In a decision soon to be published on the website of the Office Of The Information Commission (Western Australia), the Commissioner has denied the Australia First Party access to what are – in effect – its own records.
This decision was not unexpected. The text of the decision itself can only be held as good public relations for the party, but it does not help us in the organizational stakes. What was the matter about?: some 2000 membership forms of the former ‘Australia First Party Incorporated’ (AFP Inc), a body incorporated under Western Australian law and now defunct. These memberships were received from 1996 until 2007. Could we recruit from this database if we possessed it? Undoubtedly.
Historical Background Of Deceit
The former AFP (Inc) was the original ‘Australia First’. It was registered as a Federal party (deregistered August 2004) and it was formed as an incorporation under Western Australian legislation (registered 1996, deregistered February 2006). The old party wound down and experienced various difficulties and did not seem to function with appropriate determination and efficiency. It drifted along at a time that most considered it was time to construct an activist nationalist movement.
In September 2007, the genuine leaders re-incorporated the party as ‘Australia First Party (NSW) Incorporated’ and in June 2010, this body was registered as a Federal political party. Many members of the former incorporation joined the party – which considers itself the proper successor of the former.
In May 2009, the legitimate party secured the effective wind-up of the old incorporation (which had purported to, in some manner or other, continue to exist three years after it was deregistered as an incorporation) and its assets were transferred to the Western Australian Department of Commerce for distribution. Our party received the monies and the other equipment of the old incorporation– but not the membership records. We applied under Freedom of Information law for our records.
The Battle For Our Membership
The new party has a valid moral claim upon the membership records. As we submitted to the Information Commission, t was hardly the fault of our leadership that a few persons in the old incorporation acted improperly and had maintained that the incorporation still existed in law. Indeed, had the legitimate leaders known of the situation within the former party, they would have acted at once to secure the members’ rights years before.
Many of our leaders were members of the former association as were many of our members. The constitutional and programmatic documents remain the same. Nonetheless, the Information Commission insists that the two ‘parties’ are different’ entities in law and that it would violate the “privacy” of the persons in the old Australia First to have the new Australia First contact them.
This is humbug, a political decision through and through. We have little doubt that the bulk of these people would welcome contact from the party and the opportunity to affiliate to it.
Rotten Politics
The court system can, as a general rule, be expected to “find” in favour of state-interest. It is not in the interest of the state that Australia First Party possesses these records. In this day and age, “privacy” is often cited by Freedom of Information tribunals etc to deny people information. Yet, the state violates our collective privacy daily and with increasing totalitarian venom.
The national committee of Australia First party will act to secure its records.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
The ‘Anti-Fascists’ Of ‘Antifa Australia’ Fail To Stop The Sydney Forum: It Is A Serious Political Defeat For Those Who Deny Free Speech
The ‘Antifa Australia’ group has failed to stop the Ninth Sydney Forum held on September 18-19. After threatening to demonstrate against the Forum’s Sunday session and to generally expose and oppose ‘fascism’ (sic) – they simply failed to show.
Or rather, three ‘spies’ did. One was arrested by some police for an offence (weapon? drugs?). Another slunk away with a few snapshots of a small group of police detailed to ‘watch’ the event and the last one took a few photos at a safe distance from the Forum across the busy Princes Highway at Tempe. What startling intelligence did he get? Simply a few pikkies of the Australia First building where the Sunday session was held!
For Antifa, it was a bad knock, a serious miscalculation, a political defeat. Not to make good on their promise to demonstrate even when sympathetic journalists at the ABC or SBS could have given them a camera opportunity, has shown even a lack of enterprise.
On Sunday, when they should have been demonstrating against the Forum to prove whatever anti free speech credentials they have, Antifa opted to hold a ‘rally’ at the Hub Theatre in Newtown, with some forty or fifty persons in attendance. They later tried to occupy Newtown Square with banners and bongos and they threw a few insults at duty police.
There was still the opportunity to march from Newtown to Tempe, but there was no attempt to encourage others to join them, nothing at all. After adjourning from their rally, the Antifa wandered off to a few hotels and others perhaps - to some private homes to enjoy their recreational drugs.
Acting as the ‘fascists’ they would proclaim the Forum to be, they still failed to stifle freedom of speech.
In recent months, Australia First has noted increasingly strident rhetoric from Antifa to deny freedom of speech and assembly to those who they deem to be ‘fascists’. In the past they have damaged property and tried to assault people. They did not confront the Forum. Why?
Last year Antifa demonstrated (with property damage) in inner city Chippendale, protesting against a group they called ‘extreme right’ or ‘fascist’. In July, they joined with others to protest a small group of persons in Newtown who objected to Islamic migration. However, Australia First and Sydney Forum have been reserved for special abuse and occasional violent rhetoric.
Antifa is a group fuelled by anarchists and inner city ‘lifestyle’ dregs (same sex marriage couples, perverts of various sorts, drug abusers, refugee ‘advocates’ and what not). They do not represent the Australian people although they might be considered ‘chic’ in parts of inner-suburbs Sydney. They proclaim themselves arbiters of freedom. Yet, this group does not see (if it cares at all) that its slogans (No borders! ; No nations! Refugee rights!) are the very slogans of the corrupt, globalist, Australian political establishment. Australia First has often decried the ‘rabble above and the rabble below’, that funny working coalition of the rich in expensive suits and the greenhairs in dirty drag, who together share a common globalist perspective - and via the media can mobilise against patriotic Australians. At best, this curious Antifa street gang serves in practise those very elites they criticise elsewhere as the uncaring rich. The irony is absolute and the deception complete. Ultimately, it may be that the Antifa have simply recognized the fact that we cannot be deterred and that it is easier to abuse the long suffering average cop.
The Sydney Forum was a success and reports that have reached us say that the 2011 Forum will be the largest. Next year marks the tenth anniversary of the Forum’s foundation and in fact – its tenth presentation. Freedom of speech and genuine democracy is not dead in Australia. Australia First Party will continue to proudly support the Sydney Forum and we look forward to reading its full report for 2010.
Or rather, three ‘spies’ did. One was arrested by some police for an offence (weapon? drugs?). Another slunk away with a few snapshots of a small group of police detailed to ‘watch’ the event and the last one took a few photos at a safe distance from the Forum across the busy Princes Highway at Tempe. What startling intelligence did he get? Simply a few pikkies of the Australia First building where the Sunday session was held!
For Antifa, it was a bad knock, a serious miscalculation, a political defeat. Not to make good on their promise to demonstrate even when sympathetic journalists at the ABC or SBS could have given them a camera opportunity, has shown even a lack of enterprise.
On Sunday, when they should have been demonstrating against the Forum to prove whatever anti free speech credentials they have, Antifa opted to hold a ‘rally’ at the Hub Theatre in Newtown, with some forty or fifty persons in attendance. They later tried to occupy Newtown Square with banners and bongos and they threw a few insults at duty police.
There was still the opportunity to march from Newtown to Tempe, but there was no attempt to encourage others to join them, nothing at all. After adjourning from their rally, the Antifa wandered off to a few hotels and others perhaps - to some private homes to enjoy their recreational drugs.
Acting as the ‘fascists’ they would proclaim the Forum to be, they still failed to stifle freedom of speech.
In recent months, Australia First has noted increasingly strident rhetoric from Antifa to deny freedom of speech and assembly to those who they deem to be ‘fascists’. In the past they have damaged property and tried to assault people. They did not confront the Forum. Why?
Last year Antifa demonstrated (with property damage) in inner city Chippendale, protesting against a group they called ‘extreme right’ or ‘fascist’. In July, they joined with others to protest a small group of persons in Newtown who objected to Islamic migration. However, Australia First and Sydney Forum have been reserved for special abuse and occasional violent rhetoric.
Antifa is a group fuelled by anarchists and inner city ‘lifestyle’ dregs (same sex marriage couples, perverts of various sorts, drug abusers, refugee ‘advocates’ and what not). They do not represent the Australian people although they might be considered ‘chic’ in parts of inner-suburbs Sydney. They proclaim themselves arbiters of freedom. Yet, this group does not see (if it cares at all) that its slogans (No borders! ; No nations! Refugee rights!) are the very slogans of the corrupt, globalist, Australian political establishment. Australia First has often decried the ‘rabble above and the rabble below’, that funny working coalition of the rich in expensive suits and the greenhairs in dirty drag, who together share a common globalist perspective - and via the media can mobilise against patriotic Australians. At best, this curious Antifa street gang serves in practise those very elites they criticise elsewhere as the uncaring rich. The irony is absolute and the deception complete. Ultimately, it may be that the Antifa have simply recognized the fact that we cannot be deterred and that it is easier to abuse the long suffering average cop.
The Sydney Forum was a success and reports that have reached us say that the 2011 Forum will be the largest. Next year marks the tenth anniversary of the Forum’s foundation and in fact – its tenth presentation. Freedom of speech and genuine democracy is not dead in Australia. Australia First Party will continue to proudly support the Sydney Forum and we look forward to reading its full report for 2010.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott ‘Tough’ On Immigration / Refugees?
Bullshit Me Once Shame On You ; Bullshit Me Twice, Shame On Me!
A game is being played. It has been on foot since the emergence of Tony Abbott as ‘Opposition Leader’. The Liberal Party has pretended to be a critic of the “border security” policies of the Labor government and has further argued for a “sustainable immigration program”. Yeah. Yeah. At no point have the Liberals demanded an end with immigration, nor have they said a firm ‘No’ to refugee intakes. And we would have expected nothing less from them. Under John Howard, the Liberals boomed immigration to dizzying numbers. The Liberals know that the ‘end’ of the policy – is to affect a change in Australia’s demographics. The question for the Liberals has been to stymie community fears over such a monstrous thing dispossessing the Australian People in their own country. Will we Australians become a minority in our own country within 50 years? Is the attack upon our national identity (in education, media, politics, cultural institutions) part of this change in our status? When do we become “part of Asia”?
The significant new development is that Labor has joined the Liberals in this game! In words at least, Labor has expressed concerns (sic) at the direction of the immigration program at its size, at the effects on urban infrastructure and so forth.
The Gillard Putsch Signals Fear Of The People.
The new Julia Gillard government has responded to mass voters’ worries stated during a recent State by-election in New South Wales. Liberal and Labor activists reported the mood of the community on immigration and population policy, on border security and refugees - was poisonous to the LABER-AL machine. It could produce maverick behaviour at the polls (not just in outer suburban Sydney either) and in the community – precisely the intention of the Australian people’s party – Australia First!
The Labor government now seeks a “sustainable” population level for Australia and is not necessarily in favour of the “big Australia” that KRudd talked about. Yeah. Yeah.
So now, both sets of liars are immigration critics!
The Sydney Morning Herald editorialised on June 30:
“Julia Gillard’s foray into population policy has a touch of John Howard about it. The former Prime Minister was adept at subtly using the public’s fears of uncontrolled immigration – talking and acting touch about a small number of boat people while simultaneously arranging a large immigration intake. It was an effective tactic to sidestep the xenophobia among sections of his supporters, although many will demur at its cynicism. Gillard, by implying criticism of the Rudd governments supposedly arbitrary population targets of up to 40 million people, and adding the word ‘sustainable’ to the title of Tony Burke’s population portfolio, is playing a similar game? Let us hope a game is all it amounts to.”
Was this a case of honest journalism from an Establishment paper?
We say that it is a ruthless and cynical game. But can LABER-AL pull this off? Gillard gives her new line and Abbott says it’s not hard enough and is just dreamed up policy spin. Why believe Julia? Then vote for Tony – he said it all first. Yeah. Yeah. A double game!
The Sydney Morning Herald does tell us a couple of things. People are worried. People may react. The game is being played. The paper is worried the game might get out of hand. And it can! All the lies in the world do not necessarily mean that the voters, the people, can be absolutely fooled this time. Have people realised: bullshit me once, shame on me; bullshit me twice, shame on me?? It’s a bit late for a John Howard ‘children overboard’ Tampa crisis. So it’s cooked up in a new way, with sober pollies reacting to what voters say about the population crisis.
However, population is only part of the story. It’s not just about people – but what people. Both faces of the LABER-AL machine are dedicated to the Asian Destiny for Australia, the ultimate breaking open of borders for labour and capital to move freely. We are warned. We are in peril. That the liars in Canberra would go down their new population-sceptical road suggests they are concerned the people may not be fooled.
Let’s prove that to them! Build Australia First Party, electorally and in the community as the party of the Australian People! No more bullshit!
A game is being played. It has been on foot since the emergence of Tony Abbott as ‘Opposition Leader’. The Liberal Party has pretended to be a critic of the “border security” policies of the Labor government and has further argued for a “sustainable immigration program”. Yeah. Yeah. At no point have the Liberals demanded an end with immigration, nor have they said a firm ‘No’ to refugee intakes. And we would have expected nothing less from them. Under John Howard, the Liberals boomed immigration to dizzying numbers. The Liberals know that the ‘end’ of the policy – is to affect a change in Australia’s demographics. The question for the Liberals has been to stymie community fears over such a monstrous thing dispossessing the Australian People in their own country. Will we Australians become a minority in our own country within 50 years? Is the attack upon our national identity (in education, media, politics, cultural institutions) part of this change in our status? When do we become “part of Asia”?
The significant new development is that Labor has joined the Liberals in this game! In words at least, Labor has expressed concerns (sic) at the direction of the immigration program at its size, at the effects on urban infrastructure and so forth.
The Gillard Putsch Signals Fear Of The People.
The new Julia Gillard government has responded to mass voters’ worries stated during a recent State by-election in New South Wales. Liberal and Labor activists reported the mood of the community on immigration and population policy, on border security and refugees - was poisonous to the LABER-AL machine. It could produce maverick behaviour at the polls (not just in outer suburban Sydney either) and in the community – precisely the intention of the Australian people’s party – Australia First!
The Labor government now seeks a “sustainable” population level for Australia and is not necessarily in favour of the “big Australia” that KRudd talked about. Yeah. Yeah.
So now, both sets of liars are immigration critics!
The Sydney Morning Herald editorialised on June 30:
“Julia Gillard’s foray into population policy has a touch of John Howard about it. The former Prime Minister was adept at subtly using the public’s fears of uncontrolled immigration – talking and acting touch about a small number of boat people while simultaneously arranging a large immigration intake. It was an effective tactic to sidestep the xenophobia among sections of his supporters, although many will demur at its cynicism. Gillard, by implying criticism of the Rudd governments supposedly arbitrary population targets of up to 40 million people, and adding the word ‘sustainable’ to the title of Tony Burke’s population portfolio, is playing a similar game? Let us hope a game is all it amounts to.”
Was this a case of honest journalism from an Establishment paper?
We say that it is a ruthless and cynical game. But can LABER-AL pull this off? Gillard gives her new line and Abbott says it’s not hard enough and is just dreamed up policy spin. Why believe Julia? Then vote for Tony – he said it all first. Yeah. Yeah. A double game!
The Sydney Morning Herald does tell us a couple of things. People are worried. People may react. The game is being played. The paper is worried the game might get out of hand. And it can! All the lies in the world do not necessarily mean that the voters, the people, can be absolutely fooled this time. Have people realised: bullshit me once, shame on me; bullshit me twice, shame on me?? It’s a bit late for a John Howard ‘children overboard’ Tampa crisis. So it’s cooked up in a new way, with sober pollies reacting to what voters say about the population crisis.
However, population is only part of the story. It’s not just about people – but what people. Both faces of the LABER-AL machine are dedicated to the Asian Destiny for Australia, the ultimate breaking open of borders for labour and capital to move freely. We are warned. We are in peril. That the liars in Canberra would go down their new population-sceptical road suggests they are concerned the people may not be fooled.
Let’s prove that to them! Build Australia First Party, electorally and in the community as the party of the Australian People! No more bullshit!
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Combat 18 Perth Racial Violence Arrests. Or Just More Rubbish From The Stable Of “CC18”?
Dr. Jim Saleam and others.
The recent arrest of three young men in Perth by the West Australian police State Security Investigations Group, for a shooting at the Suleymaniye Turkish mosque last February, raises the matter of whether the event itself was pure provocation. We do not make that statement without evidence; neither do we make it to vex the public and press commentators like Ronan O’Connell of the West Australian newspaper (he has reported on this affair at length).
These young men were supposedly members of Combat 18 (or Combat Adolf Hitler), an international neo-nazi fraternity and they ostensibly engaged in a ‘racist attack’. It is not surprising that. the West Australian State Security Investigatons Group, which is a secret political police, would have prattled on in public about smashing a racist, neo-nazi cell and stomping on race hate crime in general - and crippling the Australian section of an international neo-nazi terror gang.
We say that this is all just pure, unadulterated, crap (!) – political-police-speak.
Let us drop the first bombshell: the original Combat 18, founded in London in 1992, was set up by MI-5 as a specialised dirty tricks operation. The West Australian police know it. Academics know it. Some British journalists have worked on the story. It is an open secret. Yet, it has not come out in the current matter and we say it is a vital fact to consider in view of the Australian events. History repeats.
The original Combat 18 in Britain was given a few tasks by MI-5: it would act to takeover the then-existing Skinhead music scene and control it; it would spy on Loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, because the founders had contacts there which could be developed ; it would harass the then-nationalist British National Party ; it would spy on the British ‘radical Right’ scene generally ; it would act as a honey trap for foolish youth who wanted to engage in racist violence. These were big jobs and the amazing C18 did them all to perfection.
The MI-5 connection was exposed in 1997 when the founder-leader, ‘Charlie’ Sargent murdered a fellow member. He received a lighter sentence for services rendered.
Some former dupes exposed Combat 18 in a major British television documentary. But the organization carried on! There is no reason to conclude that its ‘usage’ in Britain or elsewhere – has ever changed.
C18 Comes To Australia: But Who Launched It?
After some efforts since 2003 to launch C18 in Australia, it made an appearance in November 2008. It appeared from nowhere. A band in Perth, a part of the Blood And Honour music network defected, announced itself to be part of C18 and volunteered to play at a music gig in Sydney. A website went up – and then vanished. The band came to Sydney, played on, went home and laid low. It is not yet known to us who approached the band members with the offer to become C18. That would be a most significant matter.
Then – something! C18 revived slowly again in Perth and new persons were brought into it.
The Revival Of The Australian Section Of C18
To understand the Australian version of Combat 18, there are facts which we shall present for the first time:
1. The band played in Sydney in November 2008 courtesy of a host group. This group contains a notorious ‘former’ New South Wales Special Branch police informant, Peter Coleman, 1980’s deputy of Jack van Tongeren’s ‘Australian Nationalists Movement’. Did he make the invitation?
2. Known persons, who appear very unlikely advocates of any sort of neo-nazism, promoted the November 2008 Sydney music gig and have promoted C18 thereafter. Why?
3. Another person has played with the C18 label ever since November 2008 and sought to integrate it into his group and into another group. He too seems an unlikely ‘neo-nazi’.
4. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) has been very busy in the last several months, interviewing persons who may have known of the C18 activities. This may well predate the attack on the mosque. There is some hint in O’Connell’s reports that it was “six months” ago that C18 came to West Australian police attention.
5. Representatives of C18 appeared in Sydney some months ago and may well have met with Coleman.
It seems to us that all these things integrate together into an intelligence-picture.
The Incredible Facts Regarding Peter Coleman.
The West Australian police, as is a matter of record, arrested Jack van Tongeren in 1989 and prosecuted him for a plethora of offences, some against Perth property owned by Asian persons.
It has been the allegation of nationalists since that time, that it was none other than Coleman who gave him up.
The story behind all that was supplied as a submission to the former West Australian Royal Commission into the State’s police force.
It can be read at:
www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/kangaroo reich/parttwo.html
This is significant, because Coleman informed the New South Wales Special Branch police of van Tongeren’s guilt in an array of crimes allowing them to pass this information to West Australian police – two months before an official reason became known to the West Australian police of van Tongeren’s activities! Rather than stop him, West Australian police allowed him to continue. It was this that produced a so-called ‘racism terror trial’.
This matter has never been investigated and almost certainly never will be. It is just too hot.
We now find Coleman mixed up, albeit seemingly indirectly, with the new C18.
Readers who enjoy irony will note that Coleman was referred to in the New South Wales Police Royal Commission evidence with a Commission code – CC18.
Who Incited The C18 Crime In Perth?
The West Australian secret political police should not crow like cocks at day break that they have busted open anything.
It is really a question of deciding what C18 really is, who may be involved in it – and what the game plan really is.
Even if these three young men have committed a crime, it is necessary to learn who sent them there. Unless these matters are taken up by the relevant standing Commission on police corruption, then really – the truth will never be known.
Why is it that every time neo-nazis do violence in Australia the political police are right on it? Either we have really resourceful and wondrously intelligent folks in these agencies – or there is something just not right in the whole business.
That is our allegation. The political police just know too much.
Like the original C18, this group in Australia seems to have played out a similar role. It may have been a conduit for information collection and disruption of other (sometimes legitimate) groups which are opposed to the direction of Australia’s immigration policy.
The arrested men are very young. Let us see, if they are guilty, whether they will tell the whole story!
Is it the original CC18, or another act-alike, who has sponsored the latest saga in the C18 “terror machine” of faked-up neo-nazism?
The recent arrest of three young men in Perth by the West Australian police State Security Investigations Group, for a shooting at the Suleymaniye Turkish mosque last February, raises the matter of whether the event itself was pure provocation. We do not make that statement without evidence; neither do we make it to vex the public and press commentators like Ronan O’Connell of the West Australian newspaper (he has reported on this affair at length).
These young men were supposedly members of Combat 18 (or Combat Adolf Hitler), an international neo-nazi fraternity and they ostensibly engaged in a ‘racist attack’. It is not surprising that. the West Australian State Security Investigatons Group, which is a secret political police, would have prattled on in public about smashing a racist, neo-nazi cell and stomping on race hate crime in general - and crippling the Australian section of an international neo-nazi terror gang.
We say that this is all just pure, unadulterated, crap (!) – political-police-speak.
Let us drop the first bombshell: the original Combat 18, founded in London in 1992, was set up by MI-5 as a specialised dirty tricks operation. The West Australian police know it. Academics know it. Some British journalists have worked on the story. It is an open secret. Yet, it has not come out in the current matter and we say it is a vital fact to consider in view of the Australian events. History repeats.
The original Combat 18 in Britain was given a few tasks by MI-5: it would act to takeover the then-existing Skinhead music scene and control it; it would spy on Loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland, because the founders had contacts there which could be developed ; it would harass the then-nationalist British National Party ; it would spy on the British ‘radical Right’ scene generally ; it would act as a honey trap for foolish youth who wanted to engage in racist violence. These were big jobs and the amazing C18 did them all to perfection.
The MI-5 connection was exposed in 1997 when the founder-leader, ‘Charlie’ Sargent murdered a fellow member. He received a lighter sentence for services rendered.
Some former dupes exposed Combat 18 in a major British television documentary. But the organization carried on! There is no reason to conclude that its ‘usage’ in Britain or elsewhere – has ever changed.
C18 Comes To Australia: But Who Launched It?
After some efforts since 2003 to launch C18 in Australia, it made an appearance in November 2008. It appeared from nowhere. A band in Perth, a part of the Blood And Honour music network defected, announced itself to be part of C18 and volunteered to play at a music gig in Sydney. A website went up – and then vanished. The band came to Sydney, played on, went home and laid low. It is not yet known to us who approached the band members with the offer to become C18. That would be a most significant matter.
Then – something! C18 revived slowly again in Perth and new persons were brought into it.
The Revival Of The Australian Section Of C18
To understand the Australian version of Combat 18, there are facts which we shall present for the first time:
1. The band played in Sydney in November 2008 courtesy of a host group. This group contains a notorious ‘former’ New South Wales Special Branch police informant, Peter Coleman, 1980’s deputy of Jack van Tongeren’s ‘Australian Nationalists Movement’. Did he make the invitation?
2. Known persons, who appear very unlikely advocates of any sort of neo-nazism, promoted the November 2008 Sydney music gig and have promoted C18 thereafter. Why?
3. Another person has played with the C18 label ever since November 2008 and sought to integrate it into his group and into another group. He too seems an unlikely ‘neo-nazi’.
4. The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) has been very busy in the last several months, interviewing persons who may have known of the C18 activities. This may well predate the attack on the mosque. There is some hint in O’Connell’s reports that it was “six months” ago that C18 came to West Australian police attention.
5. Representatives of C18 appeared in Sydney some months ago and may well have met with Coleman.
It seems to us that all these things integrate together into an intelligence-picture.
The Incredible Facts Regarding Peter Coleman.
The West Australian police, as is a matter of record, arrested Jack van Tongeren in 1989 and prosecuted him for a plethora of offences, some against Perth property owned by Asian persons.
It has been the allegation of nationalists since that time, that it was none other than Coleman who gave him up.
The story behind all that was supplied as a submission to the former West Australian Royal Commission into the State’s police force.
It can be read at:
www.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/kangaroo reich/parttwo.html
This is significant, because Coleman informed the New South Wales Special Branch police of van Tongeren’s guilt in an array of crimes allowing them to pass this information to West Australian police – two months before an official reason became known to the West Australian police of van Tongeren’s activities! Rather than stop him, West Australian police allowed him to continue. It was this that produced a so-called ‘racism terror trial’.
This matter has never been investigated and almost certainly never will be. It is just too hot.
We now find Coleman mixed up, albeit seemingly indirectly, with the new C18.
Readers who enjoy irony will note that Coleman was referred to in the New South Wales Police Royal Commission evidence with a Commission code – CC18.
Who Incited The C18 Crime In Perth?
The West Australian secret political police should not crow like cocks at day break that they have busted open anything.
It is really a question of deciding what C18 really is, who may be involved in it – and what the game plan really is.
Even if these three young men have committed a crime, it is necessary to learn who sent them there. Unless these matters are taken up by the relevant standing Commission on police corruption, then really – the truth will never be known.
Why is it that every time neo-nazis do violence in Australia the political police are right on it? Either we have really resourceful and wondrously intelligent folks in these agencies – or there is something just not right in the whole business.
That is our allegation. The political police just know too much.
Like the original C18, this group in Australia seems to have played out a similar role. It may have been a conduit for information collection and disruption of other (sometimes legitimate) groups which are opposed to the direction of Australia’s immigration policy.
The arrested men are very young. Let us see, if they are guilty, whether they will tell the whole story!
Is it the original CC18, or another act-alike, who has sponsored the latest saga in the C18 “terror machine” of faked-up neo-nazism?
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Liberal Party Seeks Out Its ‘Patriotic’ Three Stooges
Dr. Jim Saleam
The Liberal Party is up to its old tricks again. With public concern heightened by the refugee invasion and with immigration soaring to unheard of levels, the Liberal Party is floating out its rhetoric of “concern”.
The spin doctors have TV ads that feature maps of refugee boat streams heading towards Australia. Abbott talks of “sustainability” being out of whack in KRudd’s immigration plans. Shadow Immigration Minister Morrison has talked tough about “asylum seekers” being “illegal” and that it’s time to be “tough”.
It is all meant to deceive. It is schemed to win the public to believe that the Liberal Party will do something about it all. It won’t and as before (like with the Tampa ‘children overboard’ affair in 2001), the public will be lulled into colluding with one of the parties of the establishment, while it gets on with the job of dispossessing the Australian people in their own land through the continuation of immigration (and economic globalisation).
But the worst aspect of the deception is not that the public is the victim of a con, it is rather that people who should know better - line up to suckle the Liberal pig.
The Delusion
John Pasquarelli has written an important article. We remember him as an advisor to Pauline Hanson in 1997 and – more recently – as an official of the short-lived Pauline’s United Australia Party. His piece appeared on the website ‘The Australian Conservative’, a Liberal-Party-connected forum and news site.
In this piece, Pasquarelli advised all patriotic people not to found other parties that compete with the Liberals – but to rally together with the Libs, even as a faction of opinion within the party such that they may have a “say” in a mainstream party. In particular, he admonished two micro (Federally unregistered) ‘parties’ – the Protectionists and the Conservative United Party – to get with the program. The alternative was the hard yards of amassing funds and resources which he put in the ‘too hard basket’.
Pasquarelli, for all his intelligence, may have missed the point. In fact, the Liberals don’t mind these outside micro groups at all. If he had looked closer, he would have seen a strong current of common opinion (as we shall describe shortly) and most importantly, a fervent desire on their part to enter the mainstream through the Liberal prism, but in posturing competition against Liberal ‘softness’. The Libs hold out the illusion that they are agreeable in fact and that their voting herds and financiers might see the light in the future and come to these new ‘hard’ conservative parties. They hold out that they are soft because they are compelled to be and that the hard men can bring them back to true Liberal principles if they work hard enough. So, the micro parties work hard at a project (mainstreaming via the scheme to recruit the Liberal herds) that will never eventuate. Pasquarelli should have noted that all this chatter was actually taking place on a Liberal forum! And the Libs are happy about that.
Significantly, e did not mention Australia First in all this and for that we are truly grateful; after all, we are not in the program.
Weird Facts
Consider what’s happening. It looks weird at first glance.
Recently, Pauline Hanson, of all people, appeared on national television to tell us that Abbott would make a better PM than KRudd. What? This was the very same Tony Abbott whose ‘Australians For Honest Politics’ put her in gaol! Now she wants Abbott? But, remember what David Oldfield, her adviser, said years ago: “the aim of the One Nation was to make the Liberal Party more right wing.”
Was Pauline just returning to daddy? In other words, was the original One Nation just a reflection of stress in the Liberal Party heartland which was allowed to fester into a group that fundamentally – the Liberals still had a hook into? When the beat had run its course, it could be safely reintegrated back into the fold?
Now Hanson wants the conservatives not to rebel (that is too dangerous now; like the original One Nation did briefly, it could get out of control). Rather, she recommends they line up pure and simple behind the Liberal Party. What happened to her rhetoric about “Australia is being swamped by Asians?” All gone. Now she is more concerned that her house is not sold to a “Moslem”. Peddling a little ‘anti-Islam’ is not really a challenge to the Asianizing establishment.
And Alan Jones. The man who defended Hanson whilst she was a prisoner may now front for the John Howard Institute, a policy making think tank – for guess who? The nominal president of this group has been touted as one fellow who is big in the David Clarke faction of the New South Wales Liberals. This conservative, David Clarke, had his faction resuscitated by Abbott in 1996 as a barrier to too many Liberals sliding over to Hanson and as a fish-hook to reel them all back in when the time was ripe.
With Hanson as the big endorsement to the Liberals overall and Jones in the wings, Abbott has solid foundations to ensure that there is never a real radicalisation of the conservatives. Getting to this point isn’t weird: it’s diabolically clever.
So: the Three Stooges Get A Role
Of course, the conservatives in the Liberal Party, like the unionists in the ALP and certain farmers in the Nats, are all people who can, under particular circumstances, move away from their traditional alignments. Under temporary stress, some slid over to the former One Nation. They could do something similar again. But if the crisis of globalism becomes deeper (there are signs in the European debt crisis), or if domestic pressures against free trade and mass immigration become stronger, some may opt out of establishment politics altogether.
Enter Australia First.
For the Liberals, that must never happen. So they have their three stooges waiting. They have groups on hand that may even in themselves be genuine structures, but which can be conned into singing the Abbott chorus.
I refer unashamedly to the Australian Conservative United Party, to the Australian Protectionist Party and to One Nation (or at least a faction of it seemingly dominant in New South Wales and strong elsewhere).
What’s the con?
Well, there’s always the anti-Islam routine. The establishment doesn’t mind that – at least to a certain extent. As nationalists have said: this blows off steam while the state builds support for the faked up wars on terror (sic). They let people direct their rage at multiculturalism at the Moslems in Australia, careful always that it not spill over into a generalized critique of immigration generally. But these groups can go that extra mile. They can talk up the need to follow the ‘war on terror’, to support Israeli foreign policy, to bloc with the Zionists within the Australian Jewish community against any deals with the Palestinians and for the coming war with Iran – and so on. They can do the Liberal Party’s foreign policy propaganda work for them. When one goes down the militant anti Islam road, it means building alliances with other pro Liberal groups like Australian Christian Nation and the Christian Democratic Party. This is supposedly the mainstream option. It is – on our assessment – the road to nowhere.
The anti Islam routine usually leads to blocs being made with people who have no commitment to any real idea that the Australian People are a nationality. Rather these ‘allies’ bleat that the Moslems should be turned into Australians by Christian conversion and civic training. Their logic as applied to Moslems is held with the same vehemence towards anyone else. As allies for supposed nationalists, they are worse than useless. In this regard, I note that the United Conservatives declaim against any European ethnic basis of Australian nationality in any case; the Protectionists are still coy, if only because they had partial origins inside the womb of nationalist politics, but as time goes on, they will turn to the easy path. One Nation is divided on the matter. But the con stands – that these allies will bring masses and people may kid themselves that they are part of a real mass movement. The civic patriot danger exists for One Nation absolutely and not just for a chunk of it.
It follows too, that by taking this civic patriot road of praising flags and constitutions alone rather than our European blood, one gets close to the conservative faction of the Liberal Party. We note that the Liberals’ conservatism does not extend to defence of Australian Nationality – only to its civic forms.
The old One Nation in some States, but particularly in New South Wales, may find itself enmeshed in the Liberal Right. Some of its factional leaders have built close links with the Christian Nation group and the Christian Democrats, conduits for the Liberal Party. They are continuing to develop these links.
Three Stooges?
Dearly would the liberal Party like to possess these named groups as a three-stooges-act. There are dangers that they may be successful in the plan.
By ensuring groups fly false signals, the Liberal game-players understand that they also demobilise the developing nationalist people’s movement.
They have not reckoned on the resolve of Australia First to do what must be done.
Nationalists will maintain their independence and their initiative at all times. We refuse to be co-opted into the Liberals’ game and we will always be at liberty to act in the interest of all Australians. Against the Liberal ethos of high immigration, globalist economics, free market labour rules, war for the New World Order and so forth, we offer the vision of an Australian Australia, Australian identity, independence and freedom.
The reactionary minded can follow Abbott if they wish, under any self-deception that moves them, but Australia First will reject the Liberal Party’s game today, tomorrow, always.
The Liberal Party is up to its old tricks again. With public concern heightened by the refugee invasion and with immigration soaring to unheard of levels, the Liberal Party is floating out its rhetoric of “concern”.
The spin doctors have TV ads that feature maps of refugee boat streams heading towards Australia. Abbott talks of “sustainability” being out of whack in KRudd’s immigration plans. Shadow Immigration Minister Morrison has talked tough about “asylum seekers” being “illegal” and that it’s time to be “tough”.
It is all meant to deceive. It is schemed to win the public to believe that the Liberal Party will do something about it all. It won’t and as before (like with the Tampa ‘children overboard’ affair in 2001), the public will be lulled into colluding with one of the parties of the establishment, while it gets on with the job of dispossessing the Australian people in their own land through the continuation of immigration (and economic globalisation).
But the worst aspect of the deception is not that the public is the victim of a con, it is rather that people who should know better - line up to suckle the Liberal pig.
The Delusion
John Pasquarelli has written an important article. We remember him as an advisor to Pauline Hanson in 1997 and – more recently – as an official of the short-lived Pauline’s United Australia Party. His piece appeared on the website ‘The Australian Conservative’, a Liberal-Party-connected forum and news site.
In this piece, Pasquarelli advised all patriotic people not to found other parties that compete with the Liberals – but to rally together with the Libs, even as a faction of opinion within the party such that they may have a “say” in a mainstream party. In particular, he admonished two micro (Federally unregistered) ‘parties’ – the Protectionists and the Conservative United Party – to get with the program. The alternative was the hard yards of amassing funds and resources which he put in the ‘too hard basket’.
Pasquarelli, for all his intelligence, may have missed the point. In fact, the Liberals don’t mind these outside micro groups at all. If he had looked closer, he would have seen a strong current of common opinion (as we shall describe shortly) and most importantly, a fervent desire on their part to enter the mainstream through the Liberal prism, but in posturing competition against Liberal ‘softness’. The Libs hold out the illusion that they are agreeable in fact and that their voting herds and financiers might see the light in the future and come to these new ‘hard’ conservative parties. They hold out that they are soft because they are compelled to be and that the hard men can bring them back to true Liberal principles if they work hard enough. So, the micro parties work hard at a project (mainstreaming via the scheme to recruit the Liberal herds) that will never eventuate. Pasquarelli should have noted that all this chatter was actually taking place on a Liberal forum! And the Libs are happy about that.
Significantly, e did not mention Australia First in all this and for that we are truly grateful; after all, we are not in the program.
Weird Facts
Consider what’s happening. It looks weird at first glance.
Recently, Pauline Hanson, of all people, appeared on national television to tell us that Abbott would make a better PM than KRudd. What? This was the very same Tony Abbott whose ‘Australians For Honest Politics’ put her in gaol! Now she wants Abbott? But, remember what David Oldfield, her adviser, said years ago: “the aim of the One Nation was to make the Liberal Party more right wing.”
Was Pauline just returning to daddy? In other words, was the original One Nation just a reflection of stress in the Liberal Party heartland which was allowed to fester into a group that fundamentally – the Liberals still had a hook into? When the beat had run its course, it could be safely reintegrated back into the fold?
Now Hanson wants the conservatives not to rebel (that is too dangerous now; like the original One Nation did briefly, it could get out of control). Rather, she recommends they line up pure and simple behind the Liberal Party. What happened to her rhetoric about “Australia is being swamped by Asians?” All gone. Now she is more concerned that her house is not sold to a “Moslem”. Peddling a little ‘anti-Islam’ is not really a challenge to the Asianizing establishment.
And Alan Jones. The man who defended Hanson whilst she was a prisoner may now front for the John Howard Institute, a policy making think tank – for guess who? The nominal president of this group has been touted as one fellow who is big in the David Clarke faction of the New South Wales Liberals. This conservative, David Clarke, had his faction resuscitated by Abbott in 1996 as a barrier to too many Liberals sliding over to Hanson and as a fish-hook to reel them all back in when the time was ripe.
With Hanson as the big endorsement to the Liberals overall and Jones in the wings, Abbott has solid foundations to ensure that there is never a real radicalisation of the conservatives. Getting to this point isn’t weird: it’s diabolically clever.
So: the Three Stooges Get A Role
Of course, the conservatives in the Liberal Party, like the unionists in the ALP and certain farmers in the Nats, are all people who can, under particular circumstances, move away from their traditional alignments. Under temporary stress, some slid over to the former One Nation. They could do something similar again. But if the crisis of globalism becomes deeper (there are signs in the European debt crisis), or if domestic pressures against free trade and mass immigration become stronger, some may opt out of establishment politics altogether.
Enter Australia First.
For the Liberals, that must never happen. So they have their three stooges waiting. They have groups on hand that may even in themselves be genuine structures, but which can be conned into singing the Abbott chorus.
I refer unashamedly to the Australian Conservative United Party, to the Australian Protectionist Party and to One Nation (or at least a faction of it seemingly dominant in New South Wales and strong elsewhere).
What’s the con?
Well, there’s always the anti-Islam routine. The establishment doesn’t mind that – at least to a certain extent. As nationalists have said: this blows off steam while the state builds support for the faked up wars on terror (sic). They let people direct their rage at multiculturalism at the Moslems in Australia, careful always that it not spill over into a generalized critique of immigration generally. But these groups can go that extra mile. They can talk up the need to follow the ‘war on terror’, to support Israeli foreign policy, to bloc with the Zionists within the Australian Jewish community against any deals with the Palestinians and for the coming war with Iran – and so on. They can do the Liberal Party’s foreign policy propaganda work for them. When one goes down the militant anti Islam road, it means building alliances with other pro Liberal groups like Australian Christian Nation and the Christian Democratic Party. This is supposedly the mainstream option. It is – on our assessment – the road to nowhere.
The anti Islam routine usually leads to blocs being made with people who have no commitment to any real idea that the Australian People are a nationality. Rather these ‘allies’ bleat that the Moslems should be turned into Australians by Christian conversion and civic training. Their logic as applied to Moslems is held with the same vehemence towards anyone else. As allies for supposed nationalists, they are worse than useless. In this regard, I note that the United Conservatives declaim against any European ethnic basis of Australian nationality in any case; the Protectionists are still coy, if only because they had partial origins inside the womb of nationalist politics, but as time goes on, they will turn to the easy path. One Nation is divided on the matter. But the con stands – that these allies will bring masses and people may kid themselves that they are part of a real mass movement. The civic patriot danger exists for One Nation absolutely and not just for a chunk of it.
It follows too, that by taking this civic patriot road of praising flags and constitutions alone rather than our European blood, one gets close to the conservative faction of the Liberal Party. We note that the Liberals’ conservatism does not extend to defence of Australian Nationality – only to its civic forms.
The old One Nation in some States, but particularly in New South Wales, may find itself enmeshed in the Liberal Right. Some of its factional leaders have built close links with the Christian Nation group and the Christian Democrats, conduits for the Liberal Party. They are continuing to develop these links.
Three Stooges?
Dearly would the liberal Party like to possess these named groups as a three-stooges-act. There are dangers that they may be successful in the plan.
By ensuring groups fly false signals, the Liberal game-players understand that they also demobilise the developing nationalist people’s movement.
They have not reckoned on the resolve of Australia First to do what must be done.
Nationalists will maintain their independence and their initiative at all times. We refuse to be co-opted into the Liberals’ game and we will always be at liberty to act in the interest of all Australians. Against the Liberal ethos of high immigration, globalist economics, free market labour rules, war for the New World Order and so forth, we offer the vision of an Australian Australia, Australian identity, independence and freedom.
The reactionary minded can follow Abbott if they wish, under any self-deception that moves them, but Australia First will reject the Liberal Party’s game today, tomorrow, always.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
End Free Trade In Beef! Keep Mad Cow Disease Beef Out Of Australia!
The Australia First Party supports the rally, to be held at Parliament House Canberra on May 11, against: free trade in beef – against the import of Mad Cow Disease infected meat products into Australia!
Many groups and people are building this protest. Supporters include: the Australian Beef Association, the Hunter / New England Abattoir, the ‘Support Aussie Farmers: Say No To Imported Beef’ Facebook site (creator: Donna Morrison), Vida Thomson, a Canberra activist, Gabby Hughes a Wagga Wagga activist, various farmers and graziers from country Victoria, NSW and Queensland, the Australia First Party, the Australian Long Distance Owners’ And Drivers’ Association and many independent people.
Messrs Brad Bellinger and John Carter from the Australian Beef Association, will be speaking at the protest, along with Mr. J R McDonald of the Hunter New England Abattoir. There may be other speakers.
May 11 is Budget Day and a substantial media presence is expected.
This is a rally that will not be hijacked by the usual Liberal / National Party game-players who offer a few platitudes to the crowd. It is an independent demonstration of people concerned at the free trade policies that are supported by the major parties.
Assemble: 11th May at 9am Meet at Magna Carta Place in the Parliamentary Triangle.
Free Trade Can You Kill You! Say No To Imported Beef!
Mad Cow Meat :
Many groups and people are building this protest. Supporters include: the Australian Beef Association, the Hunter / New England Abattoir, the ‘Support Aussie Farmers: Say No To Imported Beef’ Facebook site (creator: Donna Morrison), Vida Thomson, a Canberra activist, Gabby Hughes a Wagga Wagga activist, various farmers and graziers from country Victoria, NSW and Queensland, the Australia First Party, the Australian Long Distance Owners’ And Drivers’ Association and many independent people.
Messrs Brad Bellinger and John Carter from the Australian Beef Association, will be speaking at the protest, along with Mr. J R McDonald of the Hunter New England Abattoir. There may be other speakers.
May 11 is Budget Day and a substantial media presence is expected.
This is a rally that will not be hijacked by the usual Liberal / National Party game-players who offer a few platitudes to the crowd. It is an independent demonstration of people concerned at the free trade policies that are supported by the major parties.
Assemble: 11th May at 9am Meet at Magna Carta Place in the Parliamentary Triangle.
Free Trade Can You Kill You! Say No To Imported Beef!
Mad Cow Meat :
You could be eating it, if you don’t protest!
We refuse to poison ourselves!
Don’t be fooled by a government promise that it will investigate whether BSE affected meat could ever turn up in Australia. BSE is better known as Mad Cow Disease. And it kills people.
It’s probably already here. And it can beat the quarantine tests that are going to be done now - and in the future.
There’s only one way to be sure: don’t allow beef and beef products to come into Australia from any country that has had an outbreak of Mad Cow Disease!
Class War On The Cattle Stations: What They Said A Few Weeks Ago: Free Trade Cuckoo Politics Grips Very Rich Cattlemen!
The biggest producers of beef in Australia want free trade so they can keep their export market. That means they don’t mind if foreign beef enters our market. If foreigners can do that, then they won’t keep our beef out of their countries. Crazy stuff! The Cattle Council, in supporting the government’s line in allowing free trade, said recently:
“The old BSE policy was not consistent with international rules. Under the previous rule banning sale of beef from countries that have had a case of BSE, if Australia were to be affected by an unlikely single case of BSE the results would be devastating for the sector and the economy. All beef could be removed from all domestic shelves at enormous expense, crippling the industry, and foreign markets could reciprocate by locking us out without scientific justification. Cattle Council found this arrangement totally unacceptable. These export markets were at serious risk if we did not change our BSE policy and we ever got a trade disruptive disease. Our markets could have shut us out and we would have no retaliation.”
Why allow imported beef anyway? The amount allowed in will grow over time. These imports will sooner or later destroy smaller Aussie producers. But that won’t worry the biggest cattlemen because they produce for export. Simple! Free trade can kill you and it will destroy thousands of Aussie graziers and farmers on the way. It will undermine regional cities and towns and destroy thousands of jobs.
If your family dies from contaminated beef, if regional Australia falls apart! That’s a high price for free trade!
Monday, March 1, 2010
Japanese Multinationals Threaten Australian Workers: Who Comes First – Australia Or The Foreign Bosses?
JAPANESE business leaders have issued a threat to Australia and Australian workers, stating in their jaundiced language that “a fresh wave of union militancy threatens the supply of crucial resources and billion-dollar investments.”
Australian nationalists know that some unions have raised workplace issues, compelled as they occasionally must be by the rank and file, which put the immediate interests of the worker at loggerheads with the profit-driven Japanese multinationals.
Australian nationalists know that attacks upon the union movement are seldom calculated to curtail a crook union leadership or to overcome some fault of industrial behaviour. Rather, they are usually designed to make ordinary Australian workers subservient to the foreign bosses – particularly right now when the globalised economy totters on a knife edge.
Nippon Steel's Australian boss, Yoshifumi Nakata, said his company wanted assurances Australia would not return to the “industrial days of the 1970s” when Japan was “forced” to look to Brazil for key supplies.
The steel giant was "afraid and very concerned" that an escalation in industrial action would disrupt export markets, Mr Nakata said.
"We are seriously concerned with the stable supply of raw materials, particularly iron ore and coking coal," he added.
This is all rhetorical muck that was used 30 years ago by the Fraser (and then Hawke) governments to attack, not a few corrupt unions and silly work-rules, but the tried and true structures of Australian workplace culture. We now live with the results of that foul attack: work contracts, visa labour, fewer union rights, intrusive courts and commissions and so on.
It can be rightly said that the Japanese multinationals are more concerned about what they can rip out of Australia vast wealth, with lowering the price of Australian labour and weakening proper conditions, than with any issue of industrial lawlessness.
Nippon Steel, one of Japan's largest steel producers, is among several foreign firms to express “concern” over growing industrial militancy in Western Australia. Indeed, some unions have called snap strikes and disrupted production work there in in past months. And why not? At the moment the unions demand fairness. The day will come when the Australian People will demand an end to the fire-sale of our national wealth!
The fear of the foreigner for any form of union activity comes as workplace relations, emerge as an issue in the next election. The two faces of the regime (Liberal and Labor) will vie with each other to promise the Japanese multinationals that they will curtail the unions and they will spin the Australian suburban voter wild tales about trade union thuggery stopping projects that will make us all rich - as their justification for stripping us of the right to freely associate in unions and fight industrial struggles.
Resources giant Woodside Petroleum last month announced it was suing the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) after the union called an eight-day strike. The action halted development of Woodside's $12 billion liquefied natural gas processing plant on the North West Shelf. This project feeds Chinese imperialism and not just the Japanese. The union should be praised, not criticised!
With annual exports of $50 billion, Japan is Australia’s biggest market. Iron ore and coal account for exports worth about $30 billion while LNG exports are valued at $8 billion. There is nothing wrong with trade with Japan, but there is everything wrong when the Japanese multinationals can demand openly that restrictions be placed on Australian workers and their industrial organizations.
The Japanese concerns were raised during all-day Australian-Japanese talks behind closed doors in Canberra last week. Japanese delegates directly raised the matter of Australia's industrial past. In their view, they want subservient unions like in Japan. They wanted assurances government would act against unions and workers.
Western Australia Treasurer Troy Buswell said: "Investors are growing very nervous." And such a worthy group of parasites these investors are! As if,we must run when investors crack the whip.
The answer of our traitor class is always to rule for the foreign master. The idea of establishing an economy for Australians is not on their agenda. Nonetheless, threats to the Australian workers may spread the idea of Australian Independence, the vision splendid where the ordinary people control their own wealth and their own country.
Australian nationalists know that some unions have raised workplace issues, compelled as they occasionally must be by the rank and file, which put the immediate interests of the worker at loggerheads with the profit-driven Japanese multinationals.
Australian nationalists know that attacks upon the union movement are seldom calculated to curtail a crook union leadership or to overcome some fault of industrial behaviour. Rather, they are usually designed to make ordinary Australian workers subservient to the foreign bosses – particularly right now when the globalised economy totters on a knife edge.
Nippon Steel's Australian boss, Yoshifumi Nakata, said his company wanted assurances Australia would not return to the “industrial days of the 1970s” when Japan was “forced” to look to Brazil for key supplies.
The steel giant was "afraid and very concerned" that an escalation in industrial action would disrupt export markets, Mr Nakata said.
"We are seriously concerned with the stable supply of raw materials, particularly iron ore and coking coal," he added.
This is all rhetorical muck that was used 30 years ago by the Fraser (and then Hawke) governments to attack, not a few corrupt unions and silly work-rules, but the tried and true structures of Australian workplace culture. We now live with the results of that foul attack: work contracts, visa labour, fewer union rights, intrusive courts and commissions and so on.
It can be rightly said that the Japanese multinationals are more concerned about what they can rip out of Australia vast wealth, with lowering the price of Australian labour and weakening proper conditions, than with any issue of industrial lawlessness.
Nippon Steel, one of Japan's largest steel producers, is among several foreign firms to express “concern” over growing industrial militancy in Western Australia. Indeed, some unions have called snap strikes and disrupted production work there in in past months. And why not? At the moment the unions demand fairness. The day will come when the Australian People will demand an end to the fire-sale of our national wealth!
The fear of the foreigner for any form of union activity comes as workplace relations, emerge as an issue in the next election. The two faces of the regime (Liberal and Labor) will vie with each other to promise the Japanese multinationals that they will curtail the unions and they will spin the Australian suburban voter wild tales about trade union thuggery stopping projects that will make us all rich - as their justification for stripping us of the right to freely associate in unions and fight industrial struggles.
Resources giant Woodside Petroleum last month announced it was suing the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) after the union called an eight-day strike. The action halted development of Woodside's $12 billion liquefied natural gas processing plant on the North West Shelf. This project feeds Chinese imperialism and not just the Japanese. The union should be praised, not criticised!
With annual exports of $50 billion, Japan is Australia’s biggest market. Iron ore and coal account for exports worth about $30 billion while LNG exports are valued at $8 billion. There is nothing wrong with trade with Japan, but there is everything wrong when the Japanese multinationals can demand openly that restrictions be placed on Australian workers and their industrial organizations.
The Japanese concerns were raised during all-day Australian-Japanese talks behind closed doors in Canberra last week. Japanese delegates directly raised the matter of Australia's industrial past. In their view, they want subservient unions like in Japan. They wanted assurances government would act against unions and workers.
Western Australia Treasurer Troy Buswell said: "Investors are growing very nervous." And such a worthy group of parasites these investors are! As if,we must run when investors crack the whip.
The answer of our traitor class is always to rule for the foreign master. The idea of establishing an economy for Australians is not on their agenda. Nonetheless, threats to the Australian workers may spread the idea of Australian Independence, the vision splendid where the ordinary people control their own wealth and their own country.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Sir Edmund Barton’s ideas on Immigrants and being an Australian in 1907
'In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an Australian and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an Australian, and nothing but an Australian... There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an Australian, but something else also, isn't an Australian at all. We have room for but one flag, the Australian flag.... We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language... and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the Australian people.' - Edmund Barton 1907
Every Australian citizen needs to think about this!
PUT AUSTRALIA AND AUSTRALIANS FIRST! We Pledge To Implement These Policies.
This is draft election policy for Australia First party in the 2010 Federal poll and for subsequent polls. The final version is yet to be approved. Our general programme is set out in the “Eight Core Policies” of the party; these policies are in accordance with these statements of position. What appears below is an electoral and community programme for action. It may be used as local circumstances permit in tandem with any purely local issue of community significance. Such policies may be added to if they are in accordance with the Eight Core Policies that guarantee the unity of the party around the idea of ‘Australia First’.
Eleven Points For Action
Australia First Party stands in this election with a programme for action and change for our country. Any Australia First representative elected is pledged to advocate these policies. The party is pledged to motivate the community generally to support these key demands to secure Australia’s identity, independence and freedom..
1. We demand that YOU the people should be represented in the parliaments and not be the victims of cynical, corrupt, and foreign-loyal party machines.
2. We demand the Implementation of Citizens’ Initiated Referendum and Voters’ Recall of parliamentarians, so that you the people can propose the laws and get rid of unresponsive parliamentarians.
3. We demand accountability for all politicians: for all those who have failed and corrupted Australia, sold the country to foreign states and agencies, or devoted themselves to globalisation; we pledge to nationalize their personal property and deny them parliamentary pensions and benefits.
4. We demand the promotion and rebuilding of Australian manufacturing and other enterprise and thence guarantee - Australian jobs for Australian workers.
5. We demand the re-instatement of the Commonwealth Bank as originally intended to limit interest rates to a minimum charge and to eliminate the private control of the nation’s credit.
6. We demand the control of currency exchange rates to end speculation in the national currency and resources.
7. We demand the reform of taxation, its simplification to end the exemptions for the speculators, the multinationals and the super-rich.
8. We demand an end to foreign ownership and control of Australian real estate and Australian resources.
9. We demand: the end of all immigration for a long period on environmental, cultural, ethnic and security grounds ; the repudiation of all treaties on refugees ; the end of contract labour ; the end of residency for foreign students; the end of multiculturalism.
10. We demand that the Australian transport industry be freed of bureaucratic control with the end of world-parity-pricing for fuel, the creation of an Australian fuel industry with a domestic fuel price and with public ownership of all roads and abolition of tolls.
11. We demand protection for Australian farmers by the provision of a guaranteed national market and pricing system, such that all food necessary to sustain the Australian People may be grown in Australia and regional Australia and its lifestyle be maintained.
Eleven Points For Action
Australia First Party stands in this election with a programme for action and change for our country. Any Australia First representative elected is pledged to advocate these policies. The party is pledged to motivate the community generally to support these key demands to secure Australia’s identity, independence and freedom..
1. We demand that YOU the people should be represented in the parliaments and not be the victims of cynical, corrupt, and foreign-loyal party machines.
2. We demand the Implementation of Citizens’ Initiated Referendum and Voters’ Recall of parliamentarians, so that you the people can propose the laws and get rid of unresponsive parliamentarians.
3. We demand accountability for all politicians: for all those who have failed and corrupted Australia, sold the country to foreign states and agencies, or devoted themselves to globalisation; we pledge to nationalize their personal property and deny them parliamentary pensions and benefits.
4. We demand the promotion and rebuilding of Australian manufacturing and other enterprise and thence guarantee - Australian jobs for Australian workers.
5. We demand the re-instatement of the Commonwealth Bank as originally intended to limit interest rates to a minimum charge and to eliminate the private control of the nation’s credit.
6. We demand the control of currency exchange rates to end speculation in the national currency and resources.
7. We demand the reform of taxation, its simplification to end the exemptions for the speculators, the multinationals and the super-rich.
8. We demand an end to foreign ownership and control of Australian real estate and Australian resources.
9. We demand: the end of all immigration for a long period on environmental, cultural, ethnic and security grounds ; the repudiation of all treaties on refugees ; the end of contract labour ; the end of residency for foreign students; the end of multiculturalism.
10. We demand that the Australian transport industry be freed of bureaucratic control with the end of world-parity-pricing for fuel, the creation of an Australian fuel industry with a domestic fuel price and with public ownership of all roads and abolition of tolls.
11. We demand protection for Australian farmers by the provision of a guaranteed national market and pricing system, such that all food necessary to sustain the Australian People may be grown in Australia and regional Australia and its lifestyle be maintained.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
An idea for Australian business owners
This restaurant owner in North Versailles, Pennsylvania has the right idea. Gives the local community something to think about.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
One Nation Leader Signals Sell-Out To The Liberals On Immigration, Population And National Identity?
A prominent executive member of the One Nation party, Mr. Bob Vinnicombe, has signalled in recent public material, that he would sell-out to the Liberal Party.
If Mr. Vinnicombe is accepting as “spot on” Tony Abbott’s recent deceptive mouthings on Australia’s immigration and population requirements and our national identity, then he is encouraging a blurring of the One Nation’s policy integrity with a pure propaganda line from an establishment party.
What do we mean?
In an Australia Day speech, Tony Abbott said a lot about the failure of infrastructure to accommodate immigration, about the need for a population debate, about community concerns with bad immigrants who criticise our ways - and so on. But he also said that he was in favour of a larger population, high immigration and refugee intakes.
His quibbles seem to be precise numbers overall. Big bloody deal! Where’s the real difference with KRudd?
However, we see from the One Nation representative, an attempt to separate the Abbott commentary into little pieces and ‘unite’ with him on some of it. Once any ‘unity’ is arrived at with an establishment party, the sucker party is turned into a satellite.
Mr. Vinnicombe has said on One Nation’s behalf:
“When he said, ‘the inescapable minimum that we insist upon is obedience to the law’ and ‘It would help to bolster public support for immigration and acceptance of social diversity if more minority leaders were as ready to show to mainstream Australian values the respect they demand for their own’ most Australians, and the party that represents them, One Nation, will say ‘spot on’.“
Really? All this means that we continue to accept those who should not be allowed admission into Australia on the ultimate survivalist ground (they differ from Australia’s European population by ethnic and cultural factors!) and on the other grounds that immigration has had its day on an ecological basis, that “diversity” is something to choke on to the point of cultural and social confusion – but we are supposed to insist the new colonisers “respect” our values? What foolishness is this?
Mr. Vinnicombe has said on One Nation’s behalf:
“When he said ‘existing and planned infrastructure can hardly cope with the present population let alone the additional 14 million (almost entirely due to immigration) that the Prime Minister expects by 2050’ and ‘the rise of ethnic gangs and perceptions of ethnic street crime threaten the community understanding that migration should be overwhelmingly a net benefit’, they'll say ‘spot on’ again.”
But Abbott’s Liberals intend to keep high immigration and refugee intakes. They did not say, they never will say, that they will opt for anything else. They simply want to plan it better and select immigrants more carefully to avoid taking in the gangster elements. Big bloody deal! Abbott is addressing how to hoodwink the community with ‘better’ immigrants. He is not addressing whether the entire psychotic desire to boost Australia’s population – should be abandoned. Why should anyone support him?
Mr. Vinnicombe has said on One Nation’s behalf:
“If this signals a possible about turn on policy by the Liberal Party, following their about turn on the ETS, One Nation welcomes it and hopes it is followed by an about turn on other policies like free trade on which the Liberals are at present equally misguided.”
No, there is no “about turn on policy” by the Liberal Party on anything. There never will be.
The Liberal Party is just one face of a two-party-faced regime. The Liberal Party functions to deceive that it is an “opposition” to the “other” party. But both parties agree on all that matters, because they are created and sustained by the same economic-political class. Yet, both play to their electoral and activist clients to convince them they matter and that they listen. It is part of a game which we call mistake as - democracy. For anyone in One Nation not to know this, would mean that he has abandoned reason.
From his press release published on the One Nation website through to a letter in the Griffith Area News (Griffith: where Australia First has recently been in the news over the contract labour scandal now engulfing that city), Mr. Vinnicombe is clearly trying to impose a ‘me too’ style on One Nation, which would make it a cheerleader to Abbott’s deceitful policy (it is a policy that tells the people what they might like to hear in loud tones, while it pushes the establishment agenda). Playing ‘me too’ or ‘we said it first’, seldom gets anyone anywhere. It is desperate politics which leads to being used by someone else.
One Nation exists as a federally registered party, but is it now divided internally, between those who wish to follow in the Liberals’ wake and those who would pursue an independent policy?
It is a cold fact that a faction directed by Mr. Vinnicombe has operated for a long time with very particular politics on things Islamic (ie. to the point of a very narrow focus). It has overstated the Islamic problem in Australia as the main immigration problem. This has led to building alliances with Fred Nile’s Christian Democratic Party, the Australian Christian Nation Association and the actual ‘conservative wing’ of the Liberal Party itself in New South Wales. The focus on Islam by these groups hides their passion for increasing ‘Christian’ immigration from anywhere (particularly Middle Eastern countries). Indeed, Fred Nile supports high immigration drawn from everywhere. These straight-jacket alliances centre on criticising Islam generally, whilst being truly ‘colour-blind’ on immigration overall. They also involve themselves in a lot of false religion about Israel being an ally in a world struggle against Islam (Israel is as much a problem as it seems to incite Moslem discord), which supposedly obligates Christians to support it, even saying that is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
It is easy to go down that road. Meetings. Friends. Good press. Talk to others about a great future. This is fantasy politics.
Many people in One Nation reject this. A larger amorphous group inside the party has struggled towards nationalist politics. Many One Nation members have pondered all this Islam / Israel stuff and observe that it’s hatched by people who tie back to the Liberal Party.
So, are the latest comments on Abbott part of a process by which a faction ties One Nation to the Liberal Party?
What is the future? It is not for Australia First Party to lecture One Nation. But we ask: what if Abbott continues with his rhetoric? Just as Howard did at the time of the ‘Tampa Affair’ in 2001 – and even much earlier in 1988 when he invented the ‘One Australia’ idea to run counter to multiculturalism? Remember: Howard flew in the Tampa ‘refugees’ after the tough talk of the 2001 election and his criticism of multiculturalism never, ever, involved a critique of developing Australia as a multi-ethnic society. Will there be those who urge an alliance with the Liberal Party, an entirely delusional thing in fact, but who merge together with the Liberal Party on the ground?
Australia First Party says openly that if these alien elements seize control of One Nation, or acquire a debilitating influence, the nationalist minded within its ranks are always welcome to join us. Our party rejects compromise. The Australia First Party will fight unreservedly for the Australian people in the struggle for possession of its own state!
If Mr. Vinnicombe is accepting as “spot on” Tony Abbott’s recent deceptive mouthings on Australia’s immigration and population requirements and our national identity, then he is encouraging a blurring of the One Nation’s policy integrity with a pure propaganda line from an establishment party.
What do we mean?
In an Australia Day speech, Tony Abbott said a lot about the failure of infrastructure to accommodate immigration, about the need for a population debate, about community concerns with bad immigrants who criticise our ways - and so on. But he also said that he was in favour of a larger population, high immigration and refugee intakes.
His quibbles seem to be precise numbers overall. Big bloody deal! Where’s the real difference with KRudd?
However, we see from the One Nation representative, an attempt to separate the Abbott commentary into little pieces and ‘unite’ with him on some of it. Once any ‘unity’ is arrived at with an establishment party, the sucker party is turned into a satellite.
Mr. Vinnicombe has said on One Nation’s behalf:
“When he said, ‘the inescapable minimum that we insist upon is obedience to the law’ and ‘It would help to bolster public support for immigration and acceptance of social diversity if more minority leaders were as ready to show to mainstream Australian values the respect they demand for their own’ most Australians, and the party that represents them, One Nation, will say ‘spot on’.“
Really? All this means that we continue to accept those who should not be allowed admission into Australia on the ultimate survivalist ground (they differ from Australia’s European population by ethnic and cultural factors!) and on the other grounds that immigration has had its day on an ecological basis, that “diversity” is something to choke on to the point of cultural and social confusion – but we are supposed to insist the new colonisers “respect” our values? What foolishness is this?
Mr. Vinnicombe has said on One Nation’s behalf:
“When he said ‘existing and planned infrastructure can hardly cope with the present population let alone the additional 14 million (almost entirely due to immigration) that the Prime Minister expects by 2050’ and ‘the rise of ethnic gangs and perceptions of ethnic street crime threaten the community understanding that migration should be overwhelmingly a net benefit’, they'll say ‘spot on’ again.”
But Abbott’s Liberals intend to keep high immigration and refugee intakes. They did not say, they never will say, that they will opt for anything else. They simply want to plan it better and select immigrants more carefully to avoid taking in the gangster elements. Big bloody deal! Abbott is addressing how to hoodwink the community with ‘better’ immigrants. He is not addressing whether the entire psychotic desire to boost Australia’s population – should be abandoned. Why should anyone support him?
Mr. Vinnicombe has said on One Nation’s behalf:
“If this signals a possible about turn on policy by the Liberal Party, following their about turn on the ETS, One Nation welcomes it and hopes it is followed by an about turn on other policies like free trade on which the Liberals are at present equally misguided.”
No, there is no “about turn on policy” by the Liberal Party on anything. There never will be.
The Liberal Party is just one face of a two-party-faced regime. The Liberal Party functions to deceive that it is an “opposition” to the “other” party. But both parties agree on all that matters, because they are created and sustained by the same economic-political class. Yet, both play to their electoral and activist clients to convince them they matter and that they listen. It is part of a game which we call mistake as - democracy. For anyone in One Nation not to know this, would mean that he has abandoned reason.
From his press release published on the One Nation website through to a letter in the Griffith Area News (Griffith: where Australia First has recently been in the news over the contract labour scandal now engulfing that city), Mr. Vinnicombe is clearly trying to impose a ‘me too’ style on One Nation, which would make it a cheerleader to Abbott’s deceitful policy (it is a policy that tells the people what they might like to hear in loud tones, while it pushes the establishment agenda). Playing ‘me too’ or ‘we said it first’, seldom gets anyone anywhere. It is desperate politics which leads to being used by someone else.
One Nation exists as a federally registered party, but is it now divided internally, between those who wish to follow in the Liberals’ wake and those who would pursue an independent policy?
It is a cold fact that a faction directed by Mr. Vinnicombe has operated for a long time with very particular politics on things Islamic (ie. to the point of a very narrow focus). It has overstated the Islamic problem in Australia as the main immigration problem. This has led to building alliances with Fred Nile’s Christian Democratic Party, the Australian Christian Nation Association and the actual ‘conservative wing’ of the Liberal Party itself in New South Wales. The focus on Islam by these groups hides their passion for increasing ‘Christian’ immigration from anywhere (particularly Middle Eastern countries). Indeed, Fred Nile supports high immigration drawn from everywhere. These straight-jacket alliances centre on criticising Islam generally, whilst being truly ‘colour-blind’ on immigration overall. They also involve themselves in a lot of false religion about Israel being an ally in a world struggle against Islam (Israel is as much a problem as it seems to incite Moslem discord), which supposedly obligates Christians to support it, even saying that is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy.
It is easy to go down that road. Meetings. Friends. Good press. Talk to others about a great future. This is fantasy politics.
Many people in One Nation reject this. A larger amorphous group inside the party has struggled towards nationalist politics. Many One Nation members have pondered all this Islam / Israel stuff and observe that it’s hatched by people who tie back to the Liberal Party.
So, are the latest comments on Abbott part of a process by which a faction ties One Nation to the Liberal Party?
What is the future? It is not for Australia First Party to lecture One Nation. But we ask: what if Abbott continues with his rhetoric? Just as Howard did at the time of the ‘Tampa Affair’ in 2001 – and even much earlier in 1988 when he invented the ‘One Australia’ idea to run counter to multiculturalism? Remember: Howard flew in the Tampa ‘refugees’ after the tough talk of the 2001 election and his criticism of multiculturalism never, ever, involved a critique of developing Australia as a multi-ethnic society. Will there be those who urge an alliance with the Liberal Party, an entirely delusional thing in fact, but who merge together with the Liberal Party on the ground?
Australia First Party says openly that if these alien elements seize control of One Nation, or acquire a debilitating influence, the nationalist minded within its ranks are always welcome to join us. Our party rejects compromise. The Australia First Party will fight unreservedly for the Australian people in the struggle for possession of its own state!
Sunday, January 24, 2010
General Cosgrove Levels Verbal Guns At Patriotic Australians
General Peter Cosgrove used his Australia Day address (January 19), to make various criticisms of patriotic Australians.
General Cosgrove supported the maintenance of high immigration and said Australia should not be tempted to cut it.
General Cosgrove condemned the nationalist Civil Uprising at Cronulla in 2005 as a matter of “criminality” and equated this event to recent physical attacks upon Indian students (which incidentally are generally carried out by non-European persons).
General Cosgrove criticised “racist elements” (patriotic people angered by immigration and its results) in our society as illegitimate in their views and appeared to equate a category of Australian to an exercise in social “criminality”.
The entire speech seemed dedicated to buttressing the traitor class line on Australia’s demographic future. It was a slippery product, complete with a definition of patriotism as something related to helping neighbour countries and integrating migrants.
General Cosgrove’s speech was sad in that the ordinary Australian might expect either neutrality of opinion, or a patriotic stance from a former soldier. Unfortunately, such an expectation would be naïve.
It is necessary to understand that the hierarchy of Australia’s military has no real allegiance to Australia. It is committed to its foreign policy “alliances” and its military “allies”. It has spent so long sending young Australian men (and more recently, women) into harm’s way at the behest of foreign powers, that it has no model of patriotism left. If an Australian movement arose which questioned the virtue of maintaining our alliances and dying for our allies, it is not too hard to figure where the loyalty of the Cosgrove-type would lie.
In attacking the Australian patriotic perspective and Australian youth, General Cosgrove forgot his own morality. This man commanded the Australian army during the criminal invasion of Iraq. He has never forsworn this enterprise carried out to serve Israel and the American and other multinational corporations and oil companies. He has never asked too serious a question about the war crimes of his allies, crimes that went back to the use of nuclear weapons (depleted uranium ammunition). We cannot expect that he would.
The Australian people observe that important figures like General Cosgrove are put up in public by the traitor class to lend endorsement to their treason against the Australian People. Rather than win points for that class, the sad intervention of General Cosgrove in the national population / immigration debate only serves to demonstrate to Australians the venal nature of the class and its policies.
General Cosgrove supported the maintenance of high immigration and said Australia should not be tempted to cut it.
General Cosgrove condemned the nationalist Civil Uprising at Cronulla in 2005 as a matter of “criminality” and equated this event to recent physical attacks upon Indian students (which incidentally are generally carried out by non-European persons).
General Cosgrove criticised “racist elements” (patriotic people angered by immigration and its results) in our society as illegitimate in their views and appeared to equate a category of Australian to an exercise in social “criminality”.
The entire speech seemed dedicated to buttressing the traitor class line on Australia’s demographic future. It was a slippery product, complete with a definition of patriotism as something related to helping neighbour countries and integrating migrants.
General Cosgrove’s speech was sad in that the ordinary Australian might expect either neutrality of opinion, or a patriotic stance from a former soldier. Unfortunately, such an expectation would be naïve.
It is necessary to understand that the hierarchy of Australia’s military has no real allegiance to Australia. It is committed to its foreign policy “alliances” and its military “allies”. It has spent so long sending young Australian men (and more recently, women) into harm’s way at the behest of foreign powers, that it has no model of patriotism left. If an Australian movement arose which questioned the virtue of maintaining our alliances and dying for our allies, it is not too hard to figure where the loyalty of the Cosgrove-type would lie.
In attacking the Australian patriotic perspective and Australian youth, General Cosgrove forgot his own morality. This man commanded the Australian army during the criminal invasion of Iraq. He has never forsworn this enterprise carried out to serve Israel and the American and other multinational corporations and oil companies. He has never asked too serious a question about the war crimes of his allies, crimes that went back to the use of nuclear weapons (depleted uranium ammunition). We cannot expect that he would.
The Australian people observe that important figures like General Cosgrove are put up in public by the traitor class to lend endorsement to their treason against the Australian People. Rather than win points for that class, the sad intervention of General Cosgrove in the national population / immigration debate only serves to demonstrate to Australians the venal nature of the class and its policies.
Long Live The Southern Cross! Australia First Replies To Culture-Buster Warwick Thornton
Warwick Thornton, a filmmaker, who has been chosen as the Northern Territory's nomination for Australian of the Year, has launched a vicious attack upon the emblem of the Southern Cross.
He said: “I'm starting to see that star system symbol being used as a very racist nationalistic emblem - and that is seriously worrying me”. “We don’t want to turn the Southern Cross into a swastika – that’s bloody important.”
It is a fact that young Australians carry the National Flag and the Eureka Flag at parties, sports’ events and public occasions; many have tattooed themselves with the star-constellation, or the cross design. The symbol has truly become a tribal expression of Australian identity. No wonder it has been assailed by this traitor class representative – just as Australia Day approaches.
What the globalising, cultureless, masters of the geographic space they call Australia, fear above all else, is the emergence of a movement that openly proclaims a native identity for the European population here. This population has that identity, which stretches back to the first articulation of ‘Australianness’ at the Eureka Stockade and then through to the radical nationalist upsurges at Lambing Flat (1861), the Barcaldine Revolt (1891) and further on into the great achievements of ANZAC and Kokoda. In the lost deserts of multiculturalism, the Australian People are re-finding themselves. Against those trying to bust our culture in the suburbs, all social institutions and in rural Australia, a spirit of resistance is building. The Southern Cross is the symbol of that resistance.
A political movement must be built. No wonder Warwick Thornton prattles on about the swastika. He is trying to build a Great Wall between the mass of awakening ‘tribal’ Australian people (especially the youth) and any movement which builds the nationalist resistance. Smearing the Southern Cross is an act of desecration.
On Australia Day, the Australia First Party will be active. Other patriotic groups will also come out publicly to proclaim their Australianity.
The National Flag and the Eureka Flag will be held high.
He said: “I'm starting to see that star system symbol being used as a very racist nationalistic emblem - and that is seriously worrying me”. “We don’t want to turn the Southern Cross into a swastika – that’s bloody important.”
It is a fact that young Australians carry the National Flag and the Eureka Flag at parties, sports’ events and public occasions; many have tattooed themselves with the star-constellation, or the cross design. The symbol has truly become a tribal expression of Australian identity. No wonder it has been assailed by this traitor class representative – just as Australia Day approaches.
What the globalising, cultureless, masters of the geographic space they call Australia, fear above all else, is the emergence of a movement that openly proclaims a native identity for the European population here. This population has that identity, which stretches back to the first articulation of ‘Australianness’ at the Eureka Stockade and then through to the radical nationalist upsurges at Lambing Flat (1861), the Barcaldine Revolt (1891) and further on into the great achievements of ANZAC and Kokoda. In the lost deserts of multiculturalism, the Australian People are re-finding themselves. Against those trying to bust our culture in the suburbs, all social institutions and in rural Australia, a spirit of resistance is building. The Southern Cross is the symbol of that resistance.
A political movement must be built. No wonder Warwick Thornton prattles on about the swastika. He is trying to build a Great Wall between the mass of awakening ‘tribal’ Australian people (especially the youth) and any movement which builds the nationalist resistance. Smearing the Southern Cross is an act of desecration.
On Australia Day, the Australia First Party will be active. Other patriotic groups will also come out publicly to proclaim their Australianity.
The National Flag and the Eureka Flag will be held high.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)