Dr. Jim Saleam
August 1 2000
(This pamphlet was slightly edited on November 5 2002)
The publication of Kevin Coogan’s DREAMER OF THE DAY: FRANCIS PARKER YOCKEY AND THE POSTWAR FASCIST INTERNATIONAL (New York: 1999), brought into focus alternate ‘radical-nationalist’ ideology, politics and organizational-method to challenge the forces of seemingly ‘triumphant’ New World Order capitalism. It reminded Nationalists that in a world no longer divided between ‘Eastern’ and ‘Western’ (ie. communist and capitalist) blocs, a way would have to be found to mount a credible challenge to the dominant liberal-internationalist/free-market ideology. In the past, Nationalist forces in every land were pressed by the East/West divide. Some erstwhile ‘nationalists’ took the Western road, often ending up as agents-in-all-but-name of Establishment parties (or utterly marginalised ‘electoral’ parties with a tough-guy conservative image and programme), while others took the more dangerous roads of absolute neutralism or an ‘Eastern’ tilt. The latter positions also had consequences for policy and political style, as we shall see in our review of the debates within Australian Nationalist ranks in the past, and in discussions currently under way to define future activism.
Coogan’s study of Yockey was of a ‘neo-fascist’ philosopher and activist who in the post-1945 period down to his death in 1960, did locate a ‘possibility’ for the forces of nationalism. Described by scholar Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke in his introduction to Coogan’s text as a ”pro-Soviet fascist”, Yockey sought to mobilize the then-communist camp behind a project which was crafted to lead to a European Revolution to free the old-Continent of the dominance of American capitalism. For Yockey, the overturn of Marxist internationalism and the ‘Jewish component’ of the Marxist state, by Stalinist practise, had created a peculiar situation with which any national revolutionary project would be forced to confront. The latter facts explained much of the ‘Western’ hostility to the Soviet bloc. It helped to explain why the Eastern Bloc was not the ‘first’ enemy of the Euro-nationalists, but a secondary opponent whose internal order could be changed by a slow penetration of new Euro-nationalist politics.
Yockey’s belief system challenged dominant dogmas on the international ‘Right’ in his day. There is no need to discuss the 1950’s here. The reader may refer to Coogan’s excellent book for the full context of this struggle. Our interest is more immediate. Nonetheless, the matters raised by Yockey have had ‘life’ on the Australian Right in the last 20 years and have been the bones of ideological contention. Some will be fought over – again. As Australia sinks into the Asian Pacific Economic Order, a factor of the New World Order (NWO) system, clear thinking alone can serve the development of a radical-nationalist party in this country. We ask: how did Australia get into its present position?; who is the enemy?; how do we struggle against the system and the ‘American’ philosophy which inspires it?
The revival of interest in Yockey’s work (IMPERIUM, THE PROCLAMATION OF LONDON, THE ENEMY OF EUROPE, WORLD IN FLAMES) has of late inspired various European and American radical-nationalist organizations. Yockey has been linked by one ‘International’ (ie. an international liaison agency which interlinks several parties, publications and groups), to Jean Thiriart (died 1993) and Otto Strasser (died 1972), two thinkers who long-advocated: a federation of Europe involving Russia, a revolution against both capitalist and Marxist ideology, a system of popular but strong government, the decentralisation of property and the aggressive measures to save the embattled ‘white race’ – which sustains the European Civilisation – from biological and other challenges.
It is the broader-than-Yockey issues of ideological clarification, which shall be addressed here. Yockey was just one figure in a wide movement of thought and today this ‘thought’ is being utilised as one ‘base’ for the creation of new ideology for new times.
In the struggle at Russia’s ‘White House’ in September-October 1993, the forces of nationalism (former communists included) fought with guns-in-hand against a creature called Yeltsin, a lackey of the NWO system. Followers of Thiriart – calling themselves the European Liberation Front – from other countries, fought with the anti-Yeltsin forces grouped around the National Salvation Front. Since that time, a flowering of new alliances and the blending of ideas in Russia, to challenge the new ‘evil empire’ of globalist capitalism, are matters of fact. The experience of the NATO attack on Serbia in 1999 brought the matter into relief again. Again, young European nationalists fought with Serbia, while others demonstrated in the streets of their homelands, against the New World Order. Open nationalists found themselves in ‘alliance’ with some members of the Left, while in Serbia itself the ‘communists’ serve as pro-national elements against internationalism. Old labels are becoming meaningless. Commentators are talking of ‘red/brown’(ie. communist/fascist) alliances, and of new hybrids of thought, which could undermine liberal internationalist capitalism.
Indeed! Coogan told us that Marxism was played out; but issuing from its organizational debris were people who were looking for an alternative to the destruction of all nationality in the global market. Coogan wrote that the ‘Right’ forces were not the neo-nazis of the journalists’ dreams, but people with visions of a different world – of peoples, nations, cultures and identities – in struggle against the drab marketplace system.
Our task as Australian Nationalists is to serve the Australian People and Nation, to find allies across old divides and to develop an ideology which can sustain a determined attack upon the New World Order traitor class in our country. We are not in Europe. We are an ex-colony of one European state, part of the ‘European Civilisation’, but with practical problems unique to ourselves. Nonetheless, the birth of the New World Order system and emergence of European nationalist challenges to it, are decidedly to our interest.
First: we shall go over the past debate on the character of Australian Nationalism. Second: we shall discuss those ideological concepts, which can serve our challenge to the new capitalism. Third: we shall discuss the political and organizational consequences that flow from a new course.
1. A Pamphlet Sets Up An Argument.
In July 1984, a pamphlet appeared under the signature of Alec Saunders. Entitled, ”THE SOCIAL REVOLUTIONARY NATURE OF AUSTRALIAN NATIONALISM, the pamphlet set out to do a number of things. First, the Nationalist movement (represented then, chiefly by Australian National Action) was young, and it was necessary to differentiate its beliefs from either old-style rightism or neo-nazism. Second, the pamphlet referred at length to the thinkers of former German schools of thought – to Ernst Niekisch, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck and Oswald Spengler, thinkers who were styled by France’s ‘New Right’ theorists as part of the broad ‘Conservative Revolution’ in 1920’s/1930’s Germany. This non-Nazi German system was examined for qualities which supported an ‘anti-American’/anti-consumer capitalist /anti-liberal, politics. Third, the pamphlet set out to argue that aspects of Australian Nationalism from the past shared reference points of this system. Certainly, the ‘revival’ of the principles of the Conservative Revolution, lie at the basis of much of the present activism of the Euro-nationalist forces.
The Saunders’ pamphlet set off in the right direction. Because certain points made are relevant to the present discussion, I shall record the key findings.
(i) The Second World War, which permitted the hegemony of the ‘Western’ liberal ideology, was a sort of intra-European civil war. However, in counter-argument to those ‘tiny minds’ who tried to make too much out of the fascist experience, it was suggested that Nazism/Fascism (ie. the German/Italian states) represented a last gasp of the old nationalism. They encouraged petty state-ism and were even in alliance with Japan against ‘White Australia’.
The implication was, that a genuine concept of ‘white racial interests’, could not be found within the experience of the fascist states.
(ii) The former and present Australian Nationalists were rightly opposed to Zionism, but were not ‘anti-semites’. It was implied that the old conservative Right and the copyists of fascism might head in that direction, but that it was a diversion.
(iii) The main enemy of entire humanity was the cosmopolitan plutocracy (ie. the money elite); it was seen that this international class ruined the natural environment of the planet to feed its ”growth” and compelled ‘sameness’ to overcome all diversity amongst the races and nations.
(iv) The Eastern Bloc, whatever its ideological and internal shortcomings, was an enemy of the emergent World Order. This enmity was based upon the ”Slavic renaissance” which had occurred in the USSR during and after the Stalin period.
(v) There were other objective challenges to the plutocrats in movements such as Gaddafism, Black African Socialism and with Tito, Castro and the Islamic Revolution.
(vi) The Australian ‘Socialist’ school of William Lane and others, by identifying a value in the Indo-European heritage of ‘barbarian’ ethics, of the old tribal-communism, of the old paganism, was linked with Niekisch, van den Bruck and Spengler. This vitalism offered a possible ideological anvil for philosophic and political opposition to liberal-internationalist values.
The Saunders’ pamphlet was essentially a new dimension for Australian Nationalist ideology.
Needless to say, these core arguments created a storm in so-called nationalist circles.
2. Neither Left Nor Right.
The Australian Nationalists had to confront the question: was our Nationalism really ”social revolutionary”? Was it ‘Right’ or ‘Left’ or something else? Who was the enemy?
The Australian National Alliance (1978-80) addressed some related questions: was Australia’s real enemy the American alliance or the USSR?; was it not America which was condemning the Nation to an ‘Asian future’?; was the conservative Right wrong to push old anti-semitic arguments about the ”Jewish nature of communism”?; was it advisable to bloc with ”anti-communist” rightists, if that only led back to Establishment politics?; was it okay not to criticise capitalism?
The Australian National Action also published THE RUSSIAN QUESTION (1982), which argued against any support for ‘Cold War Two’. It suggested that Soviet ”imperialism” was an enemy of the then-operative Peking Tokyo Washington Axis, not of Australian Independence. This party’s programme, A POLITICAL PROGRAMME FOR AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL ACTION, advocated a policy of non-alignment with all superpowers and showed a commitment to the support of national independence movements everywhere; but our main target remained the domination over Australia by the American superpower. The slogans of the party attacked multinational capitalism.
Throughout the 1980’s it was Australian National Action which maintained Australian Nationalism was ‘Neither Left Nor Right’, but represented a third way or third position in politics. The collapse of the Eastern Bloc after 1989, problematicized that argument; thereafter, there was only one dominant ideology and system – capitalism (although not all countries were integrated into it and while Red China was a defacto superpower). Since then, the ‘propaganda’ of advanced Australian Nationalists has taken these facts into account.
But in the context of the 1980’s the fight to build Australian Nationalism upon a sound ideological footing (and party-building must be placed upon a rock-solid foundation), was not easy. We shall discuss this struggle – which clarifies where we will go in the near-future.
3. Conservative Revolution; National Revolution; National Bolshevism: Traditions For Mobilization.
It is necessary for our readers to be clear as to the significance of these ideological traditions. They embrace in fact some of the most significant theorists of European politics: Oswald Spengler, Carl Schmitt, Ernst Junger, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Ernst Niekisch, Friedrich Hielscher and Otto Strasser of Germany and a veritable host of publicists of inter-war Europe. Some have been categorized by New Right theorist Armin Mohler into three different schools (as above). This need concern us only in generalities. Commonly, they represented the Conservative Revolution.
In the context of Germany-before-Hitler, these theorists offered an alternative to the disaster for any idea of European Revolution, which Hitler symbolised, and ultimately – became. For Spengler, the issue was not German revanchism and eastern expansion, but the international position of the ”white world”; this leader of the ‘Conservative Revolution’ school desired the moulding of a new state of ‘Prussian-Socialism’, the inter-linked union of the classes. For Schmitt, a new European political idea would overcome the old narrowness of the nations; this Conservative Revolutionary saw each state, supreme over the former divisions of class and party, individualism and liberal weakness, perfecting a cooperative European commonwealth. For Junger, a new state must perfect the total mobilization of the people towards modernization and the creation of real social wealth; this leader of the ‘National Revolution’ school saw a new ‘Worker’ of brain and brawn, utilizing technology to conquer the future. For Moeller van den Bruck, the ‘young peoples’ of Germany and Russia were in revolt against the Western capitalist path; this thinker who spanned the three schools called upon youth to reject materialism and capitalist atomism and seek a higher mission. For Niekisch, there was the call of a new ‘barbarism’ against capitalist rationalism; this prominent ‘National Bolshevik’ urged a revolutionary alliance with communist Russia (he predicted it would soon become ‘national’), to overturn the burgeoning international capitalism and argued for a union within Germany of all revolutionary anti-liberal forces against the status quo. His fellow ‘National Bolshevik’, Hielscher, recognized in the various oppressed nationalities of the earth, potential allies not enemies in a massive program to strangle the false-international order of capitalism. For Strasser, the man who quit the Nazi party for his principles, there was a blending of the schools in his ‘Black Front’ party, a plan to revitalize Europe in a commonweath, neither capitalist nor Marxist, based upon organic social classes and a genuine division of wealth and responsibility.
The reader can assess the strengths and viability of these systems by reading: James Ward, ”Pipe Dreams Or Revolutionary Politics: The Group Of Social Revolutionary Nationalists In Weimar Germany”, Journal Of Contemporary History, Vol.15, 1980.
Nazism had other ‘traditions’. Its great strength was ‘organization’ with which it out-played its ‘competitors’. We know now that Nazism’s racial doctrine, while relying on a lot of ‘Volkish’ notions, was driven by an occult system called Ariosophy. This ‘system’ of racial-theosophy was born in the old Austro-Hungarian Empire in the first decade of the 20th century. It believed in a war of the Aryan Light against the Jewish Dark, of the timeless Aryan struggle against the debased races of Eastern Europe, of the inferiority of the Slav, of the need for ‘scientific breeding’; the Ariosophists thought a new knightly order would return the civilisation to the past of the lost worlds of Aryan greatness. For those interested in this doctrine and its undeniable impact upon Hitler, the work by Nicholas Goodrick Clarke – THE OCCULT ROOTS OF NAZISM: THE ARIOSOPHISTS OF GERMANY AND AUSTRIA 1890-1935. – is essential and ‘final’.
It has been established by Goodrick-Clarke that the Nazi Party melted together the synthesis of nationalism and socialism with this madhouse of the occult. Does this idea not explain why Hitler planned his war of genocide against the Russian people? If anything, it invalidates absolutely the perverse proposition of the neo-nazi sects that German Nazism was some sort of white-race-redeemer-doctrine.
The Nazi state did not destroy the rival schools of Conservative Revolution, National Revolution and National Bolshevism. Far from it. They operated within the state and were locked in struggle against the dominant ideology, but were unsuccessful in supplanting it. The destruction of Nazism in 1945 released these tendencies of thought back into the German Right and eventually they took on a European significance as the formative ideas of new movements.
For the impact of the whole pattern of Germany’s Conservative Revolutionary heritage (which includes the three specific ‘schools’ named here), on contemporary radical-nationalist thought and action, see: Goran Dahl, ”Will ‘The Other God’ Fail Again? On The Possible Return Of The Conservative Revolution”, Theory, Culture And Society, Vol.13, No.1, February 1996.
Regrettably, these ‘schools’ had little following in Australia and were essentially unknown regardless of whether any individual theorist was available to Australian readers. This presented a problem for the processes of ideological formation here. These ideas were relevant, but were not accessible. This meant that ideological formation within the ranks of would-be Australian Nationalists was occasionally in the hands of those who had come from the anti-communist Right and hence they could not be expected to understand the nature of the liberal-internationalist-capitalist enemy. Criticism of this enemy often led to genuine Nationalism being denounced as ”communism”.
4. Rebel Against Reactionaries!
The presentation – ultimately – of ideas drawn of the German ‘schools’ of radical-nationalism was, to certain so-called nationalists, a veritable ‘red flag’ (and not ‘to a bull’ as the saying goes).
In the struggles that went into the creation of an Australian Nationalist position, the Nationalists had been forced to address these so-called nationalists. They wanted a ”strong” anti-communist foreign policy for Australia, an alliance-system that relied on Britain, and an economic system which basically left Big Business alone, but promised to tear away its internationalism. Their ‘parties’ would be built on the ‘rightists’ within the Liberal and National parties (initially) and would appeal to ‘middle class voters’ of all parties; these ‘nationalists’ would aim for respectability. They would deny the native-Australian national identity in favour of the ”British” formula so popular amongst old conservatives. Small numbers of neo-nazis took the road of appealing to the conservative rightists, ”cos that’s what Hitler did”.
The real Nationalists rejected all of this. From around 1977 onwards, there were Nationalists who argued for Australian Independence in foreign policy, who put no emphasis on Britain at all, who promised the nationalization of multi-national capital and the development of a planned economy which permitted small scale private enterprise, but no monopoly. They looked to working people of all classes for support and were aware there was no ‘respectability’ to be had. They favoured an Australian nativist concept of our European identity. The main external enemy lay in Asia; the main general enemy was international capital and there was an internal enemy: the internationally connected traitor class.
Unsurprisingly, the old ‘nationalists’ rejected the real Nationalist position. They went one step further and some openly stated that we were ”communists” or ”national bolsheviks”. The latter term was thought to mean ‘communists who were somehow nationally oriented’. It was on that basis, the struggle between the National Alliance with the ”National Front of Australia” and its co-thinkers, was fought (1977-82). It was on this basis the struggle continued between National Action and the neo-nazi, but-also-conservative (per the above) – ”Australian Nationalists Movement” (ANM).
The genuine Nationalist position became a bugbear with ANM and some other conservative groups, and was regarded as a proof of ‘leftism’ in the former National Action. It was no such thing. When stripped of all rhetoric, it was all about a search for possibilities. The old reactionary line had no potential. A radical-nationalist line offered a way forward.
Sometimes the rebellion against reactionary rightism was personalised. Throughout the period 1977-90, the attack of ”national bolshevism” was married to all-out slander against genuine Nationalists. In that way, false ‘nationalists’ were exposed and the cause grew stronger.
It was through the insistance of Australian National Action that the three German schools of thought entered into the open use of Nationalists from that period in the 1980’s. Not that they were unknown amongst advanced Nationalists. But now they were invoked – where relevant – in the ideological struggle.
The collapse of the Eastern Bloc changed Nationalist politics in Australia. The Nationalist rebellion against the uselessness of ‘rightist’ positions was vindicated by history. There were now only two real positions in Australian politics: the liberal-internationalist position and the Nationalist position. The so-called Left, made up mainly of the Trotskyist organizations, is fundamentally liberal. It stands for open borders, free trade and mass immigration. It will subordinate everything to the ”struggle against racism”. The Left is on many occasions nothing but a stormtroop for capitalism.
So: how can we develop Australian Nationalism if not as a social-revolutionary force?
5. Against The New World Order
We understand now the type of world under construction. It was implicit in the history of imperialism and capitalism since the Second World War.
There has been a steady internationalization of capital leading to the growth of the multinational corporations and the international banks to a stage where their power is organized through international institutions- the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the General Agreement On Tariffs And Trade forums and the European Economic Community bureaucracy. The forces of global capital have created political ‘clubs’ such as the Trilateral Commission and the Bilderberger Group. In Australia we have the Committee For The Economic Development Of Australia. We are witnessing before our eyes the emergence of a transnational class. This group has no allegiance to any ‘Western’ state, to any race or cultural identity. It is beyond the structures of international politics as have developed over centuries. The ownership of capital is not the sole entry ticket to membership of this class. Service in politics, management, the arts, academia or in certain professions, will win admission.
The ”values” of the transnational class are economic. In the free-market of goods and ideas, a New World Order of plenty and peace will be built. All countries, all peoples are welcome to ”join”. All barriers to the movement of money and people will come down. Philosophies and religions will all become aspects of a cultural pluralism which can be ‘chosen’ by people on the basis of taste. Like a new Roman Empire, all is permissible if loyalty is rendered unto Caesar.
This New World Order was proclaimed the moment the old Eastern Bloc disintegrated. It is obvious that there are peoples who are not part of this Order. The Chinese superpower is not a member of the club; nor is India, and Russia remains unwelcome. The Islamic world cannot be part of a system that directly involves Zionism. African countries scarcely count at all. This does not mean that these lands are not penetrated by international capital, nor that they don’t contain sectors who would dearly welcome globalism. It does not mean that cheap labour countries are not exploited to provide cheap products – or immigrants to the factories of the home-bases of the NWO. The fact that whole areas of the globe are outside this system means that its claim to political normality is a basic lie. It must thence rely upon the impact of economic globalisation for its power.
In the struggle against the New World Order it is necessary to appreciate the presence of peoples and states outside of it, and possibly opposed to it. Not all these forces are fulsome or even conditional friends. Some are eyeing Australia also as an open-land available for possible settlement. Yet, in the world of realpolitik, facts are facts and it is necessary to surrender to the facts. It is obligatory that we mobilize our ideological weapons to win allies where we can, or to disintegrate or damage those structures imposed upon any people by the new Order. We must weaken this system.
This means we understand that if we demand national freedom for ourselves, we cannot repudiate it for others. We must favour national independence struggles. We must accept the genuine plurality of cultures and peoples, as opposed to the false pluralism of liberal-internationalism, which seeks to standardize humanity and culture. We must encourage armed neutrality against alien blocs and support – even critically – any regime bullied by the new Order.
Inside Australia, we must not engage in confrontation with groups that are not really our enemies. We must also avoid the leftover Trotskyite Left wherever possible; the Trotskyites are satellites of the Establishment, those who defend its liberalism by other means. We must not be sidetracked in our quest for defacto friendships and alliances with groups that in any way oppose or challenge significant aspects of the new Order.
We must forge a new strategic plan for Australian Nationalism.
6. Full Circle: Ideas To Serve A New Path.
Our discussion of earlier ideological traditions and their value in defining Nationalist ideology, now turns full circle. How can we creatively apply historical ideas to the present external and internal situation for Australia?
It is a fact that Australian Nationalism rests mainly upon three nineteenth and twentieth century Australian historical traditions: the labour movement, the republican movement, the native-nationalist movement. These elements constitute the core belief system. From there, we obtain our emblems, our idea of a new social order of class unity and equality of opportunity, our commitment to the ‘Promise’ of a new European nationality upon a continent, our essential native-land reference points, and very concept of identity. This Nationalist Idea is necessarily a social-revolutionary one, directed as it is against foreign imperialism and its internal traitor class.
We recognize however, that we live in the modern period. Consequently, we shape this core system into a modern propaganda. We place it amidst issues such as the population/food crisis of Third World, the environmental crisis of our own country, the issues of globalisation and the New World Order, the collapse of old ideological certainties and the absence of any credible new radical discourse.
Because we concerned to express the core Australian Nationalist Idea in the modern period, we are aware of the ideological struggle waged to delegitimize us. It is at this point the hoary old claims that we are linked to ”neo-nazis”, or that we find some inspiration in German Nazism, are raised. Here, we can rely upon the ideological traditions of Conservative Revolution, National Revolution and National Bolshevism to critique both the Nazi system, and the inadequacies of historical fascism.
These traditions pointed also towards collaboration with world and local political movements that managed to challenge dominant alliances and forces. Because these systems did not preach, and in their contemporary European applications do not preach, doctrines of race-hate and imperialism, possibilities exist for challenging new political patterns.
We Australians develop our ideology from our native-history and international facts, but we are also part of the ‘Western’ culture and are defined that way. It follows that the schools of radical-nationalism assist us in developing doctrine on the higher philosophical level. In opposing the development of the cosmopolitan ‘Westernism’ or Americanism of the last 50 years, we ‘require’ a counter-system of thought. We must be able to examine the spiritual syphilis which the cosmopolitan liberal doctrine is; we must be able to show that this system is itself a type of decadence now rampaging across the planet destroying anything ‘traditional’ or valuable.
The radical-nationalist schools of the Conservative Revolution examined the bourgeois ideology of wealth-worship. In the 1920’s and 1930’s, this illness was still a baby! This liberal ideology is now the substantive enemy of our movement. A ‘return’ to philosophy which was not contaminated by the rightist fixation of ‘fighting communism’ assists us in moving beyond any remains of the old Left/Right divide.
The year 2000 does not signal for us the birth of the market millennium. Quite the contrary. It indicates the continuation of the ‘civil war’ inside our Western culture. The two sides are drawn in bold relief.
7. Special Task Of A New Party.
The revisitation of the three schools of radical-nationalist ideology took place in the context of examining whether Australian Nationalism is a social-revolutionary proposition. We decided that it was, and that it is. It is irrelevant as to how it expresses that principle. It would change Australia’s position in the world by winning Australian Independence. To sustain the new nation against external threat and internal traitor class challenge, it would be a Nationalism compelled to alter the domestic political and economic order in the favour of the working people of all classes.
The crucial issue for Australian Nationalists is the creation of a party to wage the struggle. However, at no point can ideology be forgotten. This short pamphlet is nothing but a call to ensure that the deeper questions of political philosophy are also addressed. Spengler observed: ”in the final instance civilization is always saved by a platoon of soldiers”. Correct. However, we political soldiers must fight with an ideology grounded in modern facts and with a higher political-cultural significance.
In the future others will necessarily develop upon the themes here and equip our political soldiers with this vital armour in the struggle for the resurrection of our Nation and our European culture. I leave the last word of our commitment to these tasks, to Francis Parker Yockey:
”This is promised, not by human resolves merely, but by a higher Destiny, which cares little whether it is 1950, 2000 or 2050. This Destiny does not tire, nor can it be broken, and its mantle of strength descends upon those in its service. What does not destroy me makes me stronger.”