepresenting the situation on the ground and the constant reinforcement of “Brown skin=victim, White skin=Oppressor”.
    I’d like to go on with this discussion but the hour of my departure grows near, cya’ll in a week or so.

  38. @ndy says:

    Re the fatal dog attack in St Albans. Actually, most of the media reportage I’ve seen/heard has concentrated not on the fact that the unfortunate little girl was Sudanese (or not) but that pit bulls are dangerous and require (arguably) better regulation. The dog itself appears to have wandered into the family’s backyard before killing the four-year-old and injuring two others. The Sudanese angle is important as her father is reportedly in Sudan.

    A relative, Daniel Atem, said the dead girl was the youngest of three children and had two brothers aged nine and 12. He described her as ”a lovely little girl, very talkative and popular in kindergarten”.

    Mr Atem said Ayen had been living with her brothers and her mother at their cousin’s house at the time of the attack. Their previous house had burnt down last month.

    The girl’s father, Mawien Chol, was in South Sudan, having left Melbourne to join independence celebrations, he said.

    The family is believed to have arrived in Australia in 2004 after spending three years in Egypt awaiting resettlement.

    Only last Saturday, police used capsicum spray to subdue a pit bull terrier that had savaged an elderly woman’s Scottish terrier in a Ballarat Street, then turned on two men who intervened.

    In summary, if your intent is to argue that the media in some way perpetuates certain ideas regarding non-White victimhood (‘the constant reinforcement of “Brown skin=victim, White skin=Oppressor”’), the incident in question is an incredibly poor choice.

  39. Shockadelic says:

    inglourious_basterd, oh the clever “I-can’t-understand-perfectly-legitimate-and-comprehensible-English-because-I-label-you-Nazi” trick.
    Never seen that one before!
    Is there a Boy Scout badge you people earn every time you do that?

    That just adds a layer of pathetic icing on an already pathetic cake.
    The ridiculous cake in question being the desperately pathetic tangent of “what is reality, really?”
    We don’t need to reinvent the wheels here, kids.

    Surely if you’re educated, intelligent adults you can discuss issues using terms of reference that are commonly understood.
    When your friends come to dinner and want to discuss the Renaissance or Chaos Theory, can they not discuss these in *terms* that are known, recognised and understood?
    Do they have to start from scratch, determining the nature of reality itself first, or can they just discuss the Renaissance or Chaos Theory like normal people, hmmm?

    Likewise, political and social phenomena can be discussed using known applicable terms understood by intelligent, educated people.
    Or you can admit you’re a stupid baby and go away.

    @ndy, cool story, bro.
    Maybe one day you could think of and write your own opinions instead of copy-pasting other people’s interminable diatribes. “Blah blah blah” indeed.

    So economic class is everything? I thought that kind of Marxism was well and truly buried.
    And it really has nothing to do with the issue of demographic change of local ethnicities brought about through immigration.
    Class structure remains intact. That’s not the issue.

    Nazism? Oh God! When will it end! WTF!
    So Tibetans are “Nazis” if they want Tibet to stay Tibetan?

    Who said anything about “purity”?
    Difference, differentiation, divergence.
    There doesn’t have to be anything “pure” about a people or culture to recognise its particularity.
    Are Brazilians “pure”? There is definitely an identity, ethnicity, culture, people that calls itself, and is recognised by others as, “Brazilian”.

    You don’t need to bring up “does anything really exist” tangents to discuss “Brazilians”.
    And “Brazilian” has nothing to do with “purity” or class.
    But it is accepted as existing by the people themselves and by non-Brazilians.

    Likewise with “Australians”.
    That definition has nothing to do with “purity” or class.
    But it is recognised as existing by “Australians” and non-Australians.

    Those people, as they define themselves, have a right to exist and perpetuate their own particular genetic and memetic “reality”.
    They cannot do this with open borders, with any-all-and-every people entering and altering their social reality.

    It seems very strange to me that the kind of people who get frantic about the possibility of a frog going extinct couldn’t care less whether entire recognised groups of humans vanish from the Earth.

  40. @ndy says:


    Tiresome by reason of length, slowness, or dullness; boring.

    A worthwhile debate would address the issues raised in the post within the general framework of ‘the struggle against racism within the (working) class’. I haven’t responded to Anonymous’ letter in any great detail because a) I haven’t had the time, energy or inclination and b) I wanted to allow others to respond first. In the meantime, I think Grumpy Cat’s comment regarding economy and identity is reminiscent of Nancy Fraser’s writings on the politics of redistribution and representation. Blah blah blah.

  41. Shockadelic says:

    Andy, you seem to be under the false impression that the “issue” discussed in the article is a Marxist analysis of class relations. It is not. That perspective is already presumed.

    The issue was that your *tactics don’t work*.

    That you fail to engage in any serious debate with your political opponents.
    That you fail to enlighten them as to the *error* of their beliefs, not the rightness of your own.
    That the tactics of “scream and scoff”, “bluff and bluster”, “evading now and evoking Nazi”, no longer work, if indeed they ever did.
    They are counterproductive.

    I thought that by publishing this article, you actually were an intelligent person who *agreed* with these sentiments.
    Your responses here show otherwise.
    You are persisting in the very tactics that win you no converts and disappoint your allies.

    In a way, this is reassuring to those of my own inclinations.
    With these tactics, you can never win for long.
    You must inevitably fail.

    Continue screaming and scoffing.
    And I will continue smirking.

  42. @ndy says:


    The questions raised in the text are fairly straightforward — for example: “What is the nature of this new right-wing populism and what is the best way to oppose it?”. The audience to which it is addressed is ‘the Left’ (Marxist or otherwise).

    The text does not address the contents of my blog, or my political perspective, but the nature of much of the opposition to the joint APDM/ADL rally in Brisbane, and the approach which informs it.

    These are two separate subjects.

    Otherwise: I frequently engage in political debate and discussion, here and elsewhere. If my contribution to this thread provides you with some degree of reassurance on some level, so be it.

    I await a serious response by someone on the Left to the post and its contents.

  43. inglourious_basterd says:

    Shockadelic wrote:

    …That you fail to engage in any serious debate with your political opponents.

    But that is to give your “ideas” a validity which they do not possess. That is to reify the unspeakable and the abhorrent.

    Likewise, political and social phenomena can be discussed using known applicable terms understood by intelligent, educated people.

    That is, when one is talking to intelligent, educated people. There are none on the far right. Those few who profess qualifications generally have the most alarming psychiatric disorders which make civilised discourse impossible.

    It seems very strange to me that the kind of people who get frantic about the possibility of a frog going extinct couldn’t care less whether entire recognised groups of humans vanish from the Earth.

    Really? The last co-species of human were the Neanderthal who vanished about 30,000 years ago. There is only one species of human extant.

  44. Shockadelic says:

    Thanks @ndy for repeatedly deleting my comments. Typical censorious antifa behaviour.

    inglourious_basterd, you like @ndy seemed to have missed the entire point of the article.
    “But that is to give your “ideas” a validity which they do not possess.”

    No, the article says otherwise. You are supposed to engage in dialogue *precisely* to show people their ideas are wrong. If you don’t even bother trying, what have you achieved?

    “That is to reify the unspeakable and the abhorrent.”

    You don’t even know what my opinions ARE, unless you engage in dialogue with me.
    Typically, you simply PRESUME you already know.

    “That is, when one is talking to intelligent, educated people. There are none on the far right.”

    Again, an arrogant presumption. And you don’t need “qualifications” to be intelligent. How bourgeois a statement for a radical revolutionary who wants to take the Man down!

    “The last co-species of human were the Neanderthal who vanished about 30,000 years ago. There is only one species of human extant.”

    Did I say species? Or “recognised groups of humans”?
    Do you recognise that “Turks”, “Tibetans” and “Tongans” exist?
    Are they species? They’re not even subspecies. They are though recognised human groups, commonly known as “ethnicities”.
    Is this an example of your abundant intelligence?

    Since Turks, Tibetans and Tongans are not species, I suppose you couldn’t care less if they vanished off the face of the Earth, right Mr Anti-Racist?

    BTW, if you recognise Neanderthals as genetically distinct, are you aware recent DNA research shows non-Negroid homo sapiens interbred with Neanderthals. The Neanderthal DNA does *not* appear in Negroid Africans.
    Would that make Negroids a different “species” or subspecies to the rest of us? If not, why not?

  45. inglourious_basterd says:

    You are supposed to engage in dialogue *precisely* to show people their ideas are wrong.

    An error other people have made with you in the past and which I do not intend to perpetuate. It assumes two premises. The first is that the person who debates you genuinely but mistakenly believes that you are going to argue from a factual and evidential base. We have seen this is not the case. The second premise is that your attempt to engage is based not on a desire for an informed debate but a desperate desire to validate yourself in your own eyes.

    If you need a buddy ring Lifeline.

    You don’t even know what my opinions ARE

    Oh I do indeed. And the company you keep – that tells me lots.

    Do you recognise that “Turks”, “Tibetans” and “Tongans” exist?

    They are nationalities not necessarily ethnicities. National states are artificial creations of recent origin for the most part. Ethnic “identities” (for want of a better word) change over time – for instance I am no longer a Northumbrian, nor are my immediate ancestors. Cultures change over time. And we haven’t seen Hittites around for quite a while. Hitler and Pol Pot among others tried to wipe groups they disapproved of off the face of the earth. It didn’t work.

    But I shall let you know if an imminent Rapture or some such supernatural event is going to suddenly remove anyone from the earth, since it seems to bother you so much.

  46. Shockadelic says:

    The antifa borg says: “Oh. I’m so clever, di-de-de-de-dee, la-la-lee-lah-lah, bib-de-bib-bib-bee.”


    Turks, Tibetans and Tongans are “necessarily” ethnicities.
    They existed long before any modern state bearing similar titles existed.
    The very *reason* political states bear names like these is precisely *because* of the ethnic groups that predominate in those territories.

    As usual, the borg confuses political nationality with ethnicity. They are not the same.
    There is a political nationality “Tongan” (citizens of the state Tonga) and there is the ethnicity “Tongan” (people of genetic/cultural “Tongan”-defined character).

    The two defined groups obviously overlap, but there are citizens of Tonga who are not ethnically Tongan, and there are ethnic Tongans who are citizens of other countries (e.g. America, Australia, Canada).

    Likewise, there are “Australians” (citizens of the Australian state) and there are “Australians” (ethnic group).

    Do the wittle kiddies understand now?

    Yes, people like you have made the “error” of trying to argue with me before, and they always lose, which is why you don’t even try.

  47. @ndy says:

    Facebook tribute site for Ayen Chol ruined by racists
    Amelia Harris
    Herald Sun
    August 22, 2011

    VULGAR photographs and racist posts have ruined a Facebook tribute site dedicated to the little girl mauled to death by a dog last week.

    The State Government and police will try to erase the posts.

    The two pages have 35,000 followers, several of whom have contacted Crimestoppers.

    Some vile comments and images already have been removed. But others remain on the sites dedicated to four-year-old Ayen Chol.

    One post on a page described the pit bull-cross linked to the girl’s death last Wednesday as a legend.

    The Herald Sun has chosen not to detail the contents of other posts that have not been removed…

  48. inglourious_basterd says:

    I don’t bother arguing with white exceptionalists because they are tendentious bores. I also like to think Darryl that while I can annoy you here, you are distracted from annoying others elsewhere.

    There is an identifiable “Australian” ethnic group or to be more accurate, several/many if you base ethnicity on culture and language.

    They are our Indigenous people. They have been on this continent longer than anyone else still surviving has been anywhere else with the possible exception of the San people of Africa. And even Indigenous people originated somewhere else.

    Whether your ancestors came on the First Fleet or arrived recently from Europe as a skilled migrant you are an Australian (by nationality) of European descent. So am I, so is @ndy. And the Europeans were relatively late arrivals on the ethnographic stage.

    The Chinese still have the longest surviving literate civilisation. The Indians are not far behind.

    We ain’t anything special. Our ancestors just had the weapons, the climate, the bloodlust and the geography at a fortuitous time. That’s all.

  49. @ndy says:

    “EXTERMINATE ALL THE BRUTES” (reviewed on February 1, 1996)
    Pub Date: April 27th, 1996
    ISBN: 1-56584-002-X
    Page count: 192pp
    Publisher: New Press

    An impressionistic history of European colonialism, in which the author argues that Enlightenment ideals of social evolution and human perfectibility, carried to their logical extreme, resulted in genocide. Taking his title from Joseph Conrad’s haunted fable of colonialism, Swedish scholar Lindqvist extends Hannah Arendt’s argument that the practice of imperialism demands an ideology of racism, itself a product of Enlightenment scientific theory. Much of his short, essayistic book describes the factual circumstances that informed Conrad’s fiction, and in this alone it is a fine contribution to literary history. He turns up contemporary newspaper accounts of a Belgian captain who decorated his flower beds with the heads of African natives; of British massacres of wounded Mahdist soldiers after the battle of Omdurman, in which “within the space of five hours, the strongest and best-armed savage army yet arrayed against a modern European power had been destroyed and dispersed, with hardly any difficulty”; of German concentration camps in the Namibian desert in which thousands of natives died. Such horrors, Lindqvist writes, were not isolated outbursts of savagery but the outcome of a doctrine that placed Europe at the top of the evolutionary ladder and regarded non-Europeans as a separate species bound for extinction. Lindqvist argues that such thinking leads to Auschwitz, “the modern industrial application of a policy of extermination on which European world domination had long since rested.” Peppering the narrative are notes from Lindqvist’s travels into the Sahara that occasionally slide into self-indulgence. But these do not detract from the power of his argument or his view that all around us Heart of Darkness is being endlessly restaged. Admirers of Edward Said’s Orientalism will find Lindqvist’s book an eminently worthy companion.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.