Jim Saleam / Brendan Gidley
The elevation of Tony Abbott to lead the Liberal Party represents the workings of our political system at its most intricate and at its most dirty.
Most Australians consider that Australia has a ‘two party democracy’, two main parties, surrounded by other ‘minor’ parties which favour in one way or another one or the other of the central two machines, but which offer variations on each and ensure political honesty. The two main parties ‘argue’ - and these arguments are taken as real.
In truth, Australia has a one single regime party with two faces. Occasionally, as amongst any leadership, a division of opinion may result and a brawl ensues. We see that over so-called climate change, but we do not see anything other than ‘bipartisanship’ over all else that really counts. We may see the minor parties bicker too, but all roads lead back to keeping the main parties in the saddle.
The class which owns the Australian state (we can call it the ‘regime’ if we like) wants the opening of borders to the free movement of capital and labour, wishes to facilitate the rise of China to superpower status, supports multiculturalism, follows the US superpower into Middle Eastern wars for oil and Israel, agrees with increases in Third World immigration and refugees, and supports internal repressive laws and structures to impose these policies.
The two main parties follow these policies absolutely because they are owned and managed by the same class of people, a veritable traitor class that serves the foreign interest and in which many politicians themselves can also find membership. The rewards are great.
As circumstances change, the colouring of one or the other of these parties is more suited to carry out the governance of Australia to ensure the traitor class line is implemented.
At present the Labor face is in the ascendant. This means the soft face says there is inclusion for all and welfare for hard times, reliance on the chattering classes to explain policy and the liberal media - and increasing immigration for growth because it is our future to become a larger country of diversity and wonder.
However, like with a fine tune dial on a TV set, we can tune in the Liberal face which is the secondary one at this time. It is there to ensure the continued system loyalty of its voters and followers and the minor parties and groups which ‘lean conservative.’ Out of government it may be, but that part of the Liberal game goes on. If people get annoyed with the Labor face, this one promises a ‘change’ back to conservative principles and family values and some flag waving.
Nothing systemic will change here. However, we are to be told increasingly that some struggle exists between the faces of the regime. Why tell us this? Unless the traitor class that owns the state itself is fearful of a new challenge. Challenge from whom? From the nationalists like Australia First and other patriotic forces. So, enter Tony Abbott to fight that challenge.
Dirty and dirtier……
We have to consider the dirty side of politics. Traitor class politics is spiritual dirt paraded about as mainstream cleanliness. Mainstream? Sewer stream!
So Abbott has conspired in the past to serve his fellows. The ‘mad monk’, the Catholic conservative who almost baulked at sex before marriage and preaches for the family, has a real-life side, a dirty side, which is there to serve the traitor class.
Some years ago, through the Australians For Honest Government, he laboured to bring down popular figure, Pauline Hanson. This shadowy body run by Peter Coleman, father in law of Tim Costello and one-time NSW Opposition Leader, raised funds to sponsor a legal case against Mrs. Hanson. It offered to pay off a low dog called Terry Sharples who filed a civil suit against Hanson over electoral entitlements. The evidence produced became the basis of a flawed prosecution which saw Hanson falsely imprisoned. Yet, her release from prison served as the cover-up for a full investigation into Abbott’s role in the operations of these ‘Honest’ men. The successful appeal case meant no commission of inquiry would ever investigate the ‘Honest’ ones; and we can be certain that the regime of KRudds and Abbotts will make sure that never happens. The ‘Honest’ men stay in the shadows.
The ‘Honest’ men infiltrate parties, undermine political rivals, spy for the Liberal Party (mainly) and spread rumour and falsehood against their targets. Their staff and their agents privatise the aims of Australia’s even ‘more secret’ political police agencies – which do admit to working against Australian patriots and nationalists. We could, if we wished, name innumerable persons formerly of One Nation and other parties who have served as disruptors for the ‘Honest’ men (and for the political police).
Tony Abbott knows much and says nought. He knows how politics really works and it’s not the fairy-land of free elections where bits of pencilled paper in ballot boxes determine who governs. That determines only which face of the traitor class is presented to us; it does not determine whether we, the people, govern.
Essentially, Abbott is just another grub in a long line of grubs. He is part of a machine. When he faced off the One Nation challenge, he did so with more than pimps and court cases. He even reconstructed the Liberal Party, dredging up some old leaders from an old 1980’s faction and he relaunched them (mainly in New South Wales) to keep the conservative faithful in the ranks long enough for him to disintegrate Hansonism. It was masterly muck, done at Howard’s request. It has a certain gutter style and is to be respected for its diabolically anti democratic quality! Bravo, grub!
Yet, Abbott shows a propensity to undertake destabilizing pursuits on a much larger scale, when in 2003, in his position as a Howard Liberal Party Cabinet Minister he supported the war against Iraq. The Liberal inner circle employed a litany of deceit to inflict war against the people of Iraq – for oil and for Israel – all the while telling us outright lies about “weapons of mass destruction” and Saddam’s “links with Al Qaeda”. The resultant carnage, suffering and environmental devastation - is the first great war crime of the twenty first century.
So we stand in the presence of a determined traitor class fighter from whom we should expect little mercy or regard now that we are organizing ourselves as a party. Nor should we give the slightest concession to the pseudo-patriotism the Liberal Party will surely invoke. Not the slightest wink at ‘border control’ chatter, ‘tough’ lines on asylum seeker invaders, flag waving. We have seen it all before. And to use Abbott’s favourite word: it’s bullshit.
Prison not parliament ……
For his role in the Hanson affair and for the Iraq war, Tony Abbott belongs in prison and not in parliament. He takes risks to do his job. So must we – to rid ourselves of creatures like this..
The Australian people demand from their party determined advocacy of their rights – to employment without contracts, to a tertiary education without overseas students, to run a business without bureaucracy, to preserve their heritage and their identity as a people. So the Liberal Party under its new boss will receive from us what it deserves – contempt and trenchant opposition. Forward Australia First!
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Drop The Charges Against Brendon O’Connell
A Perth man, Brendon O’Connell was raided yesterday (again!) by the Western Australian police ‘State Security Investigation Group’. He has been charged again under Western Australia’s odious racial vilification laws. He now faces two lots of 14 years imprisonment.
Why? Because he has criticised Israel and its Zionist ideology. This has been falsely labelled as vilification of Jews.
When Brendon O'Connell, 38, was charged last May for the thought crime offence of condemning Israel, its false and brutal terror against the Palestinians and the ideology that encourages all this (Zionism), Australia First Party condemned the arrest as the very model of a KGB/Gestapo operation, that sort of political arrest liberal-democratic free speech advocates would once criticise. Because Mr. O'Connell was a fearless campaigner for truth, his ‘crime’ is to be punished as a warning. Given that the so-called democratic Australian government supports Israeli state crime and offers up the lives of Australian soldiers, not even to strike at Islamic militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to defend the big-picture Zionist interest in the Middle East, we interpreted this arrest as one of the most significant political free speech challenges of modern times in Australia. It struck at the right of the Australian people to work out their own independent line on the Middle East and Islamic extremism, free of the lie that Israel is any sort of friend of Australia.
And now, Mr. O’Connell finds himself charged yet again.
As on the first occasion, the State Security Investigation Group arrested Mr. O'Connell and charged him with "conduct with intent to incite racial animosity or racist harassment". In other words, a political police agency has direct powers of arrest against a citizen for the exercise of his free speech. Mr. O'Connell now faces another 14 years imprisonment. Certainly, this time around, the political police and the Director of Public Prosecutions were concerned that Mr. O’Connell worked in a very public way to expose the false nature of the charge. Crooks never like exposure!
How did this affair come into being?
Mr. O'Connell had published some videos on U-Tube. He is seen on film in front of Perth's Bell Tower and at a South Perth supermarket. The political police accuse him of making anti-Semitic comments to a couple of Jewish men. The allegation of anti semitism is one big furphy. Mr. O'Connell is a Christian and he is entitled to criticise Judaism, just as followers of that religion may - and do - criticise Christianity or Islam in the most strident terms. At the level of religious debate, strong language is to be expected and allowed. Indeed, it is constitutionally protected. What is really at issue is Mr. O’Connell’s criticism of the Zionist ideology and the state crime of Israel.
All Australians observe today the false and hopeless war in Afghanistan and whilst maintaining their awareness of the serious question of Islamic extremism internationally and locally, are beginning to see Israeli state crime and the Zionist ideology as prime causes of this very problem. In the midst of this, a political police agency harasses a critic of Zionist policyLast May, it was Western Australian Opposition Multicultural Interests spokesman Labor MP John Hyde, who served as the fingerman, alerting police, Jewish community leaders and the Ethnic Communities Council of WA about the videos. He had praised WA Police for using the anti-vilification laws to lay the charges. He was quoted as saying: "Members of the multicultural community can take comfort in the knowledge that this alleged race hate crime will now go before the courts.'' Indeed, and the multicultural industry may well now look for more targets! Mr. Hyde has undoubtedly allowed himself to be used by Zionists and other so-called 'anti-racists' who front for them. There is no race hate crime in this affair. But there is an implied attack upon religious freedom and an attack upon political freedom. The Australia First Party will now campaign directly against Mr. Hyde. The party will campaign to expose Mr. Hyde before his electorate as a snivelling opponent of genuine free speech.
Now that Mr. O’Connell, who has campaigned publically since his arrest against the first charge, has been charged again, his right to any sort of fair process is even further undermined. Mr. O’Connell sent out an urgent plea of his own today. We publish an edited version of it:
“Hello. Brendon O'Connell here. I was raided by the state security unit led by detective timothy Richard Paini. He was IN THE HOUSE before the other police came through the side gate. I confronted him - he stated he had come through the side gate also - that is a lie. He was in the house "DOING" something. I went OFF. I stated he was attempting to frame me and plant something. Their behaviour was DESPERATE!I have been charged AGAIN with "Conduct Intended To Incite Racial Vilification". I was also charged with "obstructing police". I refused to acknowledge THEM or their BULLSHIT warrant. Paini is CORRUPT. He is NOT acting as he should. He appears desperate. The D.P.P is desperate…... I RANG Paini at 10 am Monday morning to complain important files (including raw video footage of the I.G.A confrontation) were missing. 7 hours later I was RAIDED! Please get the word out. ALL my communications … cut. Computers gone. Mobile gone. Passport taken. COURT DOCUMENTS taken. UNBELIEVABLE! I am scared because they appear absolutely DESPERATE. …….
contact me on...brendonoconnellencrypted2@gmail.com I screamed at Paini that he and his friends had deleted e-mails that morning and been hacking my computer. He SMIRKED! I said I'd wipe the smirk OFF HIS FACE. I will ALWAYS have time for the Uniformed coppers, but my days of co-operating with detectives are O-V-E-R.I will represent myself. It was said to me by Rod Keely (Barrister) that they had NO CASE from the beginning. Regards, Brendon O'Connell”
This is the cry of a true advocate of democratic liberty and it must not go unheeded.
The Australia First Party calls on all patriots and advocates of freedom of speech to support Mr. O'Connell as best they can and in accordance with his wishes. Mr. O’Connell has created a blogsite:
http://brendonoconnell.blogspot.com
Donations can be made.
Australia First Party demands the repeal of the 'anti vilification' laws in Western Australia as falsely crafted thought crime legislation whose real nature is finally revealed
Australia First Party demands that the charges against Brendon O’Connell be dropped.
Australia First Party demands an open commission of inquiry into treatment metered out to Brendon O’Connell and to establish who initiated these charges and why.
Why? Because he has criticised Israel and its Zionist ideology. This has been falsely labelled as vilification of Jews.
When Brendon O'Connell, 38, was charged last May for the thought crime offence of condemning Israel, its false and brutal terror against the Palestinians and the ideology that encourages all this (Zionism), Australia First Party condemned the arrest as the very model of a KGB/Gestapo operation, that sort of political arrest liberal-democratic free speech advocates would once criticise. Because Mr. O'Connell was a fearless campaigner for truth, his ‘crime’ is to be punished as a warning. Given that the so-called democratic Australian government supports Israeli state crime and offers up the lives of Australian soldiers, not even to strike at Islamic militants in Iraq and Afghanistan, but to defend the big-picture Zionist interest in the Middle East, we interpreted this arrest as one of the most significant political free speech challenges of modern times in Australia. It struck at the right of the Australian people to work out their own independent line on the Middle East and Islamic extremism, free of the lie that Israel is any sort of friend of Australia.
And now, Mr. O’Connell finds himself charged yet again.
As on the first occasion, the State Security Investigation Group arrested Mr. O'Connell and charged him with "conduct with intent to incite racial animosity or racist harassment". In other words, a political police agency has direct powers of arrest against a citizen for the exercise of his free speech. Mr. O'Connell now faces another 14 years imprisonment. Certainly, this time around, the political police and the Director of Public Prosecutions were concerned that Mr. O’Connell worked in a very public way to expose the false nature of the charge. Crooks never like exposure!
How did this affair come into being?
Mr. O'Connell had published some videos on U-Tube. He is seen on film in front of Perth's Bell Tower and at a South Perth supermarket. The political police accuse him of making anti-Semitic comments to a couple of Jewish men. The allegation of anti semitism is one big furphy. Mr. O'Connell is a Christian and he is entitled to criticise Judaism, just as followers of that religion may - and do - criticise Christianity or Islam in the most strident terms. At the level of religious debate, strong language is to be expected and allowed. Indeed, it is constitutionally protected. What is really at issue is Mr. O’Connell’s criticism of the Zionist ideology and the state crime of Israel.
All Australians observe today the false and hopeless war in Afghanistan and whilst maintaining their awareness of the serious question of Islamic extremism internationally and locally, are beginning to see Israeli state crime and the Zionist ideology as prime causes of this very problem. In the midst of this, a political police agency harasses a critic of Zionist policyLast May, it was Western Australian Opposition Multicultural Interests spokesman Labor MP John Hyde, who served as the fingerman, alerting police, Jewish community leaders and the Ethnic Communities Council of WA about the videos. He had praised WA Police for using the anti-vilification laws to lay the charges. He was quoted as saying: "Members of the multicultural community can take comfort in the knowledge that this alleged race hate crime will now go before the courts.'' Indeed, and the multicultural industry may well now look for more targets! Mr. Hyde has undoubtedly allowed himself to be used by Zionists and other so-called 'anti-racists' who front for them. There is no race hate crime in this affair. But there is an implied attack upon religious freedom and an attack upon political freedom. The Australia First Party will now campaign directly against Mr. Hyde. The party will campaign to expose Mr. Hyde before his electorate as a snivelling opponent of genuine free speech.
Now that Mr. O’Connell, who has campaigned publically since his arrest against the first charge, has been charged again, his right to any sort of fair process is even further undermined. Mr. O’Connell sent out an urgent plea of his own today. We publish an edited version of it:
“Hello. Brendon O'Connell here. I was raided by the state security unit led by detective timothy Richard Paini. He was IN THE HOUSE before the other police came through the side gate. I confronted him - he stated he had come through the side gate also - that is a lie. He was in the house "DOING" something. I went OFF. I stated he was attempting to frame me and plant something. Their behaviour was DESPERATE!I have been charged AGAIN with "Conduct Intended To Incite Racial Vilification". I was also charged with "obstructing police". I refused to acknowledge THEM or their BULLSHIT warrant. Paini is CORRUPT. He is NOT acting as he should. He appears desperate. The D.P.P is desperate…... I RANG Paini at 10 am Monday morning to complain important files (including raw video footage of the I.G.A confrontation) were missing. 7 hours later I was RAIDED! Please get the word out. ALL my communications … cut. Computers gone. Mobile gone. Passport taken. COURT DOCUMENTS taken. UNBELIEVABLE! I am scared because they appear absolutely DESPERATE. …….
contact me on...brendonoconnellencrypted2@gmail.com I screamed at Paini that he and his friends had deleted e-mails that morning and been hacking my computer. He SMIRKED! I said I'd wipe the smirk OFF HIS FACE. I will ALWAYS have time for the Uniformed coppers, but my days of co-operating with detectives are O-V-E-R.I will represent myself. It was said to me by Rod Keely (Barrister) that they had NO CASE from the beginning. Regards, Brendon O'Connell”
This is the cry of a true advocate of democratic liberty and it must not go unheeded.
The Australia First Party calls on all patriots and advocates of freedom of speech to support Mr. O'Connell as best they can and in accordance with his wishes. Mr. O’Connell has created a blogsite:
http://brendonoconnell.blogspot.com
Donations can be made.
Australia First Party demands the repeal of the 'anti vilification' laws in Western Australia as falsely crafted thought crime legislation whose real nature is finally revealed
Australia First Party demands that the charges against Brendon O’Connell be dropped.
Australia First Party demands an open commission of inquiry into treatment metered out to Brendon O’Connell and to establish who initiated these charges and why.
Repeal The Thought Crime ‘Racial Vilification’ Legislation In Western Australia!
The Australia First Party will launch a public campaign for the repeal of Western Australia’s thought crime laws.
These laws, which style themselves as laws against “racial vilification” “harassment” and so forth, are there not to combat silly people who may vilify and harass some person or group literally on account of race, but to intimidate the mass of Australians who are concerned that immigration and multiculturalism have threatened the very survival of their identity.
These law were brought about in 1990 and amended in 2004 to increase the penalties. The Western Australian Criminal Code says:
Section 77:
Conduct intended to incite racial animosity or racist harassmentAny person who engages in any conduct, otherwise than in private, by which the person intends to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonmentfor 14 years.
Section 78:
Conduct likely to incite racial animosity or racist harassment. Any person who engages in any conduct, otherwise than in private, that is likely to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.
Summary conviction penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or a fine of $24,000
The sheer brutality of the sentencing regime tends to suggest that these laws are seen as vital weapons of State defence.
State defence against what?
The laws can be misused as they have in the case of Brendon O’Connell and will undoubtedly be misused in the future, probably against parties and individuals who are critical of immigration levels and multiculturalism.
We reject any idea that these laws are needed to combat a few stupid people with photocopy machines, those who might publish a few batches of leaflets which call some people names – or which may even call for blood and guts revolutions against some minority or other. There always were plenty of laws for that. It is that the laws label someone in advance and then proceed to catch genuine dissent in a false framework.
These laws protect the big end of town which seeks to make billions of dollars from trade and investment, those who fear that any pro Australian sentiment to take back economic control of our country and to deny the wealthy elites of Asia and the rising Chinese superpower access to cheap resources, might also inconvenience them financially. Hence false cries of racism and heavy punishments. These laws are false in every way.
Australia First Party demands the repeal of this evil thought crime legislation
These laws, which style themselves as laws against “racial vilification” “harassment” and so forth, are there not to combat silly people who may vilify and harass some person or group literally on account of race, but to intimidate the mass of Australians who are concerned that immigration and multiculturalism have threatened the very survival of their identity.
These law were brought about in 1990 and amended in 2004 to increase the penalties. The Western Australian Criminal Code says:
Section 77:
Conduct intended to incite racial animosity or racist harassmentAny person who engages in any conduct, otherwise than in private, by which the person intends to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonmentfor 14 years.
Section 78:
Conduct likely to incite racial animosity or racist harassment. Any person who engages in any conduct, otherwise than in private, that is likely to create, promote or increase animosity towards, or harassment of, a racial group, or a person as a member of a racial group, is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 5 years.
Summary conviction penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or a fine of $24,000
The sheer brutality of the sentencing regime tends to suggest that these laws are seen as vital weapons of State defence.
State defence against what?
The laws can be misused as they have in the case of Brendon O’Connell and will undoubtedly be misused in the future, probably against parties and individuals who are critical of immigration levels and multiculturalism.
We reject any idea that these laws are needed to combat a few stupid people with photocopy machines, those who might publish a few batches of leaflets which call some people names – or which may even call for blood and guts revolutions against some minority or other. There always were plenty of laws for that. It is that the laws label someone in advance and then proceed to catch genuine dissent in a false framework.
These laws protect the big end of town which seeks to make billions of dollars from trade and investment, those who fear that any pro Australian sentiment to take back economic control of our country and to deny the wealthy elites of Asia and the rising Chinese superpower access to cheap resources, might also inconvenience them financially. Hence false cries of racism and heavy punishments. These laws are false in every way.
Australia First Party demands the repeal of this evil thought crime legislation
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Australian Government Refugee Allowances vs.Aust Pensioners
It is interesting that the Federal Government provides a Single Refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can also get an additional $580. 00 in Social Assistance, so a total of $2,470.00 per month.. Family of 4 can receive $9,880.00 per month or yearly $118,685 A single Australian pensioner who, after contributing to the growth and development of Australia for 40 to 50 years, receives only a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. (Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees!)
*Let's send this to all Australians so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we are forced to submit to the Government in taxes.
*Let's send this to all Australians so we can all be ticked off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to $2,470.00 and enjoy some of the money we are forced to submit to the Government in taxes.
Monday, November 9, 2009
It’s A Small World? Who And What Is Now Mobilizing Against Us?
Dr. Jim Saleam
This article might be difficult territory for some. It is a minor labyrinth of detail. Even those amongst us with no particular interest in political ‘detective work’ and an esoteric discussion about a lot of funny persons from the political twilight, might spare a moment for reflection. Why?
Essentially, it has become obvious that Australia First (and anyone else pushing a pro Australian barrow for that matter) is now on the receiving end of electronic and paper smears and incitements and at long last – confrontation.
This was shown when the Sydney Forum was picketed on September 25. A small number of demonstrators arrived to shout ‘fascist’ at Forum guests and try to obstruct entry to the RSL venue. The Police ultimately moved them on. These people called themselves ‘Antifa’ (or anti fascists as the term means) and were drawn largely from the anarchist inner-city sub-culture. A couple of websites have tried to fuel this world of marginal people with the hype to take on the nationalists physically and, although there is some sort of tension between the anarchists and the scribblers at these sites, they finally took their cue.
Some weeks prior in Melbourne, the Antifa opted to damage the shop of a man involved in organising a younger persons’ music gig. Reason: Antifa considered the gig “fascist” and “racist”. Needless to say, this may have led to other incidents and the anarchists complain of – a certain direct response.
Let us be very clear and precise. Anti-fascism is usually a game operated by deluded people at the behest of others who play from behind the scenes. A group is found that the establishment dislikes and fears. Australia First Party, the nationalist movement generally, is that target. The media reacts and smears the challenger in any number of ways. Lately, figures from the major parties and other liberal commentators have criticised our movement as a dangerous and evil thing, but our challenge grows and has raised itself to a national profile. We are still a small force, but we are taking on organizational flesh.
So it occurs that we must now receive a dual attack: an entity (ie. Antifa) is brought to bear, one that stalks the new movement physically whilst also stigmatizing it propagandistically in the terms the establishment would have it labelled. In other words: through confrontation and harassment, we may be restricted; by calling us names in public and via reporting of the new group’s actions, some people who may be available to us as voters and activists, could turn away in confusion. Just as screaming at a bloke “wife beater, wife beater” might cause some to think he is one, so calling patriotic ordinary Australian working people “fascists”, could cause some members of the public to think it’s true – and they would decline support.
This anti-fascism is as much psycho-politics as physical politics. It is designed to vex, confuse and disorient. Having someone scream that the party is something it is not, to risk arrest and carry out assaults in the name of a false position, is bizarre. Yet, that is the point. To mobilize people against us, the operators of Antifa must spoon feed something to the troops to keep up their activism. “I get it”, said one old World War Two veteran, who had just been called a “Nazi” as he entered the Sydney Forum venue; “he needed a straw man to knock down, some idea in his head to keep him fighting.” True.
The anti-fascists in the street are genuine fools. They really believe that the Australian nationalists would impose fascist rule if we could, will cause no end of social turmoils and hatreds on our path to power and they really imagine that we are inspired by historical fascism. As anarchists or Trotskyites or Maoists, they are impelled to act. For sure, it is all a delusion. In fact, we intend to impose (sic) a radical democracy upon Australia! Yet, knowing this impulse to act against us exists, the shadowy players who need a confrontational Antifa to do the dirty work can move more easily to mobilize it. Hence, we observed websites like ‘Fight Dem Back’ and ‘Slackbastard’ tried to organize the protest movement, but they had establishment connections with the Labor Party and Zionist groups and so on; this was just too brazen and the Antifa was hesitant. Reasonably, pseudo revolutionaries don’t like the establishment either. So other less obvious agents are undoubtedly employed such that the new Antifa structure can be promoted into street politics and given a certain media sanction - as long as it does its job.
Good Intel ….
A month or so ago, the staff at the inveterate pro Australian ‘intelligence Blog’ ‘Whitelaw Towers’, put it out there that in Sydney at least, a peculiar clique of people based on the leadership of the former Builders’ Labourers’ Federation (BLF) in New South Wales and a network that was connected to it and formerly instrumental in the old Maoist-style Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist), had been sniffing about, setting up small structures to push odd communist type agendas.
The members of this grouping have freed themselves of much of the ideological baggage of Maoism, but have retained their taste for a radical communist solution. In that regard, these people were not beyond embracing some of the arguments and methods of the anarchists if this leads to ‘direct action’.
After yet another ‘anti-fascist’ action on October 2 in Sydney, this time aimed at a speaking event in inner-city Chippendale, the interest of the ex Maoist group in anti-fascism, was revealed. Such a small world politics can be when bad eggs return to the fray.
A certain writer appeared on the Indymedia website, someone whose suggestions are pregnant with the future. This writer, who I quickly understood to be one C. Maltby, recorded how he and his friends once turned over a literature table of a student nationalist organisation at the University of New South Wales and directly confronted the group. That was 1979. I was there. Maltby naturally omitted that he had positioned himself behind Mr. F.K. Salter chairman of our group and struck him to the head with a (thankfully smooth) rock. Although Salter sustained no real injury, it was a dangerous assault. Maltby was alluding to old, perhaps to his mind, happy memories. His article counselled further and aggressive action based upon the ‘validity’ of violent confrontation.
To say that Maltby is just a would-be thug underestimates the fellow and those he sails with. The Maoists were not unintelligent. He has reviewed the political landscape and - using my name to make the point - tells his readers:
…. Kevvie’s ALP, with the Breakfast Creek mob providing invaluable support 'in the rear' - but beware, the collapse of the ALP could give the likes of Saleam rallying points around which to gather votes …..
If Saleam et al ever get anywhere west of Parramatta in Sydney, watch out! And what will the likes of the Greens do then? Hit them with banana leaves, or try to reason with them? No, they'll just 'peacefully protest' as all democratic institutions are torn apart. Only one answer and it's still Socialism Comrades - it would be a very different form of Socialism - perhaps the Anarcho-Syndicalists do have something, other than books to sell! Cheers, The Captain.
In one regard, Mr. Maltby is dead right. Australia First intends to campaign to gather the support of working people – and Western Sydney holds many disgruntled unionists and self-employed people under the gun of big business and now too hosts a legion of young unemployed. This social pattern is duplicated in every metropolis.
Maltby proposed a new alliance to stop us from realising our objective – an alliance of the anarchist movement and leftover activist Maoism. Interesting. Now that anti-fascism is in the street, we now see the forces of our opposition meld together. We are warned and must become prepared.
Forward! ….
The opposition, which Australia First Party and the entire patriotic movement faces, will gather in pace and in intensity. This cannot be avoided and is a reflex to our growth. How we handle it will be a major test of our courage, resources and professional acumen. Needless to say, whatever plans we may have cannot be discussed in the open on a website or in an e-mail newsletter.
Certainly, we will stand our ground and extend our reach. We intend to develop a party with popular roots and to do so over the next twelve months. Swatting the blowflies of Antifa is simply ensuring that we reach those Australians we need that we may move to higher stages in building our mass work.
This article might be difficult territory for some. It is a minor labyrinth of detail. Even those amongst us with no particular interest in political ‘detective work’ and an esoteric discussion about a lot of funny persons from the political twilight, might spare a moment for reflection. Why?
Essentially, it has become obvious that Australia First (and anyone else pushing a pro Australian barrow for that matter) is now on the receiving end of electronic and paper smears and incitements and at long last – confrontation.
This was shown when the Sydney Forum was picketed on September 25. A small number of demonstrators arrived to shout ‘fascist’ at Forum guests and try to obstruct entry to the RSL venue. The Police ultimately moved them on. These people called themselves ‘Antifa’ (or anti fascists as the term means) and were drawn largely from the anarchist inner-city sub-culture. A couple of websites have tried to fuel this world of marginal people with the hype to take on the nationalists physically and, although there is some sort of tension between the anarchists and the scribblers at these sites, they finally took their cue.
Some weeks prior in Melbourne, the Antifa opted to damage the shop of a man involved in organising a younger persons’ music gig. Reason: Antifa considered the gig “fascist” and “racist”. Needless to say, this may have led to other incidents and the anarchists complain of – a certain direct response.
Let us be very clear and precise. Anti-fascism is usually a game operated by deluded people at the behest of others who play from behind the scenes. A group is found that the establishment dislikes and fears. Australia First Party, the nationalist movement generally, is that target. The media reacts and smears the challenger in any number of ways. Lately, figures from the major parties and other liberal commentators have criticised our movement as a dangerous and evil thing, but our challenge grows and has raised itself to a national profile. We are still a small force, but we are taking on organizational flesh.
So it occurs that we must now receive a dual attack: an entity (ie. Antifa) is brought to bear, one that stalks the new movement physically whilst also stigmatizing it propagandistically in the terms the establishment would have it labelled. In other words: through confrontation and harassment, we may be restricted; by calling us names in public and via reporting of the new group’s actions, some people who may be available to us as voters and activists, could turn away in confusion. Just as screaming at a bloke “wife beater, wife beater” might cause some to think he is one, so calling patriotic ordinary Australian working people “fascists”, could cause some members of the public to think it’s true – and they would decline support.
This anti-fascism is as much psycho-politics as physical politics. It is designed to vex, confuse and disorient. Having someone scream that the party is something it is not, to risk arrest and carry out assaults in the name of a false position, is bizarre. Yet, that is the point. To mobilize people against us, the operators of Antifa must spoon feed something to the troops to keep up their activism. “I get it”, said one old World War Two veteran, who had just been called a “Nazi” as he entered the Sydney Forum venue; “he needed a straw man to knock down, some idea in his head to keep him fighting.” True.
The anti-fascists in the street are genuine fools. They really believe that the Australian nationalists would impose fascist rule if we could, will cause no end of social turmoils and hatreds on our path to power and they really imagine that we are inspired by historical fascism. As anarchists or Trotskyites or Maoists, they are impelled to act. For sure, it is all a delusion. In fact, we intend to impose (sic) a radical democracy upon Australia! Yet, knowing this impulse to act against us exists, the shadowy players who need a confrontational Antifa to do the dirty work can move more easily to mobilize it. Hence, we observed websites like ‘Fight Dem Back’ and ‘Slackbastard’ tried to organize the protest movement, but they had establishment connections with the Labor Party and Zionist groups and so on; this was just too brazen and the Antifa was hesitant. Reasonably, pseudo revolutionaries don’t like the establishment either. So other less obvious agents are undoubtedly employed such that the new Antifa structure can be promoted into street politics and given a certain media sanction - as long as it does its job.
Good Intel ….
A month or so ago, the staff at the inveterate pro Australian ‘intelligence Blog’ ‘Whitelaw Towers’, put it out there that in Sydney at least, a peculiar clique of people based on the leadership of the former Builders’ Labourers’ Federation (BLF) in New South Wales and a network that was connected to it and formerly instrumental in the old Maoist-style Communist Party of Australia (Marxist-Leninist), had been sniffing about, setting up small structures to push odd communist type agendas.
The members of this grouping have freed themselves of much of the ideological baggage of Maoism, but have retained their taste for a radical communist solution. In that regard, these people were not beyond embracing some of the arguments and methods of the anarchists if this leads to ‘direct action’.
After yet another ‘anti-fascist’ action on October 2 in Sydney, this time aimed at a speaking event in inner-city Chippendale, the interest of the ex Maoist group in anti-fascism, was revealed. Such a small world politics can be when bad eggs return to the fray.
A certain writer appeared on the Indymedia website, someone whose suggestions are pregnant with the future. This writer, who I quickly understood to be one C. Maltby, recorded how he and his friends once turned over a literature table of a student nationalist organisation at the University of New South Wales and directly confronted the group. That was 1979. I was there. Maltby naturally omitted that he had positioned himself behind Mr. F.K. Salter chairman of our group and struck him to the head with a (thankfully smooth) rock. Although Salter sustained no real injury, it was a dangerous assault. Maltby was alluding to old, perhaps to his mind, happy memories. His article counselled further and aggressive action based upon the ‘validity’ of violent confrontation.
To say that Maltby is just a would-be thug underestimates the fellow and those he sails with. The Maoists were not unintelligent. He has reviewed the political landscape and - using my name to make the point - tells his readers:
…. Kevvie’s ALP, with the Breakfast Creek mob providing invaluable support 'in the rear' - but beware, the collapse of the ALP could give the likes of Saleam rallying points around which to gather votes …..
If Saleam et al ever get anywhere west of Parramatta in Sydney, watch out! And what will the likes of the Greens do then? Hit them with banana leaves, or try to reason with them? No, they'll just 'peacefully protest' as all democratic institutions are torn apart. Only one answer and it's still Socialism Comrades - it would be a very different form of Socialism - perhaps the Anarcho-Syndicalists do have something, other than books to sell! Cheers, The Captain.
In one regard, Mr. Maltby is dead right. Australia First intends to campaign to gather the support of working people – and Western Sydney holds many disgruntled unionists and self-employed people under the gun of big business and now too hosts a legion of young unemployed. This social pattern is duplicated in every metropolis.
Maltby proposed a new alliance to stop us from realising our objective – an alliance of the anarchist movement and leftover activist Maoism. Interesting. Now that anti-fascism is in the street, we now see the forces of our opposition meld together. We are warned and must become prepared.
Forward! ….
The opposition, which Australia First Party and the entire patriotic movement faces, will gather in pace and in intensity. This cannot be avoided and is a reflex to our growth. How we handle it will be a major test of our courage, resources and professional acumen. Needless to say, whatever plans we may have cannot be discussed in the open on a website or in an e-mail newsletter.
Certainly, we will stand our ground and extend our reach. We intend to develop a party with popular roots and to do so over the next twelve months. Swatting the blowflies of Antifa is simply ensuring that we reach those Australians we need that we may move to higher stages in building our mass work.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Australia First Registration Applicants Uphold The Ideals Of Australianism
Australia First Party has applied for registration as a party with the Australian Electoral Commission. The application was made on October 2 and will take some months to be processed.
Our party aims to consolidate those Australians who are prepared – right now – to stand up in the cause of Australian Identity, Independence and Freedom.
Some eleven members were obliged by law to co-sign the party registration application.
We are pleased to provide political biography on these members precisely because our party certainly aims to consolidate into one party those activists and shapers from earlier movements of nationalist resistance to the globalisation of our country. Our party has drawn together those who wish to pursue the struggle in an activist way. We have united people with long experience and we want other activists still involved elsewhere to appreciate that fact. In simple truth, Australia First Party represents a veritable tradition in Australian political life stretching back over decades. We aim to become the common vehicle that will achieve success.
1. Tony Pettitt
Tony will serve as Registered Officer. He entered nationalist politics in the late 1980’s as an independent candidate and then worked through Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation when he was a candidate several times and worked in an organizational capacity. He joined the new Australia First in 2008.
2. Jim Saleam
Jim participated in the rebirth of the new Australian nationalism, working through National Resistance and Australian National Alliance (1977-80) and was a co-founder of National Action which he led until 1991.He has written extensively on Australian identity. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2001 and the new Australia First in 2007. He will serve as National Secretary.
3. Nick Maine
As an ‘old warrior’ in the patriotic struggle, Nick is 87 years and served in the Australian army in New Guinea. He both founded, and was a member of, several organisations, which arose after the betrayal of the White Australia Policy in 1966, to warn Australians of the dangers of liberal immigration. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 1996 and the new Australia First in 2007
4. Brendan Gidley
Brendan entered the nationalist struggle in 1984 as a member of National Action until 1991 and was involved thereafter in Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation as an organizer He has co-operated some nationalist websites and publishing services. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new party in 2007.
5. Neil Baird
Neil entered the nationalist struggle in 1992 as a member of Australians Against Further Immigration. He joined One Nation in 1997 and served the party as a candidate and in several administrative functions. He is a regular speaker for nationalist forums and joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2005 and the new party in 2007
6. Alex Norwick
Alex participated in the rebirth of the new Australian nationalism, working through National Resistance and Australian National Alliance (1977-80) and was a co-founder of National Action; he also worked in the 1980’s with other patriotic groups. In the 1990’s he worked with Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation. He has written on Australian labour history. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new Australia First in 2007.
7. Perry Jewell
Perry migrated to Australia from South Africa in 1972 and in 1990 co-founded Australia’s first mass nationalist-minded party – Confederate Action Party. He worked subsequently through other groups in Queensland and founded in 2007 a movement to combat drug addiction in Australia. As a man of considerable political and other talent, he joined the new Australia First in 2009.
8. Rob Fraser
Rob entered the nationalist arena in 1988, being an editor of the magazine, Bunyip Bulletin. He later participated in Australians Against Further Immigration. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2004 and the new Australia First in 2007.
9. Nathan Clarke
Nathan is a younger nationalist activist who entered the movement in 2005. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2005 and the new Australia First in 2007. He was a lead Council candidate for the new Australia First in Newcastle in 2008.
10. Terry Cooksley
Terry joined Australian National Alliance (1979-80) and was a co-founder of National Action with which he remained until 1991.He was candidate in the 1990’s for Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new Australia First in 2007.
11. Darrell Wallbridge
Darrell founded a local nationalist party in his native Coffs Harbour (1981) and passed into National Action (1982-91) and was a candidate for Confederate Action Party. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2004 and the new Australia First in 2007.
Our party aims to consolidate those Australians who are prepared – right now – to stand up in the cause of Australian Identity, Independence and Freedom.
Some eleven members were obliged by law to co-sign the party registration application.
We are pleased to provide political biography on these members precisely because our party certainly aims to consolidate into one party those activists and shapers from earlier movements of nationalist resistance to the globalisation of our country. Our party has drawn together those who wish to pursue the struggle in an activist way. We have united people with long experience and we want other activists still involved elsewhere to appreciate that fact. In simple truth, Australia First Party represents a veritable tradition in Australian political life stretching back over decades. We aim to become the common vehicle that will achieve success.
1. Tony Pettitt
Tony will serve as Registered Officer. He entered nationalist politics in the late 1980’s as an independent candidate and then worked through Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation when he was a candidate several times and worked in an organizational capacity. He joined the new Australia First in 2008.
2. Jim Saleam
Jim participated in the rebirth of the new Australian nationalism, working through National Resistance and Australian National Alliance (1977-80) and was a co-founder of National Action which he led until 1991.He has written extensively on Australian identity. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2001 and the new Australia First in 2007. He will serve as National Secretary.
3. Nick Maine
As an ‘old warrior’ in the patriotic struggle, Nick is 87 years and served in the Australian army in New Guinea. He both founded, and was a member of, several organisations, which arose after the betrayal of the White Australia Policy in 1966, to warn Australians of the dangers of liberal immigration. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 1996 and the new Australia First in 2007
4. Brendan Gidley
Brendan entered the nationalist struggle in 1984 as a member of National Action until 1991 and was involved thereafter in Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation as an organizer He has co-operated some nationalist websites and publishing services. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new party in 2007.
5. Neil Baird
Neil entered the nationalist struggle in 1992 as a member of Australians Against Further Immigration. He joined One Nation in 1997 and served the party as a candidate and in several administrative functions. He is a regular speaker for nationalist forums and joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2005 and the new party in 2007
6. Alex Norwick
Alex participated in the rebirth of the new Australian nationalism, working through National Resistance and Australian National Alliance (1977-80) and was a co-founder of National Action; he also worked in the 1980’s with other patriotic groups. In the 1990’s he worked with Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation. He has written on Australian labour history. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new Australia First in 2007.
7. Perry Jewell
Perry migrated to Australia from South Africa in 1972 and in 1990 co-founded Australia’s first mass nationalist-minded party – Confederate Action Party. He worked subsequently through other groups in Queensland and founded in 2007 a movement to combat drug addiction in Australia. As a man of considerable political and other talent, he joined the new Australia First in 2009.
8. Rob Fraser
Rob entered the nationalist arena in 1988, being an editor of the magazine, Bunyip Bulletin. He later participated in Australians Against Further Immigration. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2004 and the new Australia First in 2007.
9. Nathan Clarke
Nathan is a younger nationalist activist who entered the movement in 2005. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2005 and the new Australia First in 2007. He was a lead Council candidate for the new Australia First in Newcastle in 2008.
10. Terry Cooksley
Terry joined Australian National Alliance (1979-80) and was a co-founder of National Action with which he remained until 1991.He was candidate in the 1990’s for Australians Against Further Immigration and One Nation. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2002 and the new Australia First in 2007.
11. Darrell Wallbridge
Darrell founded a local nationalist party in his native Coffs Harbour (1981) and passed into National Action (1982-91) and was a candidate for Confederate Action Party. He joined the first incorporation of Australia First Party in 2004 and the new Australia First in 2007.
The Greater Significance Of The Australian Light Horse Charge at Beersheba
The following is a speech given by Jim Saleam to a special commemorative meeting for the 92nd anniversary of the great Light Horse Charge at Beersheba.
The meeting, hosted by the Friends Of Henry Lawson, featured speakers from cultural groups and readings from Australian military history.
The speech has been very slightly edited.
I am not talking of the history of the event we are here to honour. Rather, I am talking about impressions of that event. I suppose that’s about building culture myths. Mythology doesn’t just mean those wild Greek tales - or fairy-stories peoples sometimes tell. I can tell you as a student of Australian culture history that the Myth is actually about the setting of images in people’s minds, an idea, a standard, a set of moral ideals and so a collective unconscious emerges that unites a people together. We go on to fashion ourselves and our lives around it. Myth is a powerful thing. And to use the Greek sounding term palingenesis – rebirth – we could say that the eternal return of the central Myths of a people presses people into its service in a new time.
Weighty stuff. So, now you get it. What did Beersheba mean for Australians? Then? Later? Now?
Let’s Make It Personal
The first thing I ever heard about the charge at Beersheba was a little bit of adult chatter, somewhere, sometime. Maybe I was 6 years of age. It became real a few years after that, when our primary school was blessed with an elderly gent who was brought along one day about 1965 to tell the tale.
Let’s be honest. Some bloke about 70 looked like a bloke about 100 when you’re ten. So, he was revered on that account alone.
But he told a bloody good story. The only bit I remember was something about the Turks being bad shots ‘cos they hadn’t adjusted their gun sights. He was here and that was the proof of that.
That’s the Myth in action folks. The storyteller from the golden age, telling you a great tale from when he was young, when he could have died, but for luck. Something that did all proud. It was your history. No one else’s. The truth belonged to you if you too dared to live it. And there was the promise that if ever you were tested you could do just as well.
Our school was blessed by such a speaker. Indeed, we often had speakers about important events in the national history or we saw great icons of that history like the Eureka Flag.
The day our Beersheba veteran spoke, the school showed the classic film, Forty Thousand Horsemen.
Forty Thousand Horsemen
Released in 1940, the film’s nationalistic sentiment and dramatisation of Australian success in battle touched a strong chord with a new generation then at war. The story follows three larrikin Light Horsemen and their role in the desert campaigns. The three leads, played by Grant Taylor, Chips Rafferty and Pat Toohill, are introduced to us playing two-up in a market place and indulging in tom foolery, including taking a wild donkey ride through town and into a cabaret club (the same themes used in Mel Gibson’s Gallipoli). The celebrated climax of the story plays out the famous charge at Beersheba. The film broke national box office records and also had considerable success on the international market.
We all loved it as 1960’s kids.
For one, I have shown the film at various meetings since in my adult life.
This film renders sacred too the sand dunes at Kurnell, but a few kilometres from where Captain Cook proclaimed that modern civilisation had come to the oldest Continent. White fellas history all that, but just as meaningful to us as black fellas’ Dreamings.
In other words, in fact, film about the charge at Beersheba sanctified our native ground in the reliving of it.
A Legend Born
The charge at Beersheba soon entered the Australian consciousness. The realist paintings of Lambert, the exhibitions collected for the National War Museum, the ANZAC Day commemerations that began in the 1920’s, at the RSSAILA Clubs and so on – were all signs of that. Side by side with ANZAC Cove, it illustrated the right of the new nation to be taken seriously by others. At the Versailles Treaty conference in 1919, Australia spoke for herself. One could say that the desert war gave more of a right to this than the meat-grinder trench warfare in France. It is proper to remember.
And Today?
Of late, as part of our own Culture Wars in Australia, publicity has been given to an incident where some Light Horse committed what was, in modern politically-correct-speak, a war crime in shooting some people in a local village.
It is one thing to record the truth, whatever it might be. I wonder whether the publicity given to this minor affair serves a darker purpose? To undermine the national myth perhaps?
Interesting too that we can also draw a point about Australian service in war. Some people say that this service has always been at the behest of big players who misused our manhood. Sad to say, but there is truth in that. A young country can be swallowed up in the misdeeds of others. But the Australians in Palestine had another side too. We know that the British and the French betrayed the Arabs who rose against the Turks. Yet, young Australia believed as Colonel Lawrence believed, that a free Arab world was in the interest of the Allied Powers and that the Ottomon Empire be consigned to history.
It is sad that some people get that wrong today. I saw a newspaper last year issued by some Christian folks around Fred Nile – and they say that the Charge at Beersheba was all about making Israel and they praised up the Israeli government for allowing certain remembrance ceremonies on the site. Bad religion and bad history. If the Aussie charge had anything to do with the birth of that state, it was because of the betrayal of the Arab Rising by the British and the French – and not of an action born of our will.
Yet, history plays tricks on that – and the Australians are still recalled in Palestine and Syria as men who came to set those countries free to make a better world. The Arabs might rail against the others, but not against the Australians.
If it had been up to the Australians alone, I can see that this would have been precisely what they would have done.
We may say that freedom, the freedom for all peoples, rode with the Light Horse. Let us remember that as we try to set our own country free.
The Legend of the Light Horse lives in all of us. Celebrate it.
The meeting, hosted by the Friends Of Henry Lawson, featured speakers from cultural groups and readings from Australian military history.
The speech has been very slightly edited.
I am not talking of the history of the event we are here to honour. Rather, I am talking about impressions of that event. I suppose that’s about building culture myths. Mythology doesn’t just mean those wild Greek tales - or fairy-stories peoples sometimes tell. I can tell you as a student of Australian culture history that the Myth is actually about the setting of images in people’s minds, an idea, a standard, a set of moral ideals and so a collective unconscious emerges that unites a people together. We go on to fashion ourselves and our lives around it. Myth is a powerful thing. And to use the Greek sounding term palingenesis – rebirth – we could say that the eternal return of the central Myths of a people presses people into its service in a new time.
Weighty stuff. So, now you get it. What did Beersheba mean for Australians? Then? Later? Now?
Let’s Make It Personal
The first thing I ever heard about the charge at Beersheba was a little bit of adult chatter, somewhere, sometime. Maybe I was 6 years of age. It became real a few years after that, when our primary school was blessed with an elderly gent who was brought along one day about 1965 to tell the tale.
Let’s be honest. Some bloke about 70 looked like a bloke about 100 when you’re ten. So, he was revered on that account alone.
But he told a bloody good story. The only bit I remember was something about the Turks being bad shots ‘cos they hadn’t adjusted their gun sights. He was here and that was the proof of that.
That’s the Myth in action folks. The storyteller from the golden age, telling you a great tale from when he was young, when he could have died, but for luck. Something that did all proud. It was your history. No one else’s. The truth belonged to you if you too dared to live it. And there was the promise that if ever you were tested you could do just as well.
Our school was blessed by such a speaker. Indeed, we often had speakers about important events in the national history or we saw great icons of that history like the Eureka Flag.
The day our Beersheba veteran spoke, the school showed the classic film, Forty Thousand Horsemen.
Forty Thousand Horsemen
Released in 1940, the film’s nationalistic sentiment and dramatisation of Australian success in battle touched a strong chord with a new generation then at war. The story follows three larrikin Light Horsemen and their role in the desert campaigns. The three leads, played by Grant Taylor, Chips Rafferty and Pat Toohill, are introduced to us playing two-up in a market place and indulging in tom foolery, including taking a wild donkey ride through town and into a cabaret club (the same themes used in Mel Gibson’s Gallipoli). The celebrated climax of the story plays out the famous charge at Beersheba. The film broke national box office records and also had considerable success on the international market.
We all loved it as 1960’s kids.
For one, I have shown the film at various meetings since in my adult life.
This film renders sacred too the sand dunes at Kurnell, but a few kilometres from where Captain Cook proclaimed that modern civilisation had come to the oldest Continent. White fellas history all that, but just as meaningful to us as black fellas’ Dreamings.
In other words, in fact, film about the charge at Beersheba sanctified our native ground in the reliving of it.
A Legend Born
The charge at Beersheba soon entered the Australian consciousness. The realist paintings of Lambert, the exhibitions collected for the National War Museum, the ANZAC Day commemerations that began in the 1920’s, at the RSSAILA Clubs and so on – were all signs of that. Side by side with ANZAC Cove, it illustrated the right of the new nation to be taken seriously by others. At the Versailles Treaty conference in 1919, Australia spoke for herself. One could say that the desert war gave more of a right to this than the meat-grinder trench warfare in France. It is proper to remember.
And Today?
Of late, as part of our own Culture Wars in Australia, publicity has been given to an incident where some Light Horse committed what was, in modern politically-correct-speak, a war crime in shooting some people in a local village.
It is one thing to record the truth, whatever it might be. I wonder whether the publicity given to this minor affair serves a darker purpose? To undermine the national myth perhaps?
Interesting too that we can also draw a point about Australian service in war. Some people say that this service has always been at the behest of big players who misused our manhood. Sad to say, but there is truth in that. A young country can be swallowed up in the misdeeds of others. But the Australians in Palestine had another side too. We know that the British and the French betrayed the Arabs who rose against the Turks. Yet, young Australia believed as Colonel Lawrence believed, that a free Arab world was in the interest of the Allied Powers and that the Ottomon Empire be consigned to history.
It is sad that some people get that wrong today. I saw a newspaper last year issued by some Christian folks around Fred Nile – and they say that the Charge at Beersheba was all about making Israel and they praised up the Israeli government for allowing certain remembrance ceremonies on the site. Bad religion and bad history. If the Aussie charge had anything to do with the birth of that state, it was because of the betrayal of the Arab Rising by the British and the French – and not of an action born of our will.
Yet, history plays tricks on that – and the Australians are still recalled in Palestine and Syria as men who came to set those countries free to make a better world. The Arabs might rail against the others, but not against the Australians.
If it had been up to the Australians alone, I can see that this would have been precisely what they would have done.
We may say that freedom, the freedom for all peoples, rode with the Light Horse. Let us remember that as we try to set our own country free.
The Legend of the Light Horse lives in all of us. Celebrate it.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
New Zealand Flag Day Rally Unites Kiwi And Australian Nationalists
Flag Day in New Zealand has once again deepened the ANZAC bonds between Australian and New Zealand nationalists.
All up, some 50 activists were present in Wellington on Saturday, October 24, to mark the sixth annual Flag Day. Flag Day was also celebrated in Christchurch, where some 20 (mainly) young New Zealand nationalists demonstrated in the city centre.
Three Australians participated in the Flag Day march and demonstration in Wellington. As in 2008, an Australian nationalist also addressed the marchers and the crowd.
Flag Day has been held since 2004 to remind Kiwis of their heritage now under full challenge by mass immigration and multiculturalism. Flag Day was initiated in 2004 at a significant moment when Chinese imperialism began raising its ugly Dragon-head over New Zealand’s economy and politics. It has now become a fixture and the day that unites many patriots who travel from across the country to attend. They show the Kiwi spirit is far from defeated and that the struggle for New Zealand freedom will only grow.
A day of successful action ….
The main event was organised by the redoubtable Wellington branch of the National Front (NF). The NF provided the organizational effort that made the day possible.
The demonstration assembled at the Cenotaph in central Wellington. Here the group honoured New Zealand’s sacred dead. From there, the participants marched to the Seddon Statue outside the National Parliament where up to 20 New Zealand Flags were held aloft. The first national flag of New Zealand from the years 1834-40 was also carried for the first time at Flag Day. This red, white and blue flag is also called the United Tribes Flag, since British officials proposed it to the Maori chiefs who warmly embraced it and to this day, some Maoris still revere it. The Australians, to mark their ANZAC links with the Kiwi patriots, flew the Australian National Flag and the Eureka Flag.
Speeches were given which noted the history of the National Flag, the first flag of New Zealand too and the need for the retention of the ANZAC link. It was noted by speakers that this year’s Flag Day was not opposed by the usual anarchist and ‘anti-racist’ rabble, who traditionally turn out to taunt marchers, or try to assault them - and abuse the police. Although they informed media they opted to boycott the Day so as “not to give publicity” to the nationalists, the truth was different. The Wellington anarcho-underground is torn apart by the realisation that their leadership (sic) has duped them to be a street gang against the nationalists, whilst they maintain links with the Labour Party and other establishment forces. The shattering of Wellington’s so-called anarchist and ‘anti-racist’ movements is a gain for all. Indeed, Vince Stephens, Wellington NF organiser quipped:
“I feel totally let down by the opposition for not supporting our Flag Day – by turning up and acting as they do.”
From the Seddon Statue, a march then took place into the busier parts of the city where a further rally was conducted. Hundreds of leaflets were handed out to minimal objection and considerable interest.
Discussions to build unity …
The marchers returned to the Wellington railway station where they took a special charter-bus, back to a meeting area.
Here various discussions were held amongst and between the National Front, the Right-Wing Resistance (which provided many of the marchers) and certain youth groups. Kiwi leaders such as Col Ansell, Kyle Chapman, Steve Larsen and Vince Stephens talked over the issues in building the New Zealand nationalist movement.
At a meeting later in the day, all present resolved that the National Front will be the political party name that activists will strive to register for electoral purposes. The goal is to have the 500 members enrolled by the next Flag Day. The privileges of a registered party can only benefit the entire New Zealand movement.
Perceptions….
What did the participants in Flag Day perceive they had achieved? One male activist said that it was a matter of demonstrating that there was “a future for our children’. A young woman said: “it is my first Flag Day; I just want to say who I am”. For another it was “about access to the people, not just a confrontation with those who oppose us, a real victory for Flag Day.”
The activists had come from Christchurch, Palmerston North, Hamilton, Auckland and Wanganui and other places; they were members of different groups, but all were New Zealanders. Their next task is to create a stronger nationalist movement in New Zealand.
Flag Day 2010…
Flag Day 2010 in Wellington promises to be a larger event. It will receive a delegation from the Australia First Party to the march and to a united meeting with speakers who will endorse the new phase of New Zealand nationalism which will be opened by the application to register National Front as a party. It may be the case too that Flag Day, held on Labour Weekend, will be advertised as a Day of Labour, a call for the ordinary Kiwi working person to achieve better than the false promises of globalisation.
As is clear, the Kiwi nationalists do not rest on their laurels. And the Australian nationalists will be there in support.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Zionist Leadership Attacks Freedoms Of Assembly And Association For Australia First
Two prominent figures in Australia’s Jewish community, both of whom are committed to Zionism and who speak for major structures inside that community, have attacked traditional Australian freedoms of assembly and association and directed this attack against the Australia First Party.
In the Australia Jewish News (October 9), we read a disturbing report that should inspire all Australian democrats and upholders of civil liberty, to condemn the Zionist fraction of Australian Jewry as thugs who employ twisted words to serve an alien and un Australian agenda.
The report said:
NSW Board of Deputies president, Robin Margo, said all Australians need to be on guard against the bigotry that Australia First exploits “under the guise of patriotism and nationalism” and to take care “they do not unwittingly lend it assistance by provision of venues, finance or otherwise.”
“Australia First is trying to gather support ahead of the next election. There should be no place in modern Australian politics for anyone promoting a form of ‘white Australia’ or racism of any kind and Australia First has a bad record in that regard”, he said.
B’nai B’rith Anti Defamation Commission executive director Deborah Stone, said all vendors have the right to decide on applicants seeking to rent space on their sites. But she also issued a warning.
“We and many other Australians have very strong concerns of the danger the far-right represents”, she said. “We would encourage people who are considering renting premises or providing services to them to consider seriously whether they really want to be supporting that kind of challenge to the cohesion of Australian society”.
Such comments are open threats upon democratic liberty. This latest attempt to bully clubs, councils and other owners from renting us halls or space and then to hold up to contempt and abuse any person who deals or trades with us (printers etc), shows these people will resort to foul means to restrict a political opponent .
What will the Zionists precisely do? We could anticipate lists of suspect (sic) names / groups issued to clubs etc. with a call to ban them from holding meetings. There could be phone calls and threats of unfavourable publicity if certain meetings went ahead. We can perceive threats to businesses (whether direct or through ‘demonstrators’ who can be conjured up) that they will lose money because their trade with Australia First Party will be ‘revealed’ in the media, or through open trade boycotts they may commercially suffer. Once this overall program gets going it becomes a virus.
It is all part of an old technique of the Zionists which has been used in Australia before. In 1998, a magazine called the Australia Israel Review, published the names of some 1700 members of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party and vilified Hanson in various ways as a descendant of Nazism. This publication effectively encouraged people to violently confront Hanson and set out to poison the political debate to compel people to turn away from dealings with that party. Why?
The Hanson party had never even criticised Zionism, let alone spoke against Jews as Jews, something which is called ‘anti-semitism’. A clue might be found in the incredible statement of Isi Leibler, an Australian Zionist who went on to live in Israel as “President” of the World Jewish Congress, that “multiculturalism was right for Australia”, but ‘not for Israel”. Is multiculturalism a policy that the Zionits can hide behind?
Certainly, the Australia First Party has criticised the Zionists. We have said that the Zionists seek to involve Australia in foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to serve Israel’s Middle Eastern politics, that they would involve Australia in an attack upon Iran and that they misuse Australia’s diplomatic support to endorse Israel’s violence against Palestinians and indeed, the theft of Palestine itself. No wonder there is Moslem terror! More and more Australians understand all this. The Australia First Party has also noted the link between the Zionists and the policy of multiculturalism and their support for continued immigration. However, the Australia First Party has never criticised Jews as Jews. Rather, it is because we have told the truth about the Zionists that we are vilified by them and targeted to have our democratic right to organize curtailed by pressure upon all who deal with us.
Masking themselves behind a murky rhetoric about protecting Jews from ‘threats’ (where are these threats?), the Zionists, will lash out at freedom itself.
No one should be fooled by the Zionists talking about “cohesion” and “far right” dangers. We note that the Anti Defamation Commission (ADC) is a private spy agency that collects data upon Australians and which briefs (sic) politicians and media operatives with smear against critics of Israel and Zionism. It was these very Zionists in the ADC who sponsored in the 1990's Australia’s Federal thought-policing laws that can criminalize criticism of immigration policy and multiculturalism under the guise of combating ‘hate speech’. With the Zionists everything serves some agenda best known to them and nothing is ever as it appears.
Freedom of assembly and association are important things to Australia First. These freedoms have been defended by Australian soldiers with their lives. We refuse to be intimidated. Australia First will stand up for the rights of all Australians to be heard at meetings, at elections, n print and on the Internet.
In the Australia Jewish News (October 9), we read a disturbing report that should inspire all Australian democrats and upholders of civil liberty, to condemn the Zionist fraction of Australian Jewry as thugs who employ twisted words to serve an alien and un Australian agenda.
The report said:
NSW Board of Deputies president, Robin Margo, said all Australians need to be on guard against the bigotry that Australia First exploits “under the guise of patriotism and nationalism” and to take care “they do not unwittingly lend it assistance by provision of venues, finance or otherwise.”
“Australia First is trying to gather support ahead of the next election. There should be no place in modern Australian politics for anyone promoting a form of ‘white Australia’ or racism of any kind and Australia First has a bad record in that regard”, he said.
B’nai B’rith Anti Defamation Commission executive director Deborah Stone, said all vendors have the right to decide on applicants seeking to rent space on their sites. But she also issued a warning.
“We and many other Australians have very strong concerns of the danger the far-right represents”, she said. “We would encourage people who are considering renting premises or providing services to them to consider seriously whether they really want to be supporting that kind of challenge to the cohesion of Australian society”.
Such comments are open threats upon democratic liberty. This latest attempt to bully clubs, councils and other owners from renting us halls or space and then to hold up to contempt and abuse any person who deals or trades with us (printers etc), shows these people will resort to foul means to restrict a political opponent .
What will the Zionists precisely do? We could anticipate lists of suspect (sic) names / groups issued to clubs etc. with a call to ban them from holding meetings. There could be phone calls and threats of unfavourable publicity if certain meetings went ahead. We can perceive threats to businesses (whether direct or through ‘demonstrators’ who can be conjured up) that they will lose money because their trade with Australia First Party will be ‘revealed’ in the media, or through open trade boycotts they may commercially suffer. Once this overall program gets going it becomes a virus.
It is all part of an old technique of the Zionists which has been used in Australia before. In 1998, a magazine called the Australia Israel Review, published the names of some 1700 members of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party and vilified Hanson in various ways as a descendant of Nazism. This publication effectively encouraged people to violently confront Hanson and set out to poison the political debate to compel people to turn away from dealings with that party. Why?
The Hanson party had never even criticised Zionism, let alone spoke against Jews as Jews, something which is called ‘anti-semitism’. A clue might be found in the incredible statement of Isi Leibler, an Australian Zionist who went on to live in Israel as “President” of the World Jewish Congress, that “multiculturalism was right for Australia”, but ‘not for Israel”. Is multiculturalism a policy that the Zionits can hide behind?
Certainly, the Australia First Party has criticised the Zionists. We have said that the Zionists seek to involve Australia in foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to serve Israel’s Middle Eastern politics, that they would involve Australia in an attack upon Iran and that they misuse Australia’s diplomatic support to endorse Israel’s violence against Palestinians and indeed, the theft of Palestine itself. No wonder there is Moslem terror! More and more Australians understand all this. The Australia First Party has also noted the link between the Zionists and the policy of multiculturalism and their support for continued immigration. However, the Australia First Party has never criticised Jews as Jews. Rather, it is because we have told the truth about the Zionists that we are vilified by them and targeted to have our democratic right to organize curtailed by pressure upon all who deal with us.
Masking themselves behind a murky rhetoric about protecting Jews from ‘threats’ (where are these threats?), the Zionists, will lash out at freedom itself.
No one should be fooled by the Zionists talking about “cohesion” and “far right” dangers. We note that the Anti Defamation Commission (ADC) is a private spy agency that collects data upon Australians and which briefs (sic) politicians and media operatives with smear against critics of Israel and Zionism. It was these very Zionists in the ADC who sponsored in the 1990's Australia’s Federal thought-policing laws that can criminalize criticism of immigration policy and multiculturalism under the guise of combating ‘hate speech’. With the Zionists everything serves some agenda best known to them and nothing is ever as it appears.
Freedom of assembly and association are important things to Australia First. These freedoms have been defended by Australian soldiers with their lives. We refuse to be intimidated. Australia First will stand up for the rights of all Australians to be heard at meetings, at elections, n print and on the Internet.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
“The Nationalist And Patriotic Movement In Western Australia: Which Way Forwards? … “
Interview with Dr. Jim Saleam and Brendan Gidley, October 12 2009
The Western Australian patriotic and nationalist movement seems to be in flux at the moment and we considered this overview from a position in the Eastern states might be of assistance in defining issues and groups. Jim and Brendan speak as participants in the struggle and as members of the Australia First Party national management committee. Their frankness is noted.
AF (WA): Where do you see us Westralian nationalists and patriots placed at this point in time?
Reply: There are big and available issues that could be used to mobilize a new force in Western Australia. Your State has problems with over-population, the degradation of soils and water shortage in the South-East, the political corruption, the free-trade driven mining ‘boom’ which benefits the multinationals and their contract labour – and Chinese imperialism lurking to seize resources. There is a combative unionist rank and file which might just, with the current Labor betrayal of the true national interest, decide to fight on against “work place reform”, foreign takeover and cheap labour. There is increasing youth unemployment and the utterly odious overseas student program which is robbing youth of an education. There is the multinational and big company attack upon Australian truck owners and drivers. Therefore, clearly, there is a substantial political base to be organized.
Sadly right now, activist nationalist forces are weak on the ground. One Nation has a residual structure left over from the splits and troubles of the past and there are loose people about. Australia First has members, but little structure as yet. We are moving on that. There may be other circles of youth and people meeting informally in Perth to discuss issues and there is the odd independent Web Site. We hear too that Graeme Campbell is still active. However, there is no decisive leadership in your State that can ‘rally the forces’ so to speak. We must build that.
There are signs of a turnaround. Yet, we suspect the real change won’t occur until some groups exhaust their current line and embrace the Australia First position. We predict a radicalisation of the One Nation rank and file but only after the electoralist line runs its course and while Australia First members forge a more interventionist force, one which goes beyond electioneering towards community action, grassroots action in schools, factories, universities and at street level – a genuine, organized, political structure which truly offers a pole of attraction for these other patriots.
The problem with some people is – electoralism. They don’t get it. Electoral participation should be just one part of the overall strategy of action. They will tailor policy and activity, organization and finance, to this one thing. Yet, experience teaches and the next Federal election will (we hate to say it) see much of ‘our side’ restricted to the 3% range (that’s the academic definition of a fringe party), but at least we will notice a base exists and be able to move on later. We will be able to take on these people and lead them in struggle.
Our problems in Western Australia derive of the ups and downs of a broad scene. We inherit from that. Australia First will liquidate this past and create a new future for our nationalist cause.
AF (WA): So, is our difficulty one that derives from history? And if so, how far back should we look to get at the problems?
Reply: A bit of history may be in order. We need to take the long view.
The earliest nationalists in WA got together around the issue of immigration. There were many efforts in the period from 1968 until 1982. In that year, National Action appeared in Perth as a summation of these efforts. The old League Of Rights was still active and often had a lot of good things to say. However in 1985, Jack van Tongeren, founded the rather misnamed ‘Australian Nationalists Movement’. He ultimately soured the field first with his violence campaign in the period 1988-89 and then with his trial 1989-90. The State government relied on that to pass draconian laws against freedom of speech on immigration matters and to stigmatize oppositional groups, particularly on the immigration question, as either crypto-terrorists, or neo-nazis, or just beyond the pale of polite discussion. That has lingered long and just a few years back these political laws were given tougher penalties. Recently, a Christian man was seized at his home for making a video supporting the Palestinian cause; he was ‘charged’ with racism!! KGB? Gestapo? That vile law must be campaigned against.
We recall the next real initiatives came with weak sections of Confederate Action Party and the Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI) in the years 1991-95. Then Graeme Campbell founded Australia First from his base in Kalgoorlie in 1996. There was the emergence of a new cadre of people. That was a real step forward. And then, crisis, the rise and fall of One Nation and the massive loss of members and resources after a good start. etc. The party with no plan, no strategy, went for the mainstream with untrained leaders.. Disaster.
That’s the potted history. But we have to know it. We can learn.
What are the problems? Well, there is a stifling atmosphere of failure. Mainly electoral failure, but also organizational failure. Graeme lost his Kalgoorlie Federal seat in 1998, thanks to One Nation’s then-bosses David Oldfield and Pauline Hanson. The other two One Nation upper house reps went out years back. They were credible players, but their electoral base was gone. No one group has managed to gain hegemony over the scene since. Graeme went into One Nation in 2001 and was finally pushed out. It was all a sad waste of time.
There remains a weakness of ideology. Graeme Campbell put up the best synthesis which combined some enviro-nationalist ideas from AAFI (immigration is an environmental disaster!), with the old Labour style (the unity of the producers against corporate capitalism), with an awareness of the need for a new take of issues like free trade, open-borders and the defence of democratic freedom. That is the true meaning of the word ‘populism’; a nationalist populism was forming up. That synthesis is still the best one to get people into action. However, it also requires a strong set of core nationalist principles inspiring an activist cadre of people, who put these ideas into campaigns and policies.
At the deeper level, we need to ensure the whole movement is firmly grounded in Australian history and traditions. It must answer the questions of national identity and heritage, affirm the native-soil European heritage as the essential heritage. In the former movements of Australian nationalism we locate our tasks: to win national independence, to create a society that establishes fairness and true social-equality and a state that gives personal freedom. To us, this is the vision splendid that old-Labour a century ago attempted and which we must finally win. We have a historical mission. Groups like the One Nation do not. We say it is the mission that inspires the will to act, to win victories – and to take defeats.
AF (WA): Can the patriotic forces be united? How?
Reply: The first thing is amnesty for all decent people against the inevitable ‘sleights’ that have gone on in any organisation from the past. We must put aside all pettiness. If too in the past, there were cutting ideological or political questions at the core of earlier disunion, we need to look again at how these things worked and see how important it all was and how it impacts on getting unity now. People should meet and talk.
The aim must be to consolidate a nationalist party on the ground with a structure and a presence. That does not mean unity with just anyone. It means uniting the best, the positive people.
This can be done over the next twelve months. Australia First can be built ideologically, politically and organizationally to be the new command centre of national resistance. This coming election – as noted - will kill off a section of the past. Hansonism without Hanson will be gone and the temptation to see politics as a contest to provide folks with an electoral alternative – put aside. Australia First will thus – fill the gap.
AF (WA) : Obviously, you propose a different model of behaviour?
Reply: Very much so. This model is hardly novel to us, but for many it is ‘new’ and may be daunting to some.
It is called the ‘three tier model’. It simply means that an organization (‘party’) is three things simultaneously: a machine to contest elections, including local government elections to win publicity and to meet and organize new people ; a staff that organizes campaigns and activism in the street, factory, school, university or association ; it is a school that trains people in their cultural identity and political faith, whilst arguing these ideas in various ways and defending the Australian historical creation. Such a party integrates its ideology with a politics which defines who can be mobilised for change into a structure which is inspired culturally and ‘ideologically’ to act in the Australian people’s service.
In the next few weeks two crucial new Australia First pamphlets will argue this case. We intend that the party adopts these statements of general principle and acts on them in a united way.
The three tier model cures the nationalist movement of all illusions as to its purpose and promotes clear thinking. It preserves the movement which is more important ultimately than any electoral contest. Indeed, it transforms elections into a method to build the movement.
Has the three tier model ever been applied in Australia? In the past, the once great nationalist Labour Party did that. It integrated 100 years ago a political league, unions, education and cultural societies into one entity. Some minor groups (like today’s Greens who have an utterly non Australian ideology) still adapt the general framework of this method, although they apply it to their own goals. It works.
AF (WA): Possibly the WA patriotic scene has its share of odd birds. How does one deal with fractious people?
Reply: It is never easy. Sometimes it’s better not to try to integrate some people into the one party. Their interests and yours might be better served by staying separate. Indeed, in the case of educational and similar ideological forces, that is more positive because in that case the people are positive but are simply taking another road.. As for truly fractious people, one needs to utterly avoid them. If they join you, get them out. Our side has paid a heavy price for the presence of this type. It is time to become professional in the area of ‘human resources’.
AF (WA): Do you think in terms of laying down the law to all patriotic groups and people?
Reply: No. Not all groups are political in character. As noted, some are cultural, or sub-cultural, or educational and so forth. It is imperative to have a friendly attitude towards all organisations and groups that have any sort of a pro Australian perspective. We have to work on that in some cases, but it is worth it, absolutely.
The riot act need only ever be read to obviously disruptive individuals or to organisations which refuse to deal reasonably with ourselves. And to anyone, who knowingly continues to open doors to them. Thankfully, there won’t be much of that in short term, but it may occur again.
AF (WA): What role for Australia First?
Reply: There must be a small organizational core of people who devote a sizeable portion of their lives to the struggle. In other words, we favour the support of a semi-professional core of permanent activists. With younger leaders and a couple of older staff, this core could be assembled. We need to be able not only to perform the very necessary bureaucratic functions of organization, but to be able to respond to public events and otherwise so as to rally supporters to activist campaigns.
As time goes on we will surely prove our worth in Western Australia. We call on all nationalists to get behind the party. The future is now in your hands.
Thankyou, Jim and Brendan.
The Western Australian patriotic and nationalist movement seems to be in flux at the moment and we considered this overview from a position in the Eastern states might be of assistance in defining issues and groups. Jim and Brendan speak as participants in the struggle and as members of the Australia First Party national management committee. Their frankness is noted.
AF (WA): Where do you see us Westralian nationalists and patriots placed at this point in time?
Reply: There are big and available issues that could be used to mobilize a new force in Western Australia. Your State has problems with over-population, the degradation of soils and water shortage in the South-East, the political corruption, the free-trade driven mining ‘boom’ which benefits the multinationals and their contract labour – and Chinese imperialism lurking to seize resources. There is a combative unionist rank and file which might just, with the current Labor betrayal of the true national interest, decide to fight on against “work place reform”, foreign takeover and cheap labour. There is increasing youth unemployment and the utterly odious overseas student program which is robbing youth of an education. There is the multinational and big company attack upon Australian truck owners and drivers. Therefore, clearly, there is a substantial political base to be organized.
Sadly right now, activist nationalist forces are weak on the ground. One Nation has a residual structure left over from the splits and troubles of the past and there are loose people about. Australia First has members, but little structure as yet. We are moving on that. There may be other circles of youth and people meeting informally in Perth to discuss issues and there is the odd independent Web Site. We hear too that Graeme Campbell is still active. However, there is no decisive leadership in your State that can ‘rally the forces’ so to speak. We must build that.
There are signs of a turnaround. Yet, we suspect the real change won’t occur until some groups exhaust their current line and embrace the Australia First position. We predict a radicalisation of the One Nation rank and file but only after the electoralist line runs its course and while Australia First members forge a more interventionist force, one which goes beyond electioneering towards community action, grassroots action in schools, factories, universities and at street level – a genuine, organized, political structure which truly offers a pole of attraction for these other patriots.
The problem with some people is – electoralism. They don’t get it. Electoral participation should be just one part of the overall strategy of action. They will tailor policy and activity, organization and finance, to this one thing. Yet, experience teaches and the next Federal election will (we hate to say it) see much of ‘our side’ restricted to the 3% range (that’s the academic definition of a fringe party), but at least we will notice a base exists and be able to move on later. We will be able to take on these people and lead them in struggle.
Our problems in Western Australia derive of the ups and downs of a broad scene. We inherit from that. Australia First will liquidate this past and create a new future for our nationalist cause.
AF (WA): So, is our difficulty one that derives from history? And if so, how far back should we look to get at the problems?
Reply: A bit of history may be in order. We need to take the long view.
The earliest nationalists in WA got together around the issue of immigration. There were many efforts in the period from 1968 until 1982. In that year, National Action appeared in Perth as a summation of these efforts. The old League Of Rights was still active and often had a lot of good things to say. However in 1985, Jack van Tongeren, founded the rather misnamed ‘Australian Nationalists Movement’. He ultimately soured the field first with his violence campaign in the period 1988-89 and then with his trial 1989-90. The State government relied on that to pass draconian laws against freedom of speech on immigration matters and to stigmatize oppositional groups, particularly on the immigration question, as either crypto-terrorists, or neo-nazis, or just beyond the pale of polite discussion. That has lingered long and just a few years back these political laws were given tougher penalties. Recently, a Christian man was seized at his home for making a video supporting the Palestinian cause; he was ‘charged’ with racism!! KGB? Gestapo? That vile law must be campaigned against.
We recall the next real initiatives came with weak sections of Confederate Action Party and the Australians Against Further Immigration (AAFI) in the years 1991-95. Then Graeme Campbell founded Australia First from his base in Kalgoorlie in 1996. There was the emergence of a new cadre of people. That was a real step forward. And then, crisis, the rise and fall of One Nation and the massive loss of members and resources after a good start. etc. The party with no plan, no strategy, went for the mainstream with untrained leaders.. Disaster.
That’s the potted history. But we have to know it. We can learn.
What are the problems? Well, there is a stifling atmosphere of failure. Mainly electoral failure, but also organizational failure. Graeme lost his Kalgoorlie Federal seat in 1998, thanks to One Nation’s then-bosses David Oldfield and Pauline Hanson. The other two One Nation upper house reps went out years back. They were credible players, but their electoral base was gone. No one group has managed to gain hegemony over the scene since. Graeme went into One Nation in 2001 and was finally pushed out. It was all a sad waste of time.
There remains a weakness of ideology. Graeme Campbell put up the best synthesis which combined some enviro-nationalist ideas from AAFI (immigration is an environmental disaster!), with the old Labour style (the unity of the producers against corporate capitalism), with an awareness of the need for a new take of issues like free trade, open-borders and the defence of democratic freedom. That is the true meaning of the word ‘populism’; a nationalist populism was forming up. That synthesis is still the best one to get people into action. However, it also requires a strong set of core nationalist principles inspiring an activist cadre of people, who put these ideas into campaigns and policies.
At the deeper level, we need to ensure the whole movement is firmly grounded in Australian history and traditions. It must answer the questions of national identity and heritage, affirm the native-soil European heritage as the essential heritage. In the former movements of Australian nationalism we locate our tasks: to win national independence, to create a society that establishes fairness and true social-equality and a state that gives personal freedom. To us, this is the vision splendid that old-Labour a century ago attempted and which we must finally win. We have a historical mission. Groups like the One Nation do not. We say it is the mission that inspires the will to act, to win victories – and to take defeats.
AF (WA): Can the patriotic forces be united? How?
Reply: The first thing is amnesty for all decent people against the inevitable ‘sleights’ that have gone on in any organisation from the past. We must put aside all pettiness. If too in the past, there were cutting ideological or political questions at the core of earlier disunion, we need to look again at how these things worked and see how important it all was and how it impacts on getting unity now. People should meet and talk.
The aim must be to consolidate a nationalist party on the ground with a structure and a presence. That does not mean unity with just anyone. It means uniting the best, the positive people.
This can be done over the next twelve months. Australia First can be built ideologically, politically and organizationally to be the new command centre of national resistance. This coming election – as noted - will kill off a section of the past. Hansonism without Hanson will be gone and the temptation to see politics as a contest to provide folks with an electoral alternative – put aside. Australia First will thus – fill the gap.
AF (WA) : Obviously, you propose a different model of behaviour?
Reply: Very much so. This model is hardly novel to us, but for many it is ‘new’ and may be daunting to some.
It is called the ‘three tier model’. It simply means that an organization (‘party’) is three things simultaneously: a machine to contest elections, including local government elections to win publicity and to meet and organize new people ; a staff that organizes campaigns and activism in the street, factory, school, university or association ; it is a school that trains people in their cultural identity and political faith, whilst arguing these ideas in various ways and defending the Australian historical creation. Such a party integrates its ideology with a politics which defines who can be mobilised for change into a structure which is inspired culturally and ‘ideologically’ to act in the Australian people’s service.
In the next few weeks two crucial new Australia First pamphlets will argue this case. We intend that the party adopts these statements of general principle and acts on them in a united way.
The three tier model cures the nationalist movement of all illusions as to its purpose and promotes clear thinking. It preserves the movement which is more important ultimately than any electoral contest. Indeed, it transforms elections into a method to build the movement.
Has the three tier model ever been applied in Australia? In the past, the once great nationalist Labour Party did that. It integrated 100 years ago a political league, unions, education and cultural societies into one entity. Some minor groups (like today’s Greens who have an utterly non Australian ideology) still adapt the general framework of this method, although they apply it to their own goals. It works.
AF (WA): Possibly the WA patriotic scene has its share of odd birds. How does one deal with fractious people?
Reply: It is never easy. Sometimes it’s better not to try to integrate some people into the one party. Their interests and yours might be better served by staying separate. Indeed, in the case of educational and similar ideological forces, that is more positive because in that case the people are positive but are simply taking another road.. As for truly fractious people, one needs to utterly avoid them. If they join you, get them out. Our side has paid a heavy price for the presence of this type. It is time to become professional in the area of ‘human resources’.
AF (WA): Do you think in terms of laying down the law to all patriotic groups and people?
Reply: No. Not all groups are political in character. As noted, some are cultural, or sub-cultural, or educational and so forth. It is imperative to have a friendly attitude towards all organisations and groups that have any sort of a pro Australian perspective. We have to work on that in some cases, but it is worth it, absolutely.
The riot act need only ever be read to obviously disruptive individuals or to organisations which refuse to deal reasonably with ourselves. And to anyone, who knowingly continues to open doors to them. Thankfully, there won’t be much of that in short term, but it may occur again.
AF (WA): What role for Australia First?
Reply: There must be a small organizational core of people who devote a sizeable portion of their lives to the struggle. In other words, we favour the support of a semi-professional core of permanent activists. With younger leaders and a couple of older staff, this core could be assembled. We need to be able not only to perform the very necessary bureaucratic functions of organization, but to be able to respond to public events and otherwise so as to rally supporters to activist campaigns.
As time goes on we will surely prove our worth in Western Australia. We call on all nationalists to get behind the party. The future is now in your hands.
Thankyou, Jim and Brendan.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Eight Core Policies Of Australia First
The eight core policies of Australia First are the basis of association for the party. They are (with explanations and the implied ninth point) as follows:
1 Ensure Australia Retains Full Independence
Protect our sovereignty (national, constitutional and personal) and maintain an adequate defence, whilst being reasonable and fair in our nation's international dealings.
2 Rebuild Australian Manufacturing Industries
This is the only way we can be self sufficient. It will provide jobs for our children, help buy back the farms and allow Australia to be free of foreign debts. Our infrastructure has been run down over many years. It must be rebuilt. We must improve the practicality and relevance of our educational systems, and target government support to empower industry to diversify, innovate, perform and expand. We recognise that small business is fundamental to this policy. A satisfactory financial environment is also urgent and essential.
3 Control Foreign Ownership
Bring foreign ownership and investment back under control.
4 Reduce and Limit Immigration
Immigration mistakes can be big long term mistakes. Immigration policy must take into account social cohesion, employment opportunities, urbanisation and environmental issues.
5 Abolish Multiculturalism
End the divisive, government funded and institutionalised policy of multiculturalism.
6 Introduce Citizens' Initiated Referenda
Amend the Australian Constitution such that the people can initiate a Constitutional Referendum which, if approved by the Australian people, will amend the Australian Constitution. This simple step will confirm the political authority of voters and make legislators aware that they are the servants of the Australian People, not their masters. The people directly should also possess the sovereign right and the power to initiate other legislation.
7. Strengthen the family
Promote policies that strengthen and protect the traditional family.
8 Strive to Rebuild A United Australia
Promote policies that recognise the interdependence of city and country.
9 Democratise Other Policy Issues
The party's core policies also imply a point nine.
All other policies (non-core policies) are matters of free conscience and are not binding upon Australia First’s future parliamentarians or councillors who are to represent their electorates.
Issues of public interest on which Australia First needs to formulate policy will be canvassed with the party membership and plebiscites conducted where deemed appropriate by the party’s National Council. The party also permits branches to formulate specific electoral policies or community policies not inconsistent with the Eight Core Policies.
From time to time, the party will issue material that provides interpretation of the core policies. This interpretative material would reflect the spirit of the party.
The organisational purpose for this statement of policy and system for policy creation is simple: Australia First does not require weighty tomes, which change from month to month, as do the programmes of the Establishment parties and those who ape them. It requires a focus for action and for unity within the party.
Australia First is to build a new national movement. Practicality is method.
1 Ensure Australia Retains Full Independence
Protect our sovereignty (national, constitutional and personal) and maintain an adequate defence, whilst being reasonable and fair in our nation's international dealings.
2 Rebuild Australian Manufacturing Industries
This is the only way we can be self sufficient. It will provide jobs for our children, help buy back the farms and allow Australia to be free of foreign debts. Our infrastructure has been run down over many years. It must be rebuilt. We must improve the practicality and relevance of our educational systems, and target government support to empower industry to diversify, innovate, perform and expand. We recognise that small business is fundamental to this policy. A satisfactory financial environment is also urgent and essential.
3 Control Foreign Ownership
Bring foreign ownership and investment back under control.
4 Reduce and Limit Immigration
Immigration mistakes can be big long term mistakes. Immigration policy must take into account social cohesion, employment opportunities, urbanisation and environmental issues.
5 Abolish Multiculturalism
End the divisive, government funded and institutionalised policy of multiculturalism.
6 Introduce Citizens' Initiated Referenda
Amend the Australian Constitution such that the people can initiate a Constitutional Referendum which, if approved by the Australian people, will amend the Australian Constitution. This simple step will confirm the political authority of voters and make legislators aware that they are the servants of the Australian People, not their masters. The people directly should also possess the sovereign right and the power to initiate other legislation.
7. Strengthen the family
Promote policies that strengthen and protect the traditional family.
8 Strive to Rebuild A United Australia
Promote policies that recognise the interdependence of city and country.
9 Democratise Other Policy Issues
The party's core policies also imply a point nine.
All other policies (non-core policies) are matters of free conscience and are not binding upon Australia First’s future parliamentarians or councillors who are to represent their electorates.
Issues of public interest on which Australia First needs to formulate policy will be canvassed with the party membership and plebiscites conducted where deemed appropriate by the party’s National Council. The party also permits branches to formulate specific electoral policies or community policies not inconsistent with the Eight Core Policies.
From time to time, the party will issue material that provides interpretation of the core policies. This interpretative material would reflect the spirit of the party.
The organisational purpose for this statement of policy and system for policy creation is simple: Australia First does not require weighty tomes, which change from month to month, as do the programmes of the Establishment parties and those who ape them. It requires a focus for action and for unity within the party.
Australia First is to build a new national movement. Practicality is method.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)